Time To Watch and Listen

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_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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...

imported post

Didn't get to listen to the whole thing, some people have to work.
What I DID hear was this: NObody there seemed to comprehend what the word "right" means. EVERYbody was talking about various degrees of privileges.
Bottom line? We're screwed.

imported post

Wynder wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

"The right would not extend.........."
AGAIN: if that's so, it's not a right at all, but a privilege.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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?

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)

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?

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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?"

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?"

Click to expand...

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 absurbum to 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.

imported post

Good grief, Charlie Brown.
Yes, I am more than aware the constitution and the bill of rights grant nothing.
Green shirts: you are correct, sort of. Even the writers of the bill of rights tried to explain the first 10 amendments didn't include ALL rights, merely the most important.
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.
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.
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.
Obviously, you didn't bother to look up the definition of the word "anarchy."
Let me give you (and the rest of your fellow statists) a quick overview.
Anarchy simply means the ABSENCE of government. It doesn't indicate the presence of people intent on harming others. What's the difference between the absence of government and freedom?

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."

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Perhaps that's your limited definition. Princeton University defines it as, "[size="-1"]a state of lawlessness and disorder." While Merriam-Webster partly agrees with your definition, it also defines it as, "[/size]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.

imported post

Cite please? You just admitted they're struck down all the time, something I already am well aware of. I never said that never happened, just that overzealous statists know no limits to their actions.
Freedom of speech: yep, lots of localities have passed "laws" concerning this. Yep, you CAN be arrested for exercising your RIGHT to free speech. Even your heros over at the blatantly misnamed "supreme" court are quite often wrong. Not that that will ever occur to your kind.
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.
Lawlessness means "no laws." Again, honest, decent folk need no laws.
Disorder means "no order." In other words, there is no king or ruler or social chain of command. Everyone is equal, as the LORD intended. It does not mean the presence of intentional harm, rioting, looting, raping, murder, etc.
You're absolutely correct. As long as MOST people share YOUR misguided views, total freedom will NOT be achieved. You, and others LIKE you, will see to that. I already know that and accept the fact it will always be this way. The difference between me and you is I would never attempt to force you to live my way. But Amerikans such as yourself do it every day.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Perhaps that's your limited definition. Princeton University defines it as, "[size="-1"]a state of lawlessness and disorder." While Merriam-Webster partly agrees with your definition, it also defines it as, "[/size]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?

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point.