Re: What the heck did the Supreme Court do???

On Jul 20, 11:27=A0pm, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Geo wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 12:37 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > Geo wrote:
> > > > On Jul 14, 12:33 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote=
:
> > > > > Geo wrote:
> > > > > > On Jul 10, 12:35 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
w=
rote:
> > > > > > > Geo wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 1:57 am, Rich Travsky
<traRvE...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>=
 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Geo wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 4, 1:05 am, Rich Travsky
<traRvE...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Geo wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 1:14 am, Rich Travsky
<traRvE...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Geo wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 1:13 am, Rich Travsky
<traRvE...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Geo wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 3:46 pm, Sarah Houston
<SHo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm really puzzled by this Supreme Court
=
ruling.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A well regulated Militia, being
necessary=
 to the security of a free State,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR
=
ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They seem to have truncated the 2nd
Amend=
ment with the ruling, so it now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A well regulated Militia, being
necessary=
 to the security of a free State,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR
=
ARMS. ( with "reasonable"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regulations )
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or the equivalent of the useless:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "the subjects which are Protestants may
h=
ave arms for their defence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suitable to their conditions and as
allow=
ed by law" - the English Bill of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rights of 1689
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact the liberal Democrat socialists
a=
re now going right to work on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ways to regulate it to the max.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, they will try to continue
regulation,=
 but their job got a lot
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not really.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harder. =A0Any law they devise must be
narr=
owly tailored to withstand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this decision. =A0As it stood states and
lo=
calities were able to issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly broad legislation on guns. =A0Not
an=
ymore.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure about that?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Prove it. Even the Heller decision said DC could
=
still regulate handguns!!!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Prove it? =A0OK, the Heller decision itself. =A0DC
=
can regulate guns, but
> > > > > > > > > > > > they can't ban them. =A0To do so would run counter
=
to the Heller
> > > > > > > > > > > > decision. =A0Look Rich, the gun grabbers lost.
=A0C=
ommon sense won. =A0Deal
> > > > > > > > > > > > with it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Geo, since they can still be regulate, you won
nothin=
g. Deal with it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Nothing except the fact that the 2nd confers an
individ=
ual right.
> > > > > > > > > > Chew on that one. =A0I can't wait to see how DC, and
ot=
her states and
>
> > > > > > > > > Be sure and tell them when you register your bang bang.
>
> > > > > > > > > > localities, try to regulate guns in the home.
=A0Anythi=
ng that
>
> > > > > > > > > Not a problem.
>
> > > > > > > > > =A0... the right secured by the Second
> > > > > > > > > =A0Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
> > > > > > > > > =A0the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts
routin=
ely
> > > > > > > > > =A0explained that the right was not a right to keep and
> > > > > > > > > =A0carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
> > > > > > > > > =A0and for whatever purpose.
>
> > > > > > > > > > effectively takes the power of one away to defend
thems=
elves in the
> > > > > > > > > > home with a gun will be thrown out in record time.
=A0A=
ny laws need to
> > > > > > > > > > be narrowly tailored to this decision. =A0Otherwise,
ka=
put!
>
> > > > > > > > > Nope.
>
> > > > > > > > > =A0Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected
ar=
e those
> > > > > > > > > =A0"in common use at the time" finds sup****t in the
histo=
rical tradition
> > > > > > > > > =A0of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual
w=
eapons.
>
> > > > > > > > In other words, DC must allow people to own guns in their
o=
wn homes,
> > > > > > > > something they couldn't do before this decision. =A0Keep
go=
ing Rich,
> > > > > > > > you're really giving us a lesson in con law here.
=A0Bwahah=
ahahah!!!
>
> > > > > > > =A0The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a
variety=
 of tools
> > > > > > > =A0for combating that problem, including some measures
regula=
ting
> > > > > > > =A0handguns ...
>
> > > > > > Such as????
>
> > > > > Ask the SC - DUH - they're the ones who said it!
>
> > > > So, you can't back it up. =A0No surprise there.
>
> > > WHat part of
>
> > > =A0The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of
tool=
s
> > > =A0for combating that problem, including some measures regulating
> > > =A0handguns
>
> > > did you not understand? Perhaps you should read the following
>
> > > =A0http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/705132.html
>
> > Finally, you answered the question!!! =A0Now, this is precisely the
kin=
d
>
> No, I didn't. The SC said it was doable. I posted the excerpt more than
o=
nce
> or your benefit but you were apparently too dense to follow along.
>

And I keep asking you "what tools" and you keep avoiding the
question.  No surprise.  You run and run and run.

