Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: Time To Watch and Listen

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    If you guys are able to listen to/watch video right this very moment, CSPAN has commentary and, before lunch, audio recordings of oral arguments for the Heller case.

    http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan...TV&Code=CS

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Some notes from scotusblog:

    Justice Kennedy is taking a strong view that the "operative clause" of the Second Amendment protects an individual right unconnected with militia service that guarantees the right to hunt and engage in self-defense. If the oral argument line up were to hold when the Court votes, the Court will recognize an individual right to bear arms that will not be seriously constrained by military service of any kind. There was a seemingly broad consensus that the right would not extend to machine guns, plastic guns that could evade metal detectors, and the like.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    From what I've seen and heard from the Supremes they often use the exact oppisite of how they feel to see if the council has thought out their opinions.They like to see if council has given as much thought to their opinion as they have. Very common tactic for the highest courts judges. They are looking to see if they can quote any judicial opinion to back up thier claims. ie people vs ..... as how some other judge ruled in a similar case. If they can't the lawyers opnion is given no weight.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    stephpd wrote:
    From what I've seen and heard from the Supremes they often use the exact oppisite of how they feel to see if the council has thought out their opinions.They like to see if council has given as much thought to their opinion as they have. Very common tactic for the highest courts judges. They are looking to see if they can quote any judicial opinion to back up thier claims. ie people vs ..... as how some other judge ruled in a similar case. If they can't the lawyers opnion is given no weight.
    Yeah, the Socratic method -- and they always play devil's advocate with regards to the position of the attorney who's currently presenting. I think we'll be good on the outcome of this, though...

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    "The right would not extend.........."
    AGAIN: if that's so, it's not a right at all, but a privilege.
    Depends on how you look at it...

    You have the RIGHT to do anything you want; however, government is given the right to impose reasonable restrictions. Almost every right we have has reasonable restrictions, from the right to free speech to the right to keep and bear arms.

    Does it suck? In a lot of cases, it sure does; however, the crux of the Heller case is simply that the complete ban of firearms and the citizens of DC being stripped of their right to defend themselves is unreasonable.

    The court appears to side with Heller in this respect and it will be a good step forward for the individual right.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Florida, USA
    Posts
    184

    Post imported post

    Wynder

    thanks for updating me I listened to the link you set up then over lunch I watched C-Span on TV. INAL but sounded like the right will be up held in June and the chief od police of DC made me sick with her concern for LEO's and the Children over my rights,

    I am sure Glenn Beck on CNN will have something say about this tonight on TV and tomorrow on the radio ( he is on our side)

    Rob thanks again hope to see you Saturday



    sprat (Jack)

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    That's where you and I part ways on the definition of "rights."
    A "right" is non-negotiable. ANY infringement reduces it to a privilege.
    Unlike MOST Amerikans, I do not agree to ANY "reasonable restrictions."
    Just can't wait for the next American revolution to sort all this out.
    Will you be there?
    If so, on who's side?
    Have you really thought that line of logic through?

    Starting out, endowed by your creator, you have the right to do anything on this planet that you please.

    Do you accept the infringement on your 'rights' to not murder anyone? Assault a person? Threaten the life of another? Are you immune to the speed limits? Hopefully the answer to these questions are no -- laws are created to balance the rights of the people with public order, health and safety, if not yours, than for others.

    Honestly, what you speak of is anarchy and that is certainly a side I will not be on.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    No one has a "right to murder." What an absurd comment.
    Laws are made to control the honest folk, since criminals never have.
    Wake up.
    Do you even know the definition of the word "anarchy?"
    Are you aware that the Constitution and Bill of rights doesn't grant you any rights at all? It simply protects chosen rights that the framers felt were essential to the prosperity of a republic.

    Do you have a right to wear a green shirt? Absolutely -- that right was endowed to you by your creator, but it's not protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, nor is that right infringed upon by the government.

    You have a freedom of speech, but do you threaten to murder people? No, there's a law against it, but surely you must feel that it's a complete and utter travesty of justice and your freedoms, right?

