supreme court rules again (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Pennsylvania Boards] >> Off Topic Discussions - Pennsylvania



Message

ROCKHARD -> supreme court rules again (6/25/2008 8:35:54 PM)

ok salty,and all who want to comment,,, yesterday supreme court voted against death penalty for child rape offenders,cause punishment doesnt meet crime,,,,so here is the ruling meaning,,, the child must live the rest of their life devastated  by this rapist,but the courts defend the rapist against death,,, vote: 5-4, how they voted : 4 liberal judges,1 moderate judge for the ruling,, 4 conservative judges against ruling,,,.... tomorrow they vote on our rights to own guns,,, first this shouldnt even be an issue, our second ammendment right,, obama is quoted as saying in his campaign speech,;; he is not against the rights of hunters to own guns,,, first that isnt what the second ammendment is for,its for all citizens to own and bare arms,,nothing about just hunting,,, nancy pelosi(dem) ,majority leader in congress,,is pushing a bill called media fairness doctrine,,which will shutdown conservative talk radio,, now first, thats against freedom of speech and press,,, second,it doesnt affect liberal news networks such as tv's big networks,or liberal press such as the new york times,,, see govt hands are tied because of talk radio bringing to the public what is going on in washington,,no other news media will attempt to inform the public,, with talk radio dead,govt can push any agenda they want without you even aware of it,cause major news networks are in bed with liberal agendas,,, and will not tell you the truth of your govt,,,, rush,hannity,and others get bashed for what they do,,but there is nothing they say that you cant look up and prove ,, they bash both parties when they go astray,,, dont bash them unless you listen everyday, that is our only defense against a govt run amuke ,and they know it,even a few republicans are said to jump aboard,, cant shutdown one without shutting down them all...



rapala11 -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/25/2008 9:35:23 PM)

"which will shutdown conservative talk radio,,"

if it will shut up rush limbaugh for good, then i will be happy........lol.........truth be told, i wish she would run away with him.

"govt can push any agenda they want without you even aware of it,cause major news networks are in bed with liberal agendas,,, and will not tell you the truth of your govt,,,, "

major news is in bed with the gov.  how many flagged draped caskets of iraqi casualties have you seen?  how many wounded gis have you seen being medi-vaced by chopper have you seen?  it was all there during the nam years and it helped bring the war to a close.  i think we may being seeing censorship. 
                                                                                                                            "rush,hannity,and others get bashed for what they do,,but there is nothing they say that you cant look up and prove ,, they bash both parties when they go astray,,,"

rock, cmon, they both hate, absolutely hate anything removed from the neocon agenda.  rush is the most hateful man on the airwaves, in fact the only one more disgusting is mann coulter.  but both of these clowns are biased.  listen to npr or the bbc for honest news.  cnn, nbc and cbs have all become dilluted, no longer left leaning as in the past.



saltflyfisher -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/25/2008 9:52:41 PM)

Rock you continue to try to find someone on your side w/ your views. Is the death pen. needed for these cases, sure. But there is a better way, thing of "eye for a eye". He'll get his and hopefully from someone quite large. W/ the death pen. he lives forever on our backs w/ food and housing, now maybe he'll live a very short life. The is no caring for a child molester, and the other inmates will make his life a living hell.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up the courts ruling on the gitmo prisoners. Never mind to many conservatives voted against bush' believes. You are so one sided it's not even a contest w/ you.

It has got to be tough for you to wake up every morning and hate. You really need to find another country to go to, because obviously this one doesn't suit you.



gobyking -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/25/2008 10:12:48 PM)

Hey,I just got back from doing 4 different errands and you're still at this on another string.Want it to end,DON'T RESPOND.Politics sucks to talk about because you'll never change someone else's view who thinks they're the right one all the time.Hopefully,none of the know-it-all's that post all the time(of course not you 3 above) will continue this boring sh!t!!



rapala11 -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/25/2008 11:03:40 PM)

Politics sucks to talk about because you'll never change someone else's view who thinks they're the right one

goby, i say it with all honesty, but you are right. 



