Judge Scalia RIP

[pudly]

Tom Gresham had a good interview with Alan Gura, who argued and won both the Heller and McDonald decisions before the Supreme Court, about Scalia's impact on the Supreme Court and potential future scenarios.

Guntalk 02-14-2016 Part A

 

[Lowe0]

Watching this scenario as it unfolds, it would be amusing -- were it not for the deadly serious implications -- watching several regulars on here who totally discount the problem of pro-gun people people voting Dem, now seeing the inevitable result of their cavalier attitude.

...they might get some of the things they voted for?

I mean, come on. It's not like people vote Democrat because they stumble into the voting booth and comically bump the D lever. They look at what both parties are offering, and decide which is the better (or less worse) option. If Hillary nominates a justice, sure, I might have to buy some new followers and swap them into my mags to bring them down to 10 rounds. But other people, who have much bigger problems to deal with than I do, will be spared our march towards either xenophobia or theocracy (depending on who wins that week's primary). My conscience is okay with that.

 

[IndyDave1776]

...they might get some of the things they voted for?

I mean, come on. It's not like people vote Democrat because they stumble into the voting booth and comically bump the D lever. They look at what both parties are offering, and decide which is the better (or less worse) option. If Hillary nominates a justice, sure, I might have to buy some new followers and swap them into my mags to bring them down to 10 rounds. But other people, who have much bigger problems to deal with than I do, will be spared our march towards either xenophobia or theocracy (depending on who wins that week's primary). My conscience is okay with that.

Can you explain the reason for the Second Amendment and reconcile that reason with your previous post?

 

[llh1956]

In August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

Lets see what happens with the shoe on the other foot!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Can you explain the reason for the Second Amendment and reconcile that reason with your previous post?

Eh...some people are ok with the continued abandonment of the Constitution as long as it satisfies their self interests.

 

[Woobie]

...they might get some of the things they voted for?

I mean, come on. It's not like people vote Democrat because they stumble into the voting booth and comically bump the D lever. They look at what both parties are offering, and decide which is the better (or less worse) option. If Hillary nominates a justice, sure, I might have to buy some new followers and swap them into my mags to bring them down to 10 rounds. But other people, who have much bigger problems to deal with than I do, will be spared our march towards either xenophobia or theocracy (depending on who wins that week's primary). My conscience is okay with that.

So Liberty is less important to you than some vague nebulous fear that we might plunge into a form of government prohibited in the constitution?

You can have your warm and fuzzy and give up some freedoms, and hope the newly empowered government doesn't abuse what you've given them. I'll keep my trump card Liberty so the government always has something to be afraid of when they think about reorganizing our system of government.

 

[Expat]

Tom Gresham had a good interview with Alan Gura, who argued and won both the Heller and McDonald decisions before the Supreme Court, about Scalia's impact on the Supreme Court and potential future scenarios.

Guntalk 02-14-2016 Part A

I listened to it this morning. I am in agreement with him. I think Cruz would likely make the most dependably conservative appointments and having argued many cases before the Court, should have a pretty good feel for where they actually stand on the Constitution.

 

[Lowe0]

Can you explain the reason for the Second Amendment and reconcile that reason with your previous post?

The reason for the 2nd Amendment was because the British started taking over colonial supplies of arms and ammunition. As with the First and Fourth Amendments, the idea was to specifically restrict the new government from doing things that the old one had just done.

Now, the reconciling? I live in a country of over 300 million people. We do not all agree on things. I am not going to get my way all, or even most, of the time. So, when presented with a list of options, I have to pick and choose which ones I will accept. I can choose to vote solely based on my own interests, or I can vote based on what I think would benefit the country as a whole. Since my own interests are already well cared for, my conscience dictates that I look out for others instead. You may feel incensed that I don't vote on principle (specifically, your principles), but I'll take pragmatism over principle.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The reason for the 2nd Amendment was because the British started taking over colonial supplies of arms and ammunition. As with the First and Fourth Amendments, the idea was to specifically restrict the new government from doing things that the old one had just done.

Now, the reconciling? I live in a country of over 300 million people. We do not all agree on things. I am not going to get my way all, or even most, of the time. So, when presented with a list of options, I have to pick and choose which ones I will accept. I can choose to vote solely based on my own interests, or I can vote based on what I think would benefit the country as a whole. Since my own interests are already well cared for, my conscience dictates that I look out for others instead. You may feel incensed that I don't vote on principle (specifically, your principles), but I'll take pragmatism over principle.

OK, so in your reckoning the population being this much larger makes the government unable to become dangerous to freedom, therefore making the reasons for the Second Amendment obsolete?

You really consider the Constitution subordinate to 'pragmatism'?

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

 

[Lowe0]

OK, so in your reckoning the population being this much larger makes the government unable to become dangerous to freedom, therefore making the reasons for the Second Amendment obsolete?

You really consider the Constitution subordinate to 'pragmatism'?

I think that my interpretation of whether a specific law does or does not violate the 2nd Amendment is not the beginning and end of the discussion.

 

[IndyDave1776]

May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think that my interpretation of whether a specific law does or does not violate the 2nd Amendment is not the beginning and end of the discussion.

What about your inclination toward supporting politicians who are categorically anti-gun?

 

[Lowe0]

May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

That quote applies to people who aren't willing to act on their beliefs to preserve their own interests. Two problems with that: one, I'm clearly willing to state my beliefs and act on them. Two, I'm a straight white male with a decent salary and benefits and no children. I'm not worried about gay rights, health care, science policy, etc. because they would benefit me directly, I'm interested in those topics because they would benefit others.

 

[gglass]

The reason for the 2nd Amendment was because the British started taking over colonial supplies of arms and ammunition. As with the First and Fourth Amendments, the idea was to specifically restrict the new government from doing things that the old one had just done.

Now, the reconciling? I live in a country of over 300 million people. We do not all agree on things. I am not going to get my way all, or even most, of the time. So, when presented with a list of options, I have to pick and choose which ones I will accept. I can choose to vote solely based on my own interests, or I can vote based on what I think would benefit the country as a whole. Since my own interests are already well cared for, my conscience dictates that I look out for others instead. You may feel incensed that I don't vote on principle (specifically, your principles), but I'll take pragmatism over principle.

I am so sad. It pains me that anyone who claims to know about the Constitution and history, could claim that the 2nd Amendment exists because the British tried to deprive the colonists of supplies of arms and ammunition. Please read all of the works for the Founding Fathers before making such an uninformed claim about the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment, instead of what the Huffington post writes about the 2nd Amendment.

https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/history/the-founding-fathers-on-the-second-amendment
Bear Arms
GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment
Madison on the 2nd Amendment & milita clause | Human Events

 

[Lowe0]

What about your inclination toward supporting politicians who are categorically anti-gun?

Find me a politician who isn't anti-gun and has otherwise reasonable (to me, not you) stances and I'd be happy to support them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That quote applies to people who aren't willing to act on their beliefs to preserve their own interests. Two problems with that: one, I'm clearly willing to state my beliefs and act on them. Two, I'm a straight white male with a decent salary and benefits and no children. I'm not worried about gay rights, health care, science policy, etc. because they would benefit me directly, I'm interested in those topics because they would benefit others.

No. That quote applies to people who are willing to trade liberty, their own and that of others, for comfort, convenience, and the illusion of safety. You preference for extraconstitutional usurpations of power in preference to constitutional duties stands in evidence of the reason why the provisions found within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are necessary.

Find me a politician who isn't anti-gun and has otherwise reasonable (to me, not you) stances and I'd be happy to support them.

That simply isn't going to happen. Your hypothetical candidate who 'isn't anti-gun and has otherwise reasonable (to you) stances' CANNOT exist because following the Constitution and supporting your unconstitutional ideas of right and proper are mutually exclusive. This is the reason I keep reminding you of the concept of principle. If you understood principle, you would understand that those characteristics are mutually exclusive without needing me to explain it to you.

 

[2A_Tom]

You want a progressive that is pro gun.

 

[tbhausen]

I understand the long game but the time has long passed for us (we/gun owners/like thinkers) to sit on our hands. The longer we wait the more time the Media driven Bravo Sierra will work on the drinkers and their numbers will multiply. We are near or already outnumbered.

It is time to get up and take a stand.

AMEN. No compromise, no capitulation. I expect nothing less than gloves off, NOW.

 

[Lowe0]

You want a progressive that is pro gun.

Sounds good to me.