The 2nd Amendment Lives! Shot Heard Round The World. FREEDOM WINS.

[Christians4LessGvt]

June 26, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense
and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

http://news.yahoo.com/i/701;_ylt=AvDzye9RR38PWmaCBBcwKHyyFz4D

Yeeee Haw 

[sirs]

Let's watch, and count how often opponents to this will imply some "bitterly split decision"..."RW Activism"..."a partisan divided court"...garbage like that.  The one thing you won't see anywhere is the reference to a "stinging rebuke aimed at the Anti-gun lobby"

But I'd have to also say.......IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME they ruled on this issue

[sirs]

shhhhhhhhhh




 

[Michael Tee]

<<Let's watch, and count how often opponents to this will imply some "bitterly split decision"..."RW Activism"..."a partisan divided court"...garbage like that. >>

It WAS a 5-4 split, wasn't it?  That's hardly a ringing judicial endorsement.  Given the presence of a clown like Clarence Thomas on that bench, who basically isn't qualified to express an opinion in that company, I'd say the whole thing is a travesty.  And I'm not an anti-gun fanatic, my dad owned a handgun and a double-barreled shotgun and carefully showed me how to handle, care for and shoot both of them.   Like most Canadians, I chose not to have firearms in the home, primarily for safety-related reasons.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If you have a gun in your home, statistically the most likely person to be shot with it is....YOU!

[Amianthus]

If you have a gun in your home, statistically the most likely person to be shot with it is....YOU!

Only if you manipulate the statistics.

[Plane]

stare decisis

baby!








http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis

http://www.rbs2.com/overrule.pdf

[Xavier_Onassis]

Only if you manipulate the statistics.
===============
Naturally, you have a fresh set of non-manipulated statistics handy that you will show us.

This isn't a victory for freedom unless we use our nice new guns to overthrow the government, is it?
Shouldn't we at least have a go at it, just to make sure it is possible to bring down the government.

Maybe if the NRA could call for an attack and just wound Cheney a little, it could lift our spirits.
No one likes the creep.

[Amianthus]

Naturally, you have a fresh set of non-manipulated statistics handy that you will show us.

Nah, I'll just point out the problems with yours. 'Course, you haven't provided any yet.

[Xavier_Onassis]

We will all be freer and able to overthrow the government now that we can all be armed and dangerous.

[sirs]

with appropriate modification
<<Let's watch, and count how often opponents to this will imply some "bitterly split decision"..."RW Activism"..."a partisan divided court"...garbage like that. >>

It WAS a 5-4 split, wasn't it?  That's hardly a ringing judicial endorsement <on civilian courts for terrorist suspects>.  Given the presence of a clown like <Ruth Bader Ginsberg> on that bench, who basically isn't qualified to express an opinion in that company, I'd say the whole thing is a travesty.  And I'm not an anti-torture fanatic

[Universe Prince]

This isn't a victory for freedom unless we use our nice new guns to overthrow the government, is it?

I don't know why you would think so.

[Michael Tee]

MT:  <<It WAS a 5-4 split, wasn't it?  That's hardly a ringing judicial endorsement.  Given the presence of a clown like Clarence Thomas on that bench, who basically isn't qualified to express an opinion in that company, I'd say the whole thing is a travesty.  And I'm not an anti-gun fanatic,>>


sirs:  <<It WAS a 5-4 split, wasn't it?  That's hardly a ringing judicial endorsement <on civilian courts for terrorist suspects>.  Given the presence of a clown like <Ruth Bader Ginsberg> on that bench, who basically isn't qualified to express an opinion in that company, I'd say the whole thing is a travesty. >>
========================================================================
RUTH BADER GINSBURG (please note spelling of last name)
from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
- 13 yrs. as Fed judge
- ACLU General Counsel
- Professor of Law, Rutgers U. Law School
- Prof. of Law, Columbia U. Law School
- tied for 1st in her class at Columbia Law School
- Columbia Law Review
- Harvard Law Review
- chief litigator of the ACLU's women's rights project, she argued several cases in SCOTUS
- confirmed 96 to 3 in US Senate

Your turn, Mr. Big Mouth:  CLARENCE THOMAS . . .

Oh yeah, and I almost forgot.  While you're at it, look this up:  No. of opinions authored by RBG; no. of opinions authored by CT.  Innarrestin.

[Amianthus]

Oh yeah, and I almost forgot.  While you're at it, look this up:  No. of opinions authored by RBG; no. of opinions authored by CT.  Innarrestin.

Justice Thomas: 131
Justice Ginsburg: 124

[Michael Tee]

Frankly, I'm surprised, but  I am sure if you look at almost all of Thomas' opinions, they are nothing more than dressed up ways of saying "I concur with______" whereas Ginsburg's would tend, as a former member of TWO Ivy League law school reviews, to be original works of legal scholarship.  She'd have no need to dress up a simple concurrence.  In any event, a detailed comparison of the two point-by-point as I suggested would easily reveal which one is the judicial scholar and which one is the clown.