• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Riots Break Out In Berkley Over Gay Libertarian Immigrant Speaker

Drug_mentor said:
EDIT: I have no idea why only the last quote tag worked properly, I tried numerous times to fix the issue to no avail. Apologies for the diminished readability which has resulted.
Click to expand...

Backslashes are going the wrong way in the top 2 quotes.
 
Somerandomdude said:
Judicial activism is by definition not a correct interpretation of law. It is a far fetched, often errorneous interpretation of law based upon whatever ideology or social cause of the day that judge is subscribing to.
Click to expand...
'judicial activism' is what you call it when judges issue decisions with which you disagree :)

alasdair
 
Somerandomdude said:
Judicial activism is by definition not a correct interpretation of law. It is a far fetched, often errorneous interpretation of law based upon whatever ideology or social cause of the day that judge is subscribing to.
Click to expand...

There's so many different theories on how the law should be interpreted that "far fetched" and "erroneous" are in the eye of the beholder.

For example, a strict originalist may argue that the "right to bare arms" in the constitution only applies to weapons of the day - muskets and cannons. While those who look at the founder's intent would argue that such a right was enshrined so that the people could overthrow the government, thus fully automatic weapons, RPGs, and SAMs are covered. Another group that tries to balance individual rights versus safety would argue that people having the right to a modern military armory may be a tad too unsafe in today's world. So on and so forth, with various sides considering other interpretations to be flat out wrong.
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
There's so many different theories on how the law should be interpreted that "far fetched" and "erroneous" are in the eye of the beholder.

For example, a strict originalist may argue that the "right to bare arms" in the constitution only applies to weapons of the day - muskets and cannons. While those who look at the founder's intent would argue that such a right was enshrined so that the people could overthrow the government, thus fully automatic weapons, RPGs, and SAMs are covered. Another group that tries to balance individual rights versus safety would argue that people having the right to a modern military armory may be a tad too unsafe in today's world. So on and so forth, with various sides considering other interpretations to be flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

Only to a certain extent. Some interpretations are flat out wrong.

For example, an interpretation of the second amendment that severely curtailed all individual's rights to own and keep firearms would clearly be wrong.
 
Somerandomdude said:
For example, an interpretation of the second amendment that severely curtailed all individual's rights to own and keep firearms would clearly be wrong.
Click to expand...
not really. as escher's waterfall notes, it's entirely open to interpretation.

there is a case to which those who aggressively trumpet the importance of the 2nd amendment often point: district of columbia vs. heller

they point to it because they believe it takes their side on the issue of individual gun ownership depending on membership of a "well regulated militia". they believe the case proves that the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. that's some pretty important case law, right? i mean it went to the u.s. supreme court! and the opinion was written by republican antonin scalia. so this case is important right? and right right?

here's an excerpt from the opinion of the court. not the dissent - the opinion:

"E.III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

that's a little hard to read with those inline footnotes so here is just the text:

"E.III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

there it is.

"...or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." it's right there in black and white in antonin scalia's opinion for the court.

so, for example, background checks are constitutional.

"curtail" means to "reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on". the government could impose restrictions on the sale of arms which a pro-gun individual might characterize as severe curtailment but which the court could decide were perfectly legal based on the heller decision.

alasdair
 
Well, he doesn't like it so it must be.. :\

Interesting from Aussie perspective to observe the huge preoccupation with the constitution in the US as if it is a sacred text. Its been amended so often that its hardly the same historical document of the founders.
 
read post #211.

background checks, for example, infringe (i.e. encroach on) on the right to bear arms but they're constitutional anyway.

d.c. vs. heller confirms this is the case. do you have case law which suggests otherwise?

alasdair
 
swilow said:
Well, he doesn't like it so it must be.. :\

Interesting from Aussie perspective to observe the huge preoccupation with the constitution in the US as if it is a sacred text. Its been amended so often that its hardly the same historical document of the founders.
Click to expand...

I never understood that sacred untouchable text view of the constitution either. It seems to only be espoused by people very low on the intellectual totem poll. I don't hear it as a justification from education republicans as often
 
I watched the Joe Rogan interview months ago and I remember him making the comments about pedophilia.

It doesn't really surprise me but at the same time I have heard him sound the alarm time and time again about the normalization of pedophilia so unless he is truly living double lives and is a secret pedo I think all of this recent news is bullshit.
 
alasdairm said:
read post #211.

background checks, for example, infringe (i.e. encroach on) on the right to bear arms but they're constitutional anyway.

d.c. vs. heller confirms this is the case. do you have case law which suggests otherwise?

alasdair
Click to expand...

Heller is being disputed it and it itself says involuntary commitment should not be used to make a person a second class citizen stripped of their constitutional rights.

It does say the insane should not be allowed guns.

I tend to disagree I think a decent arsenal is the best treatment for paranoia.

To deny the paranoid access to firearms results in them treating the home like a fortress with a revolver shotgun rifle and Mac 11 ready to shoot if anyone comes to the home demanding they cease and desist protecting themselves.
 
treezy z said:
Heller is being disputed it and it itself says involuntary commitment should not be used to make a person a second class citizen stripped of their constitutional rights.

It does say the insane should not be allowed guns.

I tend to disagree I think a decent arsenal is the best treatment for paranoia.

To deny the paranoid access to firearms results in them treating the home like a fortress with a revolver shotgun rifle and Mac 11 ready to shoot if anyone comes to the home demanding they cease and desist protecting themselves.
Click to expand...

i approve of this post. who gets to decide who's crazy anyway? the government? seems reasonable lol l
 
I think the basis of that argument is if everyone had a gun then there would be less gun violence.

So yeah its bloody stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top