For Scalia

"whoarder is tellurium" (whoarder) 02/13/2016 at 19:56 • Filed to: oppopolitics, supreme court, scalia, justice scalia

8

26

RIP Sir. We are less of a country without you.

fhrblig > whoarder is tellurium 02/13/2016 at 20:33

4

But my quality of life will be much improved without him.

Theropod > fhrblig 02/13/2016 at 22:19

2

Depends on what you believe the role of the federal government should be and whether the constitution is a dead historical document or a contract between the feds and the people that must be protected and defended.

pauljones > Theropod 02/13/2016 at 23:07

3

No, it really doesn’t. Scalia was no more of a strict constitutionalist than Trump is. If he were, he would have constantly voted to send things back down to lower courts for the states to decide for themselves on an individual basis. He would have taken the position that if the Constitution did not explicitly mention something one way or another, then it was not the place of the Supreme Court to rule on it one way or another.

Scalia did none of the above. He constantly projected his own bias, as well as his own individual ethical beliefs on non-constitutional matters, into his judgments of the cases that were out before him (funny, given his criticism of other judges for doing much the same). The man has even cited religious references in support of his socially regressive interpretations - something that is absolutely unconstitutional; the constitution itself is quite explicit on that fact. Not that that mattered to Scalia; it was an inconvenient fact for him, therefore he ignored it altogether.

In his own way, Scalia was as much of an antiquated dinosaur as Strom Thurmond. His relevance to this day and age was akin to the relevance of the North Korean government: an interesting anthropological look into a less-evolved world from years back, but little more.

The Supreme Court is better off without him.

fhrblig > Theropod 02/13/2016 at 23:08

4

No. He thought I was beneath him, and that I didn’t deserve the same protection under the law. He lumped me in with pedophiles. He believed that his personal religious beliefs trumped the connection I have with my partner, a connection that I guarantee you is every bit as spiritual as anyone else’s relationship. Despite him, I now have the recognition of the state that I am the most important person in my partners’ life and that our relationship is equal to heterosexual married couples. I’m not glad he’s dead, but I’m glad he doesn’t have the ability to harm us anymore.

Theropod > pauljones 02/13/2016 at 23:31

0

I don’t disagree and I love the comparison to Trump. Both men often wrap themselves in the constitution when it suits their purpose and ignore it when it doesn’t. Scalia’s legacy is certainly mixed, often showing a willingness to accept majority rule over individual rights when it produced the results he favored. Will the Supreme Court be better off without him? That will depend on who will be confirmed as his replacement. I’m sure that process will be entertaining.

whoarder is tellurium > fhrblig 02/13/2016 at 23:33

0

I understand what you’re saying. You have your fight, your struggles and I too have mine. I might add that you did still win big, even with Scalia in the court. It certainly took long enough though didn’t it? Congrats by the way.

In another light, I’d just like to say that I am still under attack as well, and now even more so that Scalia is gone. His spot is likely to be replaced by someone with completely opposite views on the items that I hold dear.

I and many others like myself had that ONE additional vote in the Supreme Court that kept things generally in our favor. Now, we’re left trembling in fear due to politicizing and are wondering if this is that “one time” when we might finally lose everything.

Who or what group am I representing? I am a law abiding, pro-second amendment gun owner.

Take that as you will.

fhrblig > whoarder is tellurium 02/13/2016 at 23:50

2

FWIW, I doubt you actually have anything to worry about. (Not a guarantee, just a gut feeling.) Law-abiding gun owners aren’t the problem. There’s got to be a way that we can safeguard the 2nd amendment rights of citizens and still prevent the mass shootings that everyone is weary of.

whoarder is tellurium > fhrblig 02/14/2016 at 00:07

0

Things have gotten very dicey lately. Especially since there seem to be a growing number of judges in select circuits in select anti-gun states that are not holding strict scrutiny in regards to the 2nd amendment and cases involving firearm rules/regulations.

Santiago of Escuderia Boricua > whoarder is tellurium 02/14/2016 at 08:01

1

Strict scrutiny? Oh, what well organized militia are you in?

yamahog > fhrblig 02/14/2016 at 08:55

0

“I’m not glad he’s dead, but I’m glad he doesn’t have the ability to harm us anymore.”