>
>
> > of law that I was talking about that will be challenged. =A0Now, we
> > wait.
>
> > > > > > > > > You're doing as well here as you are trying to justify
th=
e EC.
>
> > > > > > > > Yes, I am doing well. =A0My side won. =A0Yours lost.
=A0You=
're not dealing
> > > > > > > > with it very well. =A0Only you could conclude that the
SCOT=
US having
> > > > > > > > clearly conferred an individual right via the second
change=
s nothing.
> > > > > > > > LOL!!!!
>
> > > > > > > Like I said - as well you tried to justify the electoral
coll=
ege ;)
>
> > > > > > And my side is the winner there too.
>
> > > > > HAHAHHAAHAHAH - you've yet to show it. You ran each time and
coul=
dn't address
> > > > > a SINGLE point.
>
> > > > Seeing as how the electoral college is currently in place I'd say
I=
 am
> > > > on just a bit better footing than you are concerning this. =A0Your
=
spin
> > > > job is amusing as hell.
>
> > > More hand waving from you. As expected. Claiming something is "in
pla=
ce" is
> > > not an argument - it's a dodge. As expected, from you.
>
> > It's not a dodge. =A0It's the law. =A0Which is a hell of a lot more
tha=
n
> > you have.
>
> Dodge, not an argument - like babbling out "it's god's will". No
explanat=
ory power
> at all. You ran each and every time.
>
> > > > > > Don't you get just a little tired of getting the snot beat out
=
of you
> > > > > > all the time?
>
> > > > > GO back to the electoral college - er in your case, electoral
kin=
dergarten.
>
> > > > Go back to basic con law for dummies and learn what process is in
> > > > place now, not the one you want to be.
>
> > > More running from poor Geo. Here, I'll give you an EASY one:
>
> > > =A0Did they forsee that electors are not bound in many states to
vote=
 for the
> > > =A0candidate they're supposed to?
>
> > I don't know, did they?
>
> Don't play stupid. At least, one hopes it's not real.
>
> I posted a link showing that electors have indeed voted for someone
other=
 than
> whom they were supposed to. I can post it again if you ant the further
> embarassment.
>
> Oh what the heck:
>
> =A0http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm
>
> =A0Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 156
faith=
less
> =A0Electors. =A071 of these votes were changed because the original
candi=
date died
> =A0before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes.
=A0Thr=
ee of the
> =A0votes were not cast at all as three Electors chose to abstain from
cas=
ting their
> =A0Electoral vote for any candidate. =A0The other 82 Electoral votes
were=
 changed on
> =A0the personal initiative of the Elector.
>
> Now, you gonna run again? Did the founding fathers foresee this?????
>

I don't know, did they?  Change the system if you don't like it.  You
are allowed to do that you know.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0"Like most rights, the right secured by
th=
e Second
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0Amendment is not unlimited. From
Blackston=
e through
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0the 19th-century cases, commentators and
c=
ourts routinely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0explained that the right was not a right
t=
o keep and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
=
whatsoever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0and for whatever purpose."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0"The Constitution leaves the District of
C=
olumbia a variety of tools
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0for combating that problem, including
some=
 measures regulating handguns ..."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This can all be compared to the right to free
s=
peech. =A0That too isn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a universal right. =A0There are time, place
and=
 manner restrictions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, those restrictions must be narrowly
ta=
ilored so as not to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > violate established law. =A0The same will be
tr=
ue here.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > He claims, with nothing to sup****t it...