    Laws are the restrictions and infringements on all of your rights. You're saying you don't believe in that, so I was reductio ad absurbumto try to make you understand the flaw in your logic.

    Without some reasonable limitations on behavior and rights, there is lawlessness, chaos and disorder -- THAT is anarchy and that is not the goal of a civilized society.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    However, that right IS infringed upon by LOCAL governments who, with all the good intentions, have banned certain people from wearing certain colors that they may consider gang-related."
    Cite please? These bans have generally been defeated or overturned in short order as a violation of the First Amendment. In addition, what you're saying, banning "certain people" would also violate the Fourteenth Amendment of equal application of the law, so I don't see how your statement can possibly be true.

    Freedom of speech: as Jefferson stated, "you have the right to do as you please, until it interferes with the rights of others." When you threaten to murder someone, you have not YET broken the law until you take steps/actions to carry out that idea.
    Once again, here you are wrong -- the Supreme Court has defined this speech as 'Fighting Words' and you would be subject to arrest under almost any Disorderly Conduct statute.

    There is no "flaw" in my logic, but in yours. You, like most Amerikans, really don't want "freedom," but a police state that lives up to YOUR standards.
    I love how you assume to know what I want after trading 5 paragraphs of text -- though, I'll admit, you come off as an anti-government extremist which, by your accounts, seems pretty accurate. No, I want to live in a civil and polite society where the laws are reasonable and people respect those laws enough to follow them.

    Obviously, you didn't bother to look up the definition of the word "anarchy." Anarchy simply means the ABSENCE of government.
    Perhaps that's your limited definition. Princeton University defines it as, "a state of lawlessness and disorder." While Merriam-Webster partly agrees with your definition, it also defines it as, "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority," so are you attempting to misleading one into incomplete facts to further your argument?

    You're more than entitled to your opinion and political views -- unlike you, I haven't berated you or slung derogatory euphamisms at you. Happily, I can sit here in my living room comfortable in the fact that your vision of the world will never come to fruition.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    I'll be the first to admit I'm anti-government. Anyone who truly understands freedom should be !!! Sorry you're not one of us. NEWS FLASH: where I live, we ARE civil and polite, don't need any of your "laws" to make that happen. AGAIN: laws do not create some Utopian society where people are never harmed or wronged. That's just an illusion in your mind. In your perfect world, just who gets to decide the definition of "reasonable?" Decent folk need no laws, a fact you have not yet figured out.
    And there's the fatal flaw of your concept. Assuming everyone are 'decent folk'. So, what happens when someone in your lawless society murders someone?

    No laws, he did nothing wrong. No laws, no defined punishment. I don't pretend to think that laws deter people, so you're correct, laws don't create a Utopian society, they establish parameters that define criminal behavior and how to punish the people who aren't "decent folk" like you.

    You're claiming that Anarchy is Utopian way of life by saying, "decent folk need no laws"? I'd love to hear how you decide to handle the person who assaults your wife in a world with no laws and no order.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Wynder wrote:
    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Obviously, you didn't bother to look up the definition of the word "anarchy." Anarchy simply means the ABSENCE of government.
    Perhaps that's your limited definition. Princeton University defines it as, "a state of lawlessness and disorder." While Merriam-Webster partly agrees with your definition, it also defines it as, "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority," so are you attempting to misleading one into incomplete facts to further your argument?
    Wikipedia (and I promise I didn't just put it in) has an entry consistent with
    the "absence of government" definition:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

    I think if you go by the etymology of the word, it's closer to "without rulers"
    than chaos. Perhaps the dictionary definitions are more consistent with
    common usage, though. I, personally, would prefer living in a system
    "without rulers".

    Aren't rights a non-issue without rulers? In that situation, all rules governing
    behaviour arise from mutual agreement between concerned parties.

    gridboy

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    gridboy wrote:
    Wikipedia (and I promise I didn't just put it in) has an entry consistent with
    the "absence of government" definition:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
    I try not to quote Wikipedia when I have the option of quoting Princeton, Merriam-Webster or Oxford.