That really sums it up perfectly.

whoarder is tellurium > Santiago of Escuderia Boricua 02/14/2016 at 09:54

0

Did you read the rest of that sentence? I said “firearm rules/regulations.”

I’m talking about infringement upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Since we’re dealing with a constitutional right of the people... IN the constitution... lets look at how strict scrutiny applies:

“Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a “compelling governmental interest,” and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest...”

“For a court to apply strict scrutiny, the legislature must either have significantly abridged a fundamental right with the law’s enactment or have passed a law that involves a suspect classification.”

Knowing that, we have numerous state governments (NY, CA, MD, IL, etc) are introducing more and more laws that ban types of firearm or restrict firearms and firearm related items. For example: banning semi-auto firearms, banning handguns, restricting magazine capacity, restricting purchase of and amount of ammo, etc. etc.

Such state governments are unjustly classifying firearms and firearm parts under different categories and banning or restricting use while claiming that the second amendment is still being upheld.

What compelling interest does the government (in this case, state government) have to ban/restrict types of firearms (and related) that is justifiable under the second amendment right in the constitution? If governmental interest cannot be justified and the laws in question infringe upon a constitutional right, then strict scrutiny can allow such unconstitutional laws to be repealed.

Sweet Trav > whoarder is tellurium 02/14/2016 at 10:16

1

Dude,

Read up on the NFA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_…

Shit has already been decided... to a point. Now some states (originated in Montana) are claiming that the federal government doesnt have authority under the commerce clause to regulate guns under Montana House Bill 246. Once this hits even a Federal Court it will be struck down in flames.

The simple truth is, that there are no inalienable rights. Just because you have the freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

As a responsible gun owner, I’m quite tired of the lack of the regulation of Firearms in the country. The standard to carry a firearm in public is far too low. It is far to easy to purchase a gun in this country, and have no accountability for how it is stored, maintained, or transferred.

Listen, I don’t want anyone to come and take my guns, nor do I think that will that happen, but i do think that we need a better way of determining who can live up to the responsibility of owning a weapon. That’s the problem with firearms special interests groups, its all about “ Our Rights ” but never about “ Our Responsibilities ” as gun owners. Besides, if you find yourself in a situation (outside of an active combat zone) where you need more than 5 rounds, you’re a terrible shot or you’re dead anyhow.

Also, saying your “rights are under attack” is bunch of hogwash, Your rights are what the government and court tell you that they are, the rights of the people of this country have evolved over centuries, besides, if we go with a strict textual interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of rights “Arms” is an incredibly vague term. It could include everything from Sling-shots to Thermo-Nuclear Warheads.

This is the problem with Textualism, It’s lazy and doesn’t take into account the change of technology and society. If you truly believe that the right to bear arms should not be infringed, strictly speaking, We should all have nukes, and even you must see how untenable that position is.

pauljones > whoarder is tellurium 02/14/2016 at 10:33

0

Your fear is unfounded from the standpoint of sheer practicality. It would be next to impossible to enforce any of the laws that you so fear, and no one is going to waste their time and money trying to.

whoarder is tellurium > Sweet Trav 02/14/2016 at 10:43

0

The whole point is why should we allow ourselves to give in to stupid restrictions that are not defined anywhere else except by politicians?

You mentioned magazine capacity. I love it. This doesn’t help anyone and turns LAW ABIDING people into criminals if they get caught with restricted magazines and amounts of ammo. What if the federal government suddenly said that your vehicle cannot have more than a 10 gallon fuel tank and over 150 hp because the government doesn’t think that you should? You’ve been brainwashed into thinking that useless regulatory stuff like this is a good thing for gun owners.

Also, I am well aware of the NFA and GCA thereafter. I’m not happy and have never BEEN happy about any of the current restrictions that the NFA requires.

To note, I’ve already gone through the unique process of paying the $200 tax, applying for and getting approved to own a short barrel rifle. It is the most ridiculous freaking process just to own a firearm with a specific barrel length and a proper buttstock.

Then I ask myself... what have I really accomplished? I paid the federal government a tax and now the federal government knows I own one. What is the goal here?

whoarder is tellurium > pauljones 02/14/2016 at 10:45

0

Well, if you could please ask the politicians and special interest groups to stop attempting such things, then that would be great.

Sweet Trav > whoarder is tellurium 02/14/2016 at 10:53

1

So Nukes for everyone then?