saltflyfisher -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/26/2008 6:03:03 AM)

Ever have fun just egging someone on to the next level.



doubletaper -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/26/2008 10:26:31 AM)

, rush,hannity,and others get bashed for what they do,,but there is nothing they say that you cant look up and prove

that's the difference between conservitive talk show hosts and the "in your face" disillusioned, unfactual liberals! they talk but have no proof most of the time. it's mostly speculation.

rush, hannity and the others are bias in their respect, the diffence is they don't claim to be a news jounerlist or news anchors on the general news of the day, like nbc, cbs, cnn. 
rush and the others have their own shows and comment whats going on in the world. yes they speculate themselves but it's their show.
our general news stations, abc,nbc,cbs etc. is very bias on what they want you to see and hear according to their agenda. people are tired of hearing just the discuraging news they promote and want honest reporting good and bad. the war is a good example of how the news and press ONLY tell the bad part and refused to tell the good the soldiers are doing.



rapala11 -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/26/2008 10:37:53 AM)

the war is a good example of how the news and press ONLY tell the bad part and refused to tell the good the soldiers are doing.


dt, the news is blocked.  big difference in reporting between iraq and nam.  we shouldn't be over there at all.  iraq, i mean.  also, tom delay (disgraced republican) now works for cnn as a political analyst.  they all sleep in the same bed.  only the eccentrics, rush, hannity, oberman, spew biases.  the others report what they are told to report.  that is a fact.  npr and bbc....factual.  



spoonchucker -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/26/2008 4:26:08 PM)

I have been pleasantly suprised by this court. I basically agree with all of their last three "major" findings. Those very far to the left, OR right might take issue with at least one of these rulings, but they appear quite centrist to me, and reasonable interpretations of the constitution, and rule of law.

This court seems pretty well balanced, and I am concerned A BIT, over the next appointee whether that appointment comes from Obama, Or McCain. I am more concerned that another Bush type appointee would push it dramatically to the right, than I am over an Obama pick pushing it too far left. Alot would depend on WHICH cuurent justice were being replaced, but I would prefer to see no major shift in any direction.



CATMAN610 -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/26/2008 5:42:42 PM)

Forget all the radio hosts anyway,,and just listen to Howard Stern.

BA,BA,BOEY,,,,BA,BA,BOEY



ROCKHARD -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/26/2008 10:02:29 PM)

SPOON, I HAVE TO TAKE ISSUE ON YOUR COMMENT ABOUT APPOINTEES,,, TODAYS VOTE ON 2ND AMMENDMENT FOR EXAMPLE,5-4 VOTE,DOWN PARTY LINES,  AGAIN ,KENNEDY A DECISION VOTE,HE IS A MODERATE, 4/CONSERVATIVE FOR YOUR RIGHT AND 4/LIBERAL AGAINST YOUR RIGHT TO OWN GUNS,, THIS SHOULDNT BE NO SURPRISE BUT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WAS ALMOST OVERTURNED BY 1 VOTE,, AND YOU THINK THAT WAS GOOD,, IF KENNEDY HAD A BAD NITE,, YOUR GUNS WOULD BE LOST OVER 4 LIBERAL JUDGES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT,,, WHY SHOULD IT EVEN BE VOTED ON,,ITS IN OUR CONSTITUTION ,NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BE RIGHT OR LEFT...AGAIN YOUR RIGHT WING THINKING IS OFF BASE,, UNLESS YOU DONT CARE ABOUT THAT RIGHT. I WAS TOLD ABOUT MY HATRED AGAINST LIBERALS,WELL I THINK YOU AND ALL LIBERAL THINKING POSTERS ON HERE OUGHT TO LOOK TOWARD YOUR SELF ,CAUSE EVERYTHING YOU GUYS OPOST IS BUSH HATRED, AND CONSERVATIVE HATRED,,I VALUE MY COUNTRIES CONSTITUTION ,AND CANT SIT BY WHILE THE FAR LEFT LIBERALS,WANT TO TEAR IT APART TO PUSH A MARXIST TYPE AGENDA, SOCIALISM NEVER WORKED NO WHERE ELSE,WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT WILL WORK HERE.. SO BEFORE YOU ACCUSE ME OF HATRED,LOOK BACK OVER YOUR POSTS,



spoonchucker -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/26/2008 10:37:33 PM)