    Aren't rights a non-issue without rulers? In that situation, all rules governing behaviour arise from mutual agreement between concerned parties.
    Rights are only a non-issue without rulers until someone violates yours. Then you have no government and no one acting in an official capacity to redress your greivances.

    If you live in a land with no government and someone murders your son, who do you turn to? If you live in a land with no government and someone forces you out of your home and assumes ownership of all of your possessions, who will you turn to?

    That's my simple point. A republic is better than communism, better than a democracy, better than despotism, better than a monarchy. It is, by no stretch of the imagination, perfect in anyway; however, I personally believe it's better than no law at all.

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    First of all, I never assume anything. No, not everyone are "decent folk." It's been that way since the beginning of time.
    Why not sally on down here and try to murder someone in my home? You can see firsthand how that's dealt with.
    Or, give it a go at violating my wife.
    We don't dial 911, ask the local sheriff.
    Thank you for proving my point.

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    True freedom requires courage and includes real risks. Most Amerikans prefer a nanny state where someone else takes care of unpleasant matters FOR them. Got a burglar in your home? Forget confronting him yourself, cower in a closet and dial 911 (and die). That is the advice of many a chief of police and sheriff.
    And just what point is that, komrade?
    The only thing I hear you saying is, "Kill, kill, kill."

    Someone kills your son, kill them back. That, I think we're in agreement in.

    Someone takes advantage of your wife? Kill them.

    Someone takes a swing at you? Kill them?

    Where is the civility here? It's barbaric and downright frightening -- eye for an eye and a crack on the head as well. You're writings indicate you'd tend to take to the gun more often than to words to settle a dispute and that's not a good sign.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Removed my post as it was a bit personal -- I did a bit of research on you and it explained everything.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Gents....you both are on the same side, albeit from different angles. While entertaining, personal battles are best left for PM's.

    There will always be good men who respect their own rights and the rights of others. There will also be bad men who abuse their own rights and the rights of others.

    "Good men don't need laws to tell them what to do and and bad men will always find ways around laws." - Plato

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    What has all this to do with US v Heller? When the law that passed back in the 70's over 70% of the people of DC wanted less gun violence in their part of the world. Granted only the law abiding were willing to obey the law even though it infringed on their rights. Better to be alive and gunless then dead from walking home from work.

    The problem is and always will be that the criminal, by definition, could care less what the law says. It was a bad law that made it impossible for the law abiding to even protect themselves in their own homes. I can just imagine the homeowner asking the criminal if they can wait while they reassemble their long gun and take off the trigger lock. Better to just grab a baseball bat and swing for the fence.

    I really hope that the Supremes go a little further then just stiking down this law. I don't expect much from them and some of the recent rulings from this group are so different from how I understand the law. The ruling in this case won't be much different then anything else they've done lately. Best I can hope for is that they might think that self defense in your home is allowed. 'Yea!'

    I doubt they will read and correctly interpret the 2nd Amendment as ' the right to keep and bear arms'. That everyone has the right to feel secure and able to defend themselves anywhere in this country. Most rulings from the court have been very limiting and seldom lean towards 'the people'. The people of DC might be able to own a gun in there homes that is capable of being used without 15 minutes of work to get it functioning.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Oh, Noes! I'm an educator!!!one!

    Yes, I teach computer science -- I teach people how to program in C and C++, I teach Visual Basic, PHP, MySQL... The great government conspiracy -- you've discovered it!

    I love how you continue to spout that I don't respect anyone elses rights when I've said on several occasions that you certainly have the right to your thoughts and comments on government and God, yet you're unable to do the same.

    Always proving my point for me -- thank you so much!


    Edit: In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit... I *have* also taught music. Marching band, actually... The snareline to be specific, although I did dabble a bit with the tenor section. And, I actually *gasp* wrote the score for the battery.

    The HORROR!

