Posted on 11/21/2007 8:23:17 AM PST by icehand
In an ABC NEWS report written by Ariane de Vogue and Dennis Powell there is a poll asking the question "Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision to hear a case about an individual's right to own a gun?"
For the past several years it has been clear that the MSM has been playing down “gun stories”. This has been obvious here in Florida with the lack of “outrage” stories on, for example, Virginia Tech and the police shootings in southern Miami-Dade County. This had earlier not been true, as evidenced by one columnist’s ridiculous piece on the “Stand Your Ground” law, but has only been noticeable as we get closer to election time.
Knowing the Miami Herald as I do, there is no doubt that this is connected with Clinton’s comment that anti-gun positions cost him the 1994 out-year elections.
With yesterday’s Supreme Court decision, this “stealth approach” (wait until we get elected AND THEN we ban the guns) just got blown out of the water.
Well, obviously, you seem to have a superior command of how the court system in this country works.
Good luck with that should you have to appear in one.
Yes, I do understand how it works.
I’ve been around allot longer than you.
I don’t fall for the gibberish and look for more watered down rights.
The right that is in danger is the right to protect one’s life, person and family. The Second Amendment is the means of protecting one’s self. The left wants to take this right away from us. Don’t let them.
That was precisely my first thought, too.
...From GOVERNMENT.
Don't ever forget that part.
FRegards,
LH
Agreed. There is no rational answer in the poll.
I propose a poll about ABC News.
Do you agree that...
1. ABC News is run by morons
2. ABC News is run by idiots, or
3. ABC News is run by imbeciles.
You cannot have two wildly divergent sets of case law, because to have such means that people are denied equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
There are two courts (the Fifth Circuit and the DC Court of Appeals) in this land that agree with the Founders’ plain language and intent of the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit Court’s opinion was used as precedent and has been cited in other cases.
There is one Circuit Court who has acted exactly as you have described the Left Coast acting: the Ninth Circuit Court is indeed dominated by activist judges leaping to their own preferred conclusions.
If you have paid any attention to the track record of the SCOTUS WRT to the Ninth Circuit Court, you’d know that the SCOTUS has a clear, long and hilarious track record of slapping down decision after decision that has come out of the Ninth Circuit Court, not to mention the plaintive wailing and entreaties to stop executions that used to wake Chief Justice Rhenquist at about 0245 eastern time that really used to piss off Rhenquist (and the other justices).
Prior to this case, the SCOTUS lacked a clear, well-defined and well-argued case on their docket with which to slap down the Ninth’s prior decision on RKBA. This case coming out of DC is exceptionally well formed for RKBA advocates, following all of the requirements that Don Kates had explained to me were necessary back in the 90’s, when the assault weapons “ban” was put into place, etc.
This case coming out of DC has been exceptionally well formed and argued for RKBA advocates. The DC Court of Appeals slapped down the DC gun ban. The DC government responded with a counter-argument in appeal that literally undercuts their own position. I don’t fear this case going in front of the SCOTUS the way I would have feared a great many other cases being appealed to the SCOTUS. Unlike most other RKBA cases in court, there are no criminals involved here — only law-abiding citizens petitioning for their rights. Unlike most other RKBA cases, there is a clear prohibition on all guns in DC (ie, no handguns at all, rifles/shotguns must be disassembled, rendering them non-functional and therefore an arm in only an academic sense).
It is possibly the best formed RKBA case for RKBA advocates to come before the SCOTUS in the last 50 years.
I would further NB that the NRA isn’t involved in this, so the chances of successful outcome are greatly increased.
It’s not poorly worded by accident.
Polls are designed that way, to frame the debate and determine the outcome beforehand.
Since no one has asked Hillary about gun control, it’s a good time to ask the question. Bubba has been a hunter all his life....In fact...I’d say he was trigger happy!!
The Constitution already takes care of this issue. The only real question I have here, and it’s a tough one, is do we really want people in DC to have guns? Look at the make up of the people there. DC has one of the highest crime rates in the country. At the same time, if we ban guns in in the nations capitol, will this give license to other big cities to do the same thing? Like I said, it’s a tough one.
I wish to heck that they waited for at least 1 more strict constructionist to be on the bench.
The wrong answer to the question could screw up the country more than we can ever imagine.
Since no one has asked Hillary about gun control,.....Please! Please!, I haven’t got all day!
NO, it’s their DUTY. Else they have no right to have ANY rights.
Rights may be given by God, but God leaves it to the individual to protect that which God gave him.
The justices on the US Supreme Court aren’t the final answer on our right to use and have arms. Neither is the Constitution as it merely recognizes that right, and other rights as preexisting our government.
The rights are those of free and independent American people who came together to form a government for and of free people, one that respects rights as well as sets responsibilities (pay taxes, follow the law, take care of yourselves and your children, come together for common defense, elect honest representatives, etc.).
If the court or the government infringes on our rights, we have the power and duty to correct or change that government. Our power includes the use of votes and if necessary, our arms.
“The right that is in danger is the right to protect one’s life, person and family. The Second Amendment is the means of protecting one’s self. The left wants to take this right away from us. Don’t let them.”
Bingo!
The trend has been to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to do just that. Meanwhile they water punishment DOWN for criminals.
I’d like to think that such a case, even if they were stupid enough to hear, would be decided in no time.
I agree, better to spend time on things less clear-cut. That’s the core of their duties after all.
It sure is, because about every state in the union has gerrymandered a way around the intent of the Second Amendment. Only morons and the dishonest refuse to understand it’s meaning.
Ask the ‘city dwellers’ in Chicago and DC how well those bans turn out.
They really don’t work.
[i]”Geez! People are going nuts over a decision to HEAR A CASE! Imagine what will happen where there’s an ACTUAL DECISION IN THE CASE!!”[/i]
Anytime the SCOTUS agrees to hear a case, it gives more than just and impression that the arguments on both sides are somehow legitimate. It suggests that there is [i]merit[/i] to both as well.
In this case, nothing merits taking away the individual’s right to defend themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.