she_who_is_not Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1343077310' post='2458222'] The Supreme Court also returned a man to the bonds of slavery. [/quote] Well, yes, they did. However, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is." See Marbury v. Madison. When you are discussing whether something is Constitutional, it is relevant to reflect on Constitutional jurisprudence, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='she_who_is_not' timestamp='1343077535' post='2458227'] Well, yes, they did. However, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is." See Marbury v. Madison. When you are discussing whether something is Constitutional, it is relevant to reflect on Constitutional jurisprudence, no? [/quote] The state courts had freed him. The Supremes had no right to rule, in the case. It's more relevant to read the Constitution and then beesh slap the guys trying to expand Federal power. The Marshall court sucked. Edited July 23, 2012 by Winchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
she_who_is_not Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1343077888' post='2458232'] The state courts had freed him. The Supremes had no right to rule, in the case. It's more relevant to read the Constitution and then beesh slap the guys trying to expand Federal power. The Marshall court sucked. [/quote] OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='she_who_is_not' timestamp='1343078268' post='2458240'] OK [/quote] I'm one of those people convinced that the Constitution is not some enigmatic document that requires magic people in robes to interpret. Crazy, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePenciledOne Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1343078432' post='2458245'] I'm one of those people convinced that the Constitution is not some enigmatic document that requires magic people in robes to interpret. Crazy, right? [/quote] Whoa, so you aren't mainstream American? How progressive of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1343080720' post='2458256'] Whoa, so you aren't mainstream American? How [s]progressive[/s] of you. [/quote] Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343073584' post='2458180'] I would expect that a well trained, experienced police officer would not fire their gun in a crowded room, problem with civilians with guns is that they are not well trained, nor experienced in combat. They have a gun, this makes them dangerous to bystanders. [/quote] A generalization which is not necessarily accurate. There are plenty of ways for a person to gain expertise with a a firearm besides the police academy, and this can include prior military experience. People, should learn how to effectively use their weapon before taking it out in public, but that's hardly an impossible task. Of course, someone can easily botch an attempt to stop an armed killer, but that does not mean such attempts cannot be effective. If nobody is armed but the killer, the chances of success are reduced to 0%. Of course, the higher the number of bystanders are armed, the greater the chance the killer will be stopped. The hard truth remains that in fact plenty of violent crimes [i]have[/i] been stopped or deterred by law-abiding citizens with guns. Outlawing guns isn't the magic solution to violence that "liberal" statists think it is. If you want to argue hard facts and statistics on this matter, as opposed to just empty emoting and opinionizing, I'd suggest reading [url="http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343087644&sr=1-1&keywords=More+Guns%2C+Less+Crime"][i]More Guns, Less Crime[/i][/url] by John Lott, Jr. Edited July 24, 2012 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 [quote name='she_who_is_not' timestamp='1343077007' post='2458218'] Here is where I think your comparison is flawed. Voting is an essential feature of our republican democracy. Poll taxes were levied to prevent certain groups from exercising a right that does not bear any inherent costs beyond taxpayer dollars to run polling facilities, tally votes, etc. Gun ownership is an extraneous right. There is an inherent cost associated with gun ownership: the cost of purchasing and maintaining the gun. Gun registration fees are just another cost of gun ownership. Alone, they will not prevent anyone from exercising their right to bear arms. Unless, that person has forfeited certain civil rights through felonious behavior. [/quote] I don't think you can really make any meaningful distinction between an "essential" and an "extraneous" right. The founding fathers would have disagreed with you that the right to keep and bear arms is less essential to liberty than the right to vote. The fact that persons may have to spend money to buy a gun in the market does not mean the government has any more right to impose additional financial fees on obtaining a weapon, any more than it has a right to impose additional fees on the right of citizens to vote. There may be costs involved with voting too, such as the price of gas or transportation fees to get to the voting booth, as well as the time costs involved with getting there and voting. The fact that something is a right does not mean anyone is entitled to it free of any cost on their part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 [quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1343080720' post='2458256'] Whoa, so you aren't mainstream American? How progressive of you. [/quote] I share Winnie's (and Thomas Jefferson's) view on this matter, yet "progressive" is about the last word most people would use to describe me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1343092805' post='2458296'] I share Winnie's (and Thomas Jefferson's) view on this matter, yet "progressive" is about the last word most people would use to describe me. [/quote] He's needling me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Some good articles: "[url="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/310138/colorado-our-odd-focus-charles-c-w-cooke"][i]Colorado: Our Odd Focus[/i][/url]," by Charles C. W. Cooke [url="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/310340/media-botches-aurora-robert-verbruggen"]"The Media Botches Aurora: Some more advice for gun-ignorant journalists,"[/url] by Robert VerBruggen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I cant believe i am agreeing with just about everything Socrates is saying here. A note about civilian vs police shooters. Typically police are not actually very good shots, most departments only require they shoot once or twice a year, only give them 50-100 rounds a year to do so, and many cops only train this bare minimum. I shoot more than that in 10 minutes in my backyard. Anyone into guns can easily shoot over 500 rounds in a visit to a range, and do that a few times a week(20 bucks for 500 rounds of 22 makes that very easy), and you will find most people who concealed carry are somewhat obsessive about training, and proper equipment handling/efficient methods and all that. In terms of hitting innocent people, a study i saw recently had police shooting innocent bystanders by accident at a rate of 11% , compared to 2% for civilians. If you ever show up to a range or a competition, you will often find that even the really good police competitors do not place in the finals, and many horror stories from the range(of misconduct, safety infractions, etc) from friends of mine come from when the police show up at the range. There is nothing about a badge that ensures competency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePenciledOne Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1343093952' post='2458300'] He's needling me. [/quote] *nod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 [quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1343094176' post='2458305'] I cant believe i am agreeing with just about everything Socrates is saying here. A note about civilian vs police shooters. Typically police are not actually very good shots, most departments only require they shoot once or twice a year, only give them 50-100 rounds a year to do so, and many cops only train this bare minimum. I shoot more than that in 10 minutes in my backyard. Anyone into guns can easily shoot over 500 rounds in a visit to a range, and do that a few times a week(20 bucks for 500 rounds of 22 makes that very easy), and you will find most people who concealed carry are somewhat obsessive about training, and proper equipment handling/efficient methods and all that. In terms of hitting innocent people, a study i saw recently had police shooting innocent bystanders by accident at a rate of 11% , compared to 2% for civilians. If you ever show up to a range or a competition, you will often find that even the really good police competitors do not place in the finals, and many horror stories from the range(of misconduct, safety infractions, etc) from friends of mine come from when the police show up at the range. There is nothing about a badge that ensures competency. [/quote] Guess what other public servant ain't worth poo unless he's self-motivated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1343098094' post='2458321'] Guess what other public servant ain't worth poo unless he's self-motivated? [/quote] Superman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts