guns

[DriveInDriveOut]

I notice you refuse to address any of the points mentioned in my link. Just attack the source as usual. Typical liberal behavior.

Who are you talking to lol.
Who attacked any sources?

 

[oldngray]

Judicial activism refers to court decisions that
arguably go beyond applying and interpreting the
law and extend into the realm of changing or
creating laws, or going against legal precedents.
Arguably these decisions are made based on the
judges' personal philosophies or political
affiliations. When a judge makes a court ruling
that is not in accordance with constitutional or
statutory law or legal precedent, that judge may
be said to be "legislating from the bench."
When a judge is thought to hold back from being a
"judicial activist," he or she may be said to have
exercised judicial restraint.
http://www.restoring-america.com/Documents/What is Judicial Activism.pdf

 

[bbsam]

What a liberal FLUFF piece.

Pure garbage.

Yeah. History. "A liberal fluff piece."

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

You don't have to change the words to change the interpretation of the law.

You didn't know this?

That would explain a lot.

I agree they changed the interpretation of the law, I never disputed that.
But that wasn't Oldngray's claim. He specifically claimed they did not reinterpret it, they REWROTE it.

Like I said, when republicans make stuff up like that it weakens their arguments.

 

[newfie]

Yeah. History. "A liberal fluff piece."

written by a liberal fluffer..

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

What a liberal FLUFF piece.

Pure garbage.

written by a liberal fluffer..

Let's see what oldngray thinks about you two:

I notice you refuse to address any of the points mentioned in my link. Just attack the source as usual.

 

[realbrown1]

Let's see what oldngray thinks about you two:

The difference is your liberal fluff piece was all opinion and inuendo.

Not the same.

His charge against you still stands.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

The difference is your liberal fluff piece was all opinion and inuendo.

Not the same.

His charge against you still stands.

I didn't post any links, or attack any sources. Lay off the keystone light.

 

[BrownArmy]

The difference is your liberal fluff piece was all opinion and inuendo.

Not the same.

His charge against you still stands.

So debate the assertions on their merits and not their source.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

All you have to do is pick a.decision you disagree with, explain the Court's reasoning and explain why the Court is wrong. Instead, all you do is complain about "legislating from the bench" and "activist judges". I understand that's easier but it's intellectually lazy and adds to the collective political stupidity that runs rampant in this country.

You seem to believe that these decisions are simply made up, fictions imposed upon the populace with no basis in jurisprudence or constitutional soundness. I'm sure you wish that to be true but it's not.

The gay marriage ruling is the perfect example of why I'm right. Again...... SCOTUS should have deferred to The 10th Amendment. But instead they choose to go with their emotionally driven, biased, liberal opinion to rule in favor of something (marriage) that simply is not printed anywhere in The Constitution nor is even remotely implied. The right to bear arms is clearly spelled out in the document. Marriage is not therefore should fall under The 10th. It's SHOULD be an amazingly simple concept to understand. But..... Liberals are too often handicapped by emotion.

 

[moreluck]

 

[BigUnionGuy]

 

[Babagounj]

Another bill by dems that is silly ;

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ill-allowing-crime-victims-to-sue-gun-makers/

....the bill is being pushed to reverse the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which was passed in 2005 and signed into law by George W. Bush.
The PLCAA was not intended to allow gun makers to create faulty products with impunity but to protect them from being sued by money hungry trail lawyers and anti-gun groups every time someone buys a gun legally, then misuses the weapon. President Bush recognized such an approach to lawsuits would soon bankrupt and erase the gun industry, so he moved to protect them.

 

[Babagounj]

Let's say that I'm in a gun free zone and get shot .
Can I sue who ever put up the gun free zone sign for damages ?

 

[bbsam]

The gay marriage ruling is the perfect example of why I'm right. Again...... SCOTUS should have deferred to The 10th Amendment. But instead they choose to go with their emotionally driven, biased, liberal opinion to rule in favor of something (marriage) that simply is not printed anywhere in The Constitution nor is even remotely implied. The right to bear arms is clearly spelled out in the document. Marriage is not therefore should fall under The 10th. It's SHOULD be an amazingly simple concept to understand. But..... Liberals are too often handicapped by emotion.

Do you disregard the idea of jurisprudence then? Are you in fact saying all gun laws are unconstitutional? That goes far beyond conservative nonsense.

But we might actually agree that mentally ill people should not have access to guns...but that doesn't fit, does it? Mental illness is not a crime. Why should someone suffering mental illness have (what you assert are) his constitutional rights infringed upon? No crime committed.

If that's your low bar for "the librals gonna take 'r' guns 'way!" then you're simply unhinged from reality. But if instead you think that such laws protect the individual and the public from citizens who have demonstrated the inability to exercise their second amendment right, absent any crime, then you are in fact in favor of gun control laws and we are simply talking different degrees.

Or...

You simply advance the NBA political agenda without thought beyond their well established fear baiting.

 

[bbsam]

Let's say that I'm in a gun free zone and get shot .
Can I sue who ever put up the gun free zone sign for damages ?

This is America. Anybody can sue anybody.

 

[wayfair]

But we might actually agree that mentally ill people should not have access to guns...but that doesn't fit, does it? Mental illness is not a crime. Why should someone suffering mental illness have (what you assert are) his constitutional rights infringed upon? No crime committed.

Not sure if you have ever filled one out. But I believe question friend is the answer you're looking for. Put yes in that box and you are denied.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

A Concealed Carrier Overheard an Anti-Gun Rant, His Epic Response Took the Internet By Storm


http://twitchy.com/2016/01/12/a-con...his-epic-response-took-the-internet-by-storm/

 

[bbsam]

Not sure if you have ever filled one out. But I believe question friend is the answer you're looking for. Put yes in that box and you are denied.

And that is a regulation,.right? Without a crime an individual's second amendment right can be denied. So why not in gun free zones? Why not at gun shows? Why not require universal background checks? Those seem to be common sense gun laws to me.

Of course someone could just lie on the forms I guess.

 

[brett636]

And that is a regulation,.right? Without a crime an individual's second amendment right can be denied. So why not in gun free zones? Why not at gun shows? Why not require universal background checks? Those seem to be common sense gun laws to me.

Of course someone could just lie on the forms I guess.

Why should any law abiding gun owners rights be hindered with pointless hurdles when they will just be bypassed by the criminal anyway regardless of how "common sense" they may seem?