 "WHY SHOULD IT EVEN BE VOTED ON,,ITS IN OUR CONSTITUTION ,NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BE RIGHT OR LEFT...AGAIN YOUR RIGHT WING THINKING IS OFF BASE,,"

Once again, you show that you don't "truly believe" in our system. Only when it goes YOUR way.

Because it is the supreme courts's JOB to rule on what the constitution ACTUALLY says, and the INTENT of the founding fathers. The constitution NO WHERE specifically states the right of INDIVIDUAL gun ownership. Thus it took a ruling such as this, where the court interpreted that it was the intent of the founding fathers to include individual right, with the collective right ( IE: regulated militias ). The founding fathers recognized that could not foresee all that might come in the future, nor specically adress EVERY contingency. That is why they created the court (supreme), and it's role. As well as provisions for AMENDING the constitution itself.

Some thoughts on the constitution, and it's constucters, BY one of the contructers:

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -- Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution

"That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead; that those who exist not can have no use nor right in it, no authority or power over it; that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burden its use to another, which comes to it in its own right and by the same divine beneficence; that a preceding generation cannot bind a succeeding one by its laws or contracts; these deriving their obligation from the will of the existing majority, and that majority being removed by death, another comes in its place with a will equally free to make its own laws and contracts; these are axioms so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer." -- Thomas Jefferson to T. Earle, 1823.



rapala11 -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/27/2008 8:40:51 AM)

wasn't stevens appointed by reagan?



kevinupp -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/27/2008 10:24:35 AM)

Scalia and Kennedy by Reagan
Roberts and Alito by G.W. Bush
Stevens by Ford
Souter and Thomas by G.H.W. Bush
Ginsburg and Breyer by Clinton



pghmarty -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/27/2008 10:38:00 AM)

quote:

Roberts and Alito by G.W. Bush

[image]http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c20/pghmarty/fishusa/LibertyBush.jpg[/image]



Inukshuk -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/27/2008 12:38:03 PM)

kevin, I think it is important to look at the congress that was in place when these appointees were voted in.  



Inukshuk -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/27/2008 12:46:00 PM)

Although I am happy with, and agree with the ruling of the supreme court, I think it is unfortunate that organizations such as the NRA are going to use this ruling to fight against local gun restriction laws. 



spoonchucker -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/27/2008 1:11:47 PM)

Inuk,

THe President nominates, but it requires senate confirmation. It ( I'm sure ) was INTENDED to keep radicals, left, or right off the top bench, but most still tend to lean in the direction of the nominating party. One of the better moves by the founding fathers. The court, isn't error free, but in the long run they tend to get it right, and it has worked rather successfully for over 200 years. More successfully than any other system before, or since.

As for the NRA challenging local laws. Some of them NEED challenged, and will likely be struck down. There will also be attempts by more radical elements to challenge any, and all restrictions. It will be interesting to see how much support these efforts get from the NRA. I suspect, that having the "slippery slope" arguement removed, they will be a little closer to center.



Over the Hill -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/27/2008 1:38:15 PM)

Section 21. PA constitution. PA's founding fathers were much clearer than US 2nd amendment. No commas in that amendment.

http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html



spoonchucker -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/27/2008 1:48:25 PM)

You're right OH. Also when it comes to challenges of state , or local law, whichever constitution, ( state, or US ) the one which affords the greatest right, trumps the other. This doesn't necessarily apply to challenges of federal law though.



MuskyMastr -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/27/2008 2:20:17 PM)

Which is why what has happend in Filthadelphia is illegal and those who wrote and passed those laws should be jailed.



