Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bring your guns to DC

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 18
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 18 template Next
  • #16
    Originally posted by Zkribbler
    Nope.
    Judges decide questions of law.
    Juries decide questions of fact.
    As a jury, you have to agree to follow the law.
    Which I couldn't do, because I thought the law was unconstitutional on its face (i.e., not subject to the interpretation of anybody but myself). Hence the automatic strike.
    I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

    Comment

    • #17
      Originally posted by lord of the mark
      Thats for the District Council to decide.
      My opinion is for me to decide. I could give a fvck what the DC council thinks.
      I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

      Comment

      • #18
        Originally posted by Zkribbler


        Nope.
        Judges decide questions of law.
        Juries decide questions of fact.
        As a jury, you have to agree to follow the law.
        Not necessarily

        CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR JURY NULLIFICATION

        The Constitutions of Maryland (Art. XXIII, entire), Indiana (Art. I, sec. 19), Oregon (Art. I, sec. 16), and Georgia (Art. I sec. 1, para. 11, subsec. A), currently have provisions guaranteeing the right of jurors to "judge the law"; that is, to nullify the law.

        For example, the Georgia Constitution says: "In criminal case, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial...and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts."

        Twenty-three states currently include jury nullification provisions in their Constitutions under their sections on freedom of speech, specifically with respect to libel and sedition cases:

        Alabama (Art.I, Sec. 12); Colorado (Art.II, sec. 10); Connecticut (Art. First, sec. 7); Delaware (Art. I, sec. 5); Georgia (Art. I, sec. II, Para. 1); Kentucky (Bill of Rights, sec. 9); Louisiana (Art. XIV, sec. 9); Maine (Art. I, sec. 4); Mississippi (Art. 3, sec. 13); Missouri (Art. 1, sec. 8); Montana (Art. II, sec. 7); New Jersey (Art. I, sec. 6); New York (Art. I, sec. 8); North Dakota (Art. I, sec. 4); Oregon (Art. I, sec. 16); Pennsylvania (Art. I, sec. 7); South Carolina (Art. II, sec. 21); South Dakota (Art. VI, sec. 5); Tennessee (Art. I, sec. 19); Texas (Art. I, sec. 8); Utah (Art. I, sec. 15); Wisconsin (Art. I, sec. 3); Wyoming (Art. I, sec. 20).

        Of these, Texas, Delaware, Kentucky, North Dakota and Tennessee say that the jury is the judge of the law in libel and sedition cases, "as in all other cases."
        "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

        “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

        Comment

        • #19
          I am generallyfor guns -But I can understand letting the states. decide whatconstitutes a militia.

          Jonathan Miller
          Jon Miller-
          I AM.CANADIAN
          GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

          Comment

          • #20
            Originally posted by Zkribbler


            But remember, DC isn't a state. It's a district under the control of Congress.
            But Congress has given the DC council the authority of a legislature on many questions. Its up to congress to take that authority back, not the CofA.
            "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

            Comment

            • #21
              Originally posted by DanS


              My opinion is for me to decide. I could give a fvck what the DC council thinks.
              Fine, and you can opine that the DC Council ought to paint themselves green and play Civ3 in their pajamas. But its not up to the Court of Appeals to decide that, at least not under system.
              "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

              Comment

              • #22
                Originally posted by DanS


                My opinion is for me to decide. I could give a fvck what the DC council thinks.
                thats ok, you clearly dont believe in popular authority, letting legislative bodies decide political questions, etc.

                However many conservatives do, or at least claim to.

                Including some conservative justices on the Supreme Court.
                "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                Comment

                • #23
                  Originally posted by lord of the mark
                  thats ok, you clearly dont believe in popular authority, letting legislative bodies decide political questions, etc.


                  On the other hand, I would give serious consideration to voting to repeal the 2nd amendment. In the meantime...

                  Anyway, who cares what conservatives think? Beings as I'm not a conservative, it's no skin off my nose.
                  I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                  Comment

                  • #24
                    Originally posted by DanS


                    Anyway, who cares what conservatives think?

                    Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts, probably do.
                    "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                    Comment

                    • #25
                      Originally posted by lord of the mark


                      this isnt about we as a society have decided, but about whats constitutional. Though from what I can gather this is a pretty off the wall constitutional view, going against the explicit wording of the amendment.

                      I fail to see how the fact that an invididual right makes the collective right easier, is an argument. Surely individual ownership, limited to those subject to serve in the militia, makes the collective right easier. However an individual right, extended to those who do not serve, is not required for that.

                      As for a pre-existing individual right, that would be in English Common Law. Which every state legislature (and by extension the DC City Council) has the right to overide by statute. Or does the court intend to overrule the Uniform Commercial Code in favor of Caveat Emptor?

                      This is just judicial activism, is all it is. Legislating from the bench.


                      The 2nd Amendment is not a "collective right" that idea is anti-gun wishful thinking. Look at the actual text:

                      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.

                      Does it say "the right of militia members to keep in bear arms" ? No, it says the right of THE PEOPLE. Just like the 4th amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects..." also refers to the people. This means individual people, there is no other way to read it.

                      They only mentioned the militia as an explanation for why THE PEOPLE should have the right to bear arms. Of course it was understood then that the militia was just people taking muskets out of their barn and coming together in times of danger. There is no way they meant the National Guard, which is pretty silly.
                      