pacrat Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 HOOOORAH!!! SCOTUS HAS FOUND FOR MC DONALD IN MC DONALD V CHICAGO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gun nutty Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 I read about that and am thrilled. What I'm not happy about is the split (5/4)... It's along political lines, with the usual suspects on either side of the line. One sane justice less would have upset an obvious decision. The original dissenting opinion on the 2008 case had Stevens straining to justify gun control, and re-interpret hundreds of years of precedent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlunity Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 This a victory for the freedoms of all American against the new self styled noble class. Karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacrat Posted June 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 29, 2010 Heller and now McDonald are just 2 small steps in what will be a long hard journey to reclaim our right to bear arms. LibTards are at the forefront of all the gungrabs that have been going on since the 60's. With that as a indisputable fact. It is the Lib-Tards who claim to be educated and enlightened. With all that education and enlightenment why can they not grasp the simple concept imparted in a single sentence. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted June 29, 2010 Report Share Posted June 29, 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134_pf.html Rush was saying that the ruling referred to slavery. Slaves could not be truly free without the freedom to possess and use arms to protect their homes, and send the intruders to hell. Pretty amazing. Somebody on the news said that states could go further than this ruling and incorporate restrictive laws. The way I see it, this is contempt of court. My reflection on the ilk that work for Obama is that they believe the Constitution is essentially wrong, and needs to be ignored and changed. This isn't just my opinion, it is provable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gun nutty Posted June 29, 2010 Report Share Posted June 29, 2010 It's not that it can be ignored... Scalia gave some interesting commentary about this; it's one's view on the constitution. Some view it as a "living" document subject to interpretation, others view it as static or fixed document. This isn't necessarily conservative vs. liberal; it's whether a judge feels that he/she has the right to apply or interpret/extend existing laws into other areas, or re-define existing laws to fit current social situations. Scalia certainly doesn't try to extend laws. Under his reasoning, a law was written a certain way to have specific meaning for a reason. You can't extend a law into other areas "because it feels right" or "it's the right thing to do". If you don't like a law, repeal it. If a law doesn't cover something that you feel it should, write a new law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.