Over the Hill -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/27/2008 2:24:36 PM)

Spoon, I agree. Funny how Philly was pondering banning handguns (don't know if it passed or not). More feel good, do nothing illegal legislation.

I am a firm believer in enforcing the laws on the books to keep criminals off the streets. LESS plea bargaining because the courts are backed up. Institute more judges. Expand community service. He!!, start up the chain gangs again. Publish court reports in the newspapers of who did what. A little community humiliation will still work with some families. Lord knows when I was growing up and I did something wrong the courts punishment would have been a vacation compared to what my father AND mother would give me.

(Post was delayed, Musky---I agree )



Inukshuk -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/27/2008 8:39:06 PM)

"but most still tend to lean in the direction of the nominating party"

Spoon, that is why I made that comment.



dpms -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/29/2008 11:17:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Inukshuk

Although I am happy with, and agree with the ruling of the supreme court, I think it is unfortunate that organizations such as the NRA are going to use this ruling to fight against local gun restriction laws. 


What, you are happy with the decision but still feel that a local govt. should be able to prevent me from owning a pistol in my house for self defense?



S-10 -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/29/2008 12:44:58 PM)

The only ones the NRA are going to fight (or at least win) are the gun laws that are illegal according to law. Many cities have passed or tried to pass gun laws knowing full they wouldn't stand up to a court challenge even before this decision. They had the attitude that the NRA and like organizations didn't have the money or manpower to fight them all. Chicago is a prime example--Mayor Daley has already said he isn't going to change their restrictions even though they won't stand up in court. The NRA will have to spend time and money to beat him but they both know Daley will lose.



Inukshuk -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/29/2008 9:03:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpms

quote:

ORIGINAL: Inukshuk

Although I am happy with, and agree with the ruling of the supreme court, I think it is unfortunate that organizations such as the NRA are going to use this ruling to fight against local gun restriction laws. 


What, you are happy with the decision but still feel that a local govt. should be able to prevent me from owning a pistol in my house for self defense?


No, just that local government should be able to place and enforce gun restrictions.  Removing guns from the household was not implicit in my statement, but I guess you can read into it any way you want.



dpms -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 7:38:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Inukshuk

No, just that local government should be able to place and enforce gun restrictions.  Removing guns from the household was not implicit in my statement, but I guess you can read into it any way you want.


Restricting my rights further was implicit in your statement, and assuming you are a sportsman,  is disappointing.



Inukshuk -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 12:03:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpms

quote:

ORIGINAL: Inukshuk

No, just that local government should be able to place and enforce gun restrictions.  Removing guns from the household was not implicit in my statement, but I guess you can read into it any way you want.


Restricting my rights further was implicit in your statement, and assuming you are a sportsman,  is disappointing.


Your assumption is correct, I am a sportsman, although I do not hunt.  That does not mean I am against it, just never got into it.

Gun restrictions are not restrictions to your right to own and use a gun, just a small step, hopefully in a multi-lateral approach towards fighting crime.  What's disappointing is that you are not willing to sacrifice a little of your time while authorities conduct background checks etc.. to ensure that guns are going to honest citizens and not criminals.  I am not referring to any antigun laws like you implied in your original response to my statement.



dpms -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 12:46:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Inukshuk

Gun restrictions are not restrictions to your right to own and use a gun, just a small step, hopefully in a multi-lateral approach towards fighting crime.  What's disappointing is that you are not willing to sacrifice a little of your time while authorities conduct background checks etc.. to ensure that guns are going to honest citizens and not criminals.  I am not referring to any antigun laws like you implied in your original response to my statement.


Lets clarify,  I am a sportsman and a gun owner that believes in our second ammendment.  I am also willing to sacrifice some of my time to make sure that criminals and those that are mentally unstable are not allowed to own firearms.  I believe that the thousands of gun laws on the books already do just that. 

The high court decision had nothing to do with keeping guns out of the hands of people that should not own them.  That law kept guns out of law abiding citizens hands that want to protect themselves, which is thier right. 