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    While I might "have" the right to this and to that, you make it more than obvious you'd violate the rights of others at the drop of a hat, all in the name of implementing your agenda for Amerika.
    And yet you're not allowing me that opinion? You're coming off holier-than-thou when you're not even practicing what you preach -- that's pretty much the definition of hipocracy.

    Not saying that I actually have an agenda for the United States as I have no real political aspirations at this point, but I do find it staggaring that you're all for absolute unabridgement of rights, but you're not allowing me the one right that is unarguably absolute: thought.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Newark, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    91

    Post imported post

    And yet you're not allowing me that opinion? You're coming off holier-than-thou when you're not even practicing what you preach -- that's pretty much the definition of hipocracy.

    Not saying that I actually have an agenda for the United States as I have no real political aspirations at this point, but I do find it staggaring that you're all for absolute unabridgement of rights, but you're not allowing me the one right that is unarguably absolute: thought.
    QFT

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Newark, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    91

    Post imported post

    ~Flamesuit on~

    I know Im probably adding to the mess here but for me when someone quotes the bible in a supposedly intelligent discussion, I have a tendency to discredit what they are saying. As we know, the bible was written by man and man is nowhere near infallible. It has been used so many times to advance the agenda of individuals that it makes me sick thinking about it.

    Rights are only rights until they invade the rights of others.


    As far as when the next american revolution happens, I'm hopping the next ship outta this place when that happens. I love my country, but I am sick and tired of all this brainwashing that America is the best country in the world. Maybe we WERE, but I think we arent and never will be again. I hope that I can be proven wrong.

    Opinions are like ********....everyone has one.
    This is just my .02.
    Please dont flame me too much for my thoughts.

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    You miss the entire point. I believe in rights. You don't. You believe in "privileges." As a believer in rights, I would never use force to impose my beliefs on you. However, you support a form of "government" which DOES use force to impose it's views on everyone else. See the difference?
    Question: if/when the next American revolution occurs, just who's side will you be on? The people who want their freedoms restored or the forces of those who don't want people to have their freedoms restored?
    If your definition of 'Rights' is that you have to freedom to do as you please, when you please, then, yes -- I'd tend to disagree with you.

    As a father of two children, I believe it reasonable that non-prurient media content be restricted to the high shelves in the bookstore or for late night broadcast. However, while I certainly would like to slap the bangers along side the head for wearing their pants down to their knees, I don't begrudge them the right to look stupid. I believe that shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre, inducing panic, should make the actor responsible for his actions and I think that you should not be allowed to walk along the street and randomly threaten anyone you like on a whim.

    I concede that laws don't encourage responsibility -- folks are either going to commit crimes or not, regardless of them; however, I do think they're prudent to define what constitutes a crime, violation or infringement on someone elses rights and what the punishment is.

    However, "reasonable" is determined by the people we elect into office... I got to the ballots and I cast my vote for Ron Paul. The majority will most likely decide otherwise, however, when folks wake up and realize that whatever administration currently installed isn't doing what they want, the people have a chance to change that administration.

    With no government at all, all I can see is mob rule.

  23. #23
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    If you truly believe the Holy Spirit had no hand in the penning of the bible, all I can do is pray you one day realize your mistake.
    Perhaps this is my lack of religious education coming through; however, the bible was written by men, yes? While it may have been influenced or written about the life of Jesus and the story of God, it was still written by men, nonetheless. And, as I'm sure we can all agree, man is not infallible in their memory nor interpretation of events.

    In addition, books were selected and ordered by the Council of Nicaea... so any kind of 'spin' could've been created on the bible as they saw fit.

    I'm honestly not trying to be blasphemous, nor do I know if what I'm saying would be considered as such, but the good book didn't just suddenly materialize itself in the hands of the Pope one day.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Newark, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    91

    Post imported post

    +1....Thats like a more indepth version of what i said

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Newark, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    91

    Post imported post

    maybe it would have been better to just leave the south alone when they seceded....

    they would have gotten everything right and would be the model country that america should be today.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •