OT: Make a case why this can't work in our county

[rgc7]

Perhaps if we the Liberal politicians limited the amount of time that a person can spend on Welfare and other social programs, Americans would be willing to take a lot of those jobs?
Speaking of Mexican gardeners, most of the gardeners out here in Az are Mexican and they are darned
Good businessman, and have established a number of family run businesses.

 

[NDlb46]

This thread is still going strong.

 

[NyyorkerND]

More government............brilliant!

Well it's the government that votes on change we can only elect officials.

 

[deadirishpoet]

Well it's the government that votes on change we can only elect officials.

I don't care how many officials are elected.
This is a republic not a democracy. If you don't know the difference you might want to look it up, and then you'll see what you desire will never happen, but there are plenty of other democracy that might welcome you

 

[hayaka]

I don't care how many officials are elected.
This is a republic not a democracy. If you don't know the difference you might want to look it up, and then you'll see what you desire will never happen, but there are plenty of other democracy that might welcome you

Why do conservatives often suggest that people can leave for somewhere else? When the political winds change again and move against you (and you know they will), will you consider leaving? Of course not.

Most people on the left are as patriotic as those on the right. We just have a different vision for America. It is frankly quite rude and beneath a good poster like yourself to suggest otherwise.

 

[wawasee]

Why do conservatives often suggest that people can leave for somewhere else? When the political winds change again and move against you (and you know they will), will you consider leaving? Of course not.

Most people on the left are as patriotic as those on the right. We just have a different vision for America. It is frankly quite rude and beneath a good poster like yourself to suggest otherwise.

I have a good friend from Australia. Several people down there hid their guns. He has some stashed. Home invasions are up in his neck of the woods..

 

[deadirishpoet]

Why do conservatives often suggest that people can leave for somewhere else? When the political winds change again and move against you (and you know they will), will you consider leaving? Of course not.

Most people on the left are as patriotic as those on the right. We just have a different vision for America. It is frankly quite rude and beneath a good poster like yourself to suggest otherwise.

Nothing rude to inquire if someone understands the difference, because many many America's believe we are a democracy, and no clue we are a republic therefore no understanding between the two, but your point is well taken
My apologies NYyorker.

The political winds have been against me for decades regardless of the two controlling parties.

 

[deadirishpoet]

Why do conservatives .,........

Most ..,......Most prople just have a different vision for America. It is frankly quite rude and beneath a good poster like yourself to suggest otherwise.

Just understand that vision falls within the guidelines on the constitution

 

[hayaka]

Just understand that vision falls within the guidelines on the constitution

Sure, but the Constitution is an organic document. It can be changed. Just not easily.

 

[deadirishpoet]

Sure, but the Constitution is an organic document. It can be changed. Just not easily.

Agree

 

[beachcardinal]

Agree

It isn't organic at all. It doesn't grow on it's own. For the foreseeable future there is zero chance of amending the 2nd amendment. It requires approval by a two third vote and both house of Congress followed by ratification of three fourth of the states, For those playing at home that is 38 states.

 

[Get Nasty]

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

Gun related deaths were going down at a fast rate before the law went into affect. They never had a significant gun issue before hand.

Also, the US is a melting pot of religion, race, morals, etc etc etc that causes a lot of conflict. Australia is about 95% one race. Not that it should make a difference, but it does.

 

[Toby Smart]

We had a gun show at our county fairgrounds this past weekend and protesters showed up with signs and slogans. They are not sure why they are protesting. They just are. The one noticeable thing about these type anti-gun / anti-NRA protests, they also bring out protesters concerned about their own different agendas, so now, what you have is a protest against guns, immigration, the wall, minimum wage, liquor sales on Sundays, drainage in a specific subdivision, deer culling, etc etc etc.... all wrapped up into one hip little protest. Meanwhile, the show was packed.

 

[ivan brunetti]

Gun related deaths were going down at a fast rate before the law went into affect. They never had a significant gun issue before hand.

Also, the US is a melting pot of religion, race, morals, etc etc etc that causes a lot of conflict. Australia is about 95% one race. Not that it should make a difference, but it does.

26% of Australians were born overseas. That means it is not 95% of one culture.

 

[benko's army]

26% of Australians were born overseas. That means it is not 95% of one culture.

I think he’s saying Australia is mostly white guys and that’s why there are fewer gun deaths. Since most of our mass shootings are done by white guys, it’s hard to agree with him.

 

[NyyorkerND]

This is a republic not a democracy. If you don't know the difference you might want to look it up, and then you'll see what you desire will never happen, but there are plenty of other democracy that might welcome you[/QUOTE]

Lol is this dude serious. Oh wait I think you said you grew up in Alaska, enough said.

Our government is both a democracy and a republic, maybe you should take sometime reading.

 

[beachcardinal]

This is a republic not a democracy. If you don't know the difference you might want to look it up, and then you'll see what you desire will never happen, but there are plenty of other democracy that might welcome you

Lol is this dude serious. Oh wait I think you said you grew up in Alaska, enough said.

Our government is both a democracy and a republic, maybe you should take sometime reading.[/QUOTE]

Not a believer in insulting other posters but NY is correct. We are not a direct democracy but we are a democracy because power stems from the votes of the people. We are also a republic because we elect representatives to decides issue for us, rather than directly voting on issues. The two are not exclusive.

 

[ivan brunetti]

I think he’s saying Australia is mostly white guys and that’s why there are fewer gun deaths. Since most of our mass shootings are done by white guys, it’s hard to agree with him.

Yes. And because people tend to kill other people in their own communities/cultures, most gun deaths are black on black and white on white.

 

[Telx1]

It isn't organic at all. It doesn't grow on it's own. For the foreseeable future there is zero chance of amending the 2nd amendment. It requires approval by a two third vote and both house of Congress followed by ratification of three fourth of the states, For those playing at home that is 38 states.

Beach...while your comments are absolutely correct, I think your reply fails to recognize how the Constitution does in fact evolve through the impact of Supreme Court decisions. I suspect this is what hayaka means with his organic description. Brown vs Board of Education and Separate but Equal were interpretations that were tolerable to the masses in the 50’s, and yet opined as unconstitutional as demands for change evolved. Always found the challenge of interpreting the Constitution in the context of the heartbeat of the nation as one of the most interesting and difficult tasks in our Democratic Republic. If Clinton had won and made the Supreme Court appointment to replace Scalia, I would have fully expected rulings that limit 2nd amendment rights. Constitutional Originalist vs modern day real consequences is a fascinating dynamic inherent in our system, which only underscores the critical importance of Presidential elections in context of anticipated SC appointments.

 

[Get Nasty]

Yes. And because people tend to kill other people in their own communities/cultures, most gun deaths are black on black and white on white.

This is true, but there are much higher percentages in certain countries and from certain races. Australia just doesn't have many immigrants from high crime countries. Those numbers are increasing in the US, while extremely small %'s are in Australia. Australia still has gun violence, they just don't and haven't ever had a major consistent issue with it.

 

[beachcardinal]

Beach...while your comments are absolutely correct, I think your reply fails to recognize how the Constitution does in fact evolve through the impact of Supreme Court decisions. I suspect this is what hayaka means with his organic description. Brown vs Board of Education and Separate but Equal were interpretations that were tolerable to the masses in the 50’s, and yet opined as unconstitutional as demands for change evolved. Always found the challenge of interpreting the Constitution in the context of the heartbeat of the nation as one of the most interesting and difficult tasks in our Democratic Republic. If Clinton had won and made the Supreme Court appointment to replace Scalia, I would have fully expected rulings that limit 2nd amendment rights. Constitutional Originalist vs modern day real consequences is a fascinating dynamic inherent in our system, which only underscores the critical importance of Presidential elections in context of anticipated SC appointments.

Well that is the great debate among jurists. The problem with the living document argument is the the Supreme Court because a legislature of 9. However Heller makes it clear that the second amendment is here to stay

 

[Telx1]

Well that is the great debate among jurists. The problem with the living document argument is the the Supreme Court because a legislature of 9. However Heller makes it clear that the second amendment is here to stay

Yes, Heller decision clearly articulated the individuals right to possess a gun, etc... but also suggested that bans on certain dangerous and unusual weapons, and certain individuals, and in certain facilities, etc... are not at odds with the Constitution. Lots of room for interpretation going forward if the Court wants to jump in, and as I stated, no doubt in my mind that had Clinton appointed Scalia’s successor, the SC would be supporting lower court decisions that limit guns rights.

 

[hayaka]

Well that is the great debate among jurists. The problem with the living document argument is the the Supreme Court because a legislature of 9. However Heller makes it clear that the second amendment is here to stay

It's here to stay only as long as a different Supreme Court doesn't strike it down.

If I were a gun rights advocate, I would be imploring Anthony Kennedy to resign at the end of this term.

Edit: I meant a different Court could strike down the Heller decision, not the entire Second Amendment, lol.

 

[beachcardinal]

It's here to stay only as long as a different Supreme Court doesn't strike it down.

If I were a gun rights advocate, I would be imploring Anthony Kennedy to resign at the end of this term.

Edit: I meant a different Court could strike down the Heller decision, not the entire Second Amendment, lol.

That is much rare then you think. Row v Wade has survived many conservative courts. There second amendment case going back hundreds of year. The court don't change that lightly. Also if you read the Heller decision the logi is bit hard to overcome.

If the courts acted as you suggest the rest of government would be irrelevant.

 

[ivan brunetti]

Today's (3/07/2018) school shooting:

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/03/possible_accidental_shooting_a.html

 

[hayaka]

That is much rare then you think. Row v Wade has survived many conservative courts. There second amendment case going back hundreds of year. The court don't change that lightly. Also if you read the Heller decision the logi is bit hard to overcome.

If the courts acted as you suggest the rest of government would be irrelevant.

The Heller decision was 5 to 4. If Scalia had died before that case was heard, and Obama had been able to appoint Merrick Garland to the Court, it would have gone the other way. As for "the logic being hard to overcome", I'm sure you feel that way, but I know of at least four people who feel differently, and they all currently sit on the US Supreme Court.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say the "second amendment case goes back hundreds of years". Which case? Somewhat surprisingly, there really isn't a lot of Second Amendment case law from the Supreme Court. The last major decision before Heller was U.S. v. Miller (1939), in which the Court did find that a particular type of gun could be banned, holding:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." (Emphasis added).

The Miller decision was the norm, until Scalia got his 5-4 majority, and put a bullet through reasonable gun control measures, if you'll pardon the pun.

"If the courts acted as you suggest the rest of government would be irrelevant."

??? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Courts reverse earlier courts all the time. Moreover, Congress can get around a Supreme Court decision by simply passing a different law. Of course, the new needs to be constitutional.

 

[beachcardinal]

Sign obviously I meant to say cases. Court DO NOT reverse hundreds of years of Supreme Court dicision. That simple isn't true. Heller had nothing to do with Miller. Not sure where you are getting this stuff.

No offense but your stuff is a bit off. Could I ask how long you have been practicing law

 

[stu4don]

The idea of amending constitutions at regular intervals dates back to Thomas Jefferson. In a famous letter, he wrote that we should “provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods.” “[E]ach generation” should have the “solemn opportunity” to update the constitution “every nineteen or twenty years,” thus allowing it to “be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time.”

 

[hayaka]

Sign obviously I meant to say cases. Court DO NOT reverse hundreds of years of Supreme Court dicision. That simple isn't true. Heller had nothing to do with Miller. Not sure where you are getting this stuff.

No offense but your stuff is a bit off. Could I ask how long you have been practicing law

What "hundreds of years of Supreme Court decisions" are you even talking about?

Heller had nothing to do with Miller? That's funny, because Miller was cited (by both the majority and the minority) in Heller about 47 times. They are the two leading two Second Amendment cases of the past 100 years.

Since you've decided to go ad hominem, are you a lawyer? If you are, I think you must have failed Con Law.

 

[benko's army]

What "hundreds of years of Supreme Court decisions" are you even talking about?

Heller had nothing to do with Miller? That's funny, because Miller was cited (by both the majority and the minority) in Heller about 47 times. They are the two leading two Second Amendment cases of the past 100 years.

Since you've decided to go ad hominem, are you a lawyer? If you are, I think you must have failed Con Law.

I’m fairly sure he got his law degree at Dunning-Kruger University.

 

[beachcardinal]

What "hundreds of years of Supreme Court decisions" are you even talking about?

Heller had nothing to do with Miller? That's funny, because Miller was cited (by both the majority and the minority) in Heller about 47 times. They are the two leading two Second Amendment cases of the past 100 years.

Since you've decided to go ad hominem, are you a lawyer? If you are, I think you must have failed Con Law.

I am not sure why you feel attacked. Yes I am a lawyer and did fine in Con Law and in litigating cases with Constitutional issues. We seem to look at the law differently, so there is not much point in continuing. You might want to look at the ideas you have expressed about the law again.

Anyway good luck to you.

 

[hayaka]

I am not sure why you feel attacked. Yes I am a lawyer and did fine in Con Law and in litigating cases with Constitutional issues. We seem to look at the law differently, so there is not much point in continuing. You might want to look at the ideas you have expressed about the law again.

Anyway good luck to you.

“We seem to look at the law differently.”

I agree with that.

Okay, good luck.

 

[deadirishpoet]

It isn't organic at all. It doesn't grow on it's own. For the foreseeable future there is zero chance of amending the 2nd amendment. It requires approval by a two third vote and both house of Congress followed by ratification of three fourth of the states, For those playing at home that is 38 states.

You are correct I was agreeing to the Constitution being able to be amended but that is not easy
I thought about that after I posted that
but it was late
The Constitution is not a living document it is a foundation a bedrock

 

[deadirishpoet]

The idea of amending constitutions at regular intervals dates back to Thomas Jefferson. In a famous letter, he wrote that we should “provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods.” “[E]ach generation” should have the “solemn opportunity” to update the constitution “every nineteen or twenty years,” thus allowing it to “be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time.”

This is true Jefferson wanted
to do that, but he was in the minority
Madison did not like this idea due to the fact that the constitution would become eroded from its original Foundation

The Constitution was designed not to be changed so each generation can live with the same right generation to generation without fear of losing the nation that was created

Now you have the so-called federal judges coming in putting the law side and twisting it to fit there means completely going against the Constitution original design

 

[Telx1]

The idea of amending constitutions at regular intervals dates back to Thomas Jefferson. In a famous letter, he wrote that we should “provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods.” “[E]ach generation” should have the “solemn opportunity” to update the constitution “every nineteen or twenty years,” thus allowing it to “be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time.”

Yes, and Jefferson was in the minority with this opinion, which obviously was rejected by our framers. It’s been nearly fifty years since I studied the history of the framing of the Constitution, but I know that the individuals right to bear arms and the right to regulated militias were debated for several years. I seem to recall that the Federalist Papers show the evolution of thinking and that New York was the final yes to the language that was ultimately adopted. Anyone here have any recommended reading on this?

 

[beachcardinal]

Yes, and Jefferson was in the minority with this opinion, which obviously was rejected by our framers. It’s been nearly fifty years since I studied the history of the framing of the Constitution, but I know that the individuals right to bear arms and the right to regulated militias were debated for several years. I seem to recall that the Federalist Papers show the evolution of thinking and that New York was the final yes to the language that was ultimately adopted. Anyone here have any recommended reading on this?

Jefferson was also talking about the people amending the constitution through the process, not 9 people doing it.

If you are asking about the history and basis for the second amendment the Heller case does a nice job of explaining it. The right to bear arms existed at the time of the Constitution which is why the second amendment is worded that way.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In other words the constitution prevents taking away a right that existed at that time.

For the Heller Case: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/554/570.html

 

[Telx1]

Jefferson was also talking about the people amending the constitution through the process, not 9 people doing it.

If you are asking about the history and basis for the second amendment the Heller case does a nice job of explaining it. The right to bear arms existed at the time of the Constitution which is why the second amendment is worded that way.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In other words the constitution prevents taking away a right that existed at that time.

For the Heller Case: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/554/570.html

Thanks Beach.

 

[benko's army]

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

The Court's opinion should not 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.

Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

[BGI User 1596]

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

92 LA Riots !

 

[artemis gordon]

Why do conservatives often suggest that people can leave for somewhere else? When the political winds change again and move against you (and you know they will), will you consider leaving? Of course not.

Most people on the left are as patriotic as those on the right. We just have a different vision for America. It is frankly quite rude and beneath a good poster like yourself to suggest otherwise.

I wish it was true that many people on the left are patriotic, the facts won't bear that out. The liberals of fifty years ago had a number of solid Americans in their ranks but over time the Left has become more radical. Todays Democratic Party is more akin to the European Left.