The gun laws that will exist shortly, after the changes that will be made after this decision, I am in agreement with. 

Further gun laws sold under the headlines "reasonable" and "common sense" will only restrict the rights of honest citizens.  If you are not educated on the gun laws, guns themselves, and the many uses of certain firearms,  doe yourself a favor and research them before you throw you support behind them.  Provided you believe in the second ammendment.

Sponsors of new gun restrictions have one agenda in mind.  Preventing the legal ownership of firearms by citizens of this great country.  Do not be fooled with the sales pitch.

As a sportsman who has many peers that enjoy hunting and shooting you should be more supportive of our rights and educate yourself before you imply that further restrictions are necessary.



Bughawk -> RE: supreme court rules again (6/30/2008 12:50:57 PM)

As a sportsman, hunter and gun owner, I believe that some common sense laws dealing with guns are not anti-gun owner or against the second amendment.  Laws that deal with safety are necessary.  Just think about the rules you must follow to use most shooting ranges.  Most all ranges require you to wear hearing protection, eye protection, keep your gun pointed down range, to have some form of notification when the range is being used and when you can retrieve targets, etc...  The rules are there to protect those using the range, but they are not in anyway restricting your right to owner or use a gun.

Step into the community and I think you can see that some simple safety laws make sense.  For example, in my borough it is illegal to discharge a firearm.  Why?  Because most of the houses are close to each other and shooting a gun posses a significant hazard.  You can own your gun, carry your gun around your property, but you cannot discharge the gun.  Obviously it there were a pressing need to do so, most people would discharge the firearm, but that need would have to be pretty significant to override the rule of not firing the weapon.

Laws about transporting firearms are also not unreasonable if safety and making the commission of a crime more difficult.  For examples, carrying a loaded weapon while spotting deer.  As a hunter, I have no problem with that law.  There is no reason to have loaded weapon in your vehicle when spotting deer.

One last thing to think about.  Most of the arguments I hear for keeping loaded handguns around is self defense and personal safety.  The idea is that if I have a gun, I am secure and safe.  Security and safety deal with threats.  The idea that gun provides security assumes that there is a threat where a person must use deadly force to defend themselves.  There is no guarantee that a gun will do that.  Should the occasion arise that you would need to use the gun, you have first determined that the gun is necessary.  Second you need to have the gun available, loaded and ready to fire.  Third you have be sure that if you fire at the person who is the threat, you are not endangering innocent bystanders.  Fourth if you do fire at the person you need to hit them.  Fifth you need to keep firing until the threat is gone, i.e. the person is disabled or dead.  One mistake along the way, and you could misjudge the situation, shoot someone whom you did not intend to shoot, and even miss the person threatening you and end up in worse shape with that person injuring or killing you.  What I am saying is, having a gun without the proper training and some luck on your side, can lead to a false sense of security.

On the other hand when thinking about security and safety, having a gun, particularly a loaded gun, posses a significant risk to you and those around you.  I don't care how safe you think you are, no gun is 100% safe.  Accidental discharges, children playing with the gun, a person who wants to commit suicide using the gun, or someone stealing the gun are all risks to your security and safety.  What I am saying is, you need to balance real threats to your safety with perceived threats.  Please honestly look at both sides of the issue.  Most statistics will bear out that people who are harmed by guns are not harmed by criminals’ intent on killing or injuring them, but rather by their own guns, or the guns of a friend or family member.  Having guns readily available increases your risk and the risk to those around you of being injured by a gun.  Is that risk worth it?

As I said before, I am not anti-gun ownership.  I own guns, love to shoot and hunt, but I also realize that guns are dangerous and need to be treated with a great deal of respect.  Before deciding to use one for your protection, you honestly should sit down and look at the chances that you will have use it to defend yourself and balance that with the potential the gun will harm an innocent person or be stolen by a criminal.  If you are truly honest, most people will realize that having a loaded gun around gives a false sense of security and safety and is not worth the risk it will do more harm than good.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>



   

0.078