That’s pretty much what you’re saying.

You’re not a responsible gun owner, you’re an Anarchist.

whoarder is tellurium > Sweet Trav 02/14/2016 at 11:02

0

Thats a pretty big accusation there calling me an anarchist. I also see you’ve stealthily re-worked HALF of your original post. That’s great.

I’m for conservation of freedom, the ideals that built this country and rights guaranteed by the constitution. I’m for limited government. Our constitutional rights were written up by our founding fathers and I have no issues with them to date.

Sweet Trav > whoarder is tellurium 02/14/2016 at 11:28

1

Ok, Well if you believe that, The 10th amendment gives the states the power to ban whatever they damn well please, including certain types of arms, alcohol, Sex-acts, etc...

But in your fantasy world the state, or the federal government does not have the ability to regulate “arms” so individual citizens get Nukes and Anti-Tank Weapons?

What I’m trying to get you to understand is that the 2nd amendment is too vague to be enforced as written. That a document over 200 years old does not have all the answers for our modern problems.

I’m not just an armchair philosopher, I have a degree in Public Law and Government.

whoarder is tellurium > Sweet Trav 02/14/2016 at 11:48

0

Sure. I’d love to own a Davey Crockett:

If you agree that we can keep the laws and regs in place that we have right now, then that’d be my compromise to you. Instead, there’s an ongoing rush to do more and more against the gun and not the people causing the crime behind the gun.

Also, I’ll be sure to never live in any one of the select states that have enacted their own strict gun control. At least I still have that freedom.

Sweet Trav > whoarder is tellurium 02/14/2016 at 11:52

0

You don’t see any issue with private citizens owning nuclear weapons?

#whatiswrongwithyougunnuts

whoarder is tellurium > Sweet Trav 02/14/2016 at 12:00

0

To be honest, that’s the worst possible example to use as an argument for restrictions on firearms. Infact, a nuke is not even a firearm, it’s an explosive device capable of mass destruction.

I’d need ISIS oil money to own one anyways.

Sweet Trav > whoarder is tellurium 02/14/2016 at 12:22

0

And a well trained person with an AR-15 rifle and some beta mags could murder 200 unarmed people in the right circumstances.

I don’t see a difference.

whoarder is tellurium > Sweet Trav 02/14/2016 at 12:30

0

A nuke takes out multiple city blocks killing thousands and thousands of people and leaves the land uninhabitable in one det. Only terrorists and governments have the ability to fund, build and use them.

Yet you don’t see a difference? You said you have a background in public law and government too? That’s truly scary and the reason why I’M scared.

Sweet Trav > whoarder is tellurium 02/14/2016 at 12:52

1

The number of death associated with nuclear weapons is directly associated to population density. If you blow up Interior, SD which only has 94 residents, you’re not going to kill thousands of people. And if exploded as an air burst (where nuclear weapons are most effective) it wont render the area uninhabitable. (Hiroshima and Nagasaki are perfectly habitable)

You’re right that only well funded terrorists and governments have the ability to fund, build and use them (I would imagine that people with immense wealth could also build them, and once complete would have a bargaining chip against the government, but i digress.) The difference between Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Firearms used for the purpose of a mass shooting (Take an AR-15 with a beta mag for example) is that they can purchased, without a license, no requirement of safe storage, no requirement of mental health, physical fitness, or proficiency, by pretty much anyone, including poorly funded terrorists. Which we have seen in this country time and time again.

I’m done standing idly by while THOUSANDS of people are killed, just because of one awkwardly worded, vague, misinterpreted, sentence in a 200 year old document says “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.”

With every right, there is a responsibility. All the gun lobby wants is to “protect people’s rights”, while never holding them to the high levels of responsibility that one rightly should have to be able to own an object with the sole purpose of erasing an individual from this earth.

whoarder is tellurium > Sweet Trav 02/14/2016 at 13:19

0

You definitely blew up this conversation with feelings and common repetitive spew. This whole thread had NOTHING to do with nuclear weapons until you brought it up.

Now you’re comparing death tolls and statistics from each event. Classy.

Please, continue to do what you do. You’re the reason why we have to be ever vigilant and protect what little recognized rights that we still have left.

Sweet Trav > whoarder is tellurium 02/14/2016 at 13:24

1

Hahaha. Good luck with that. A rifle does little against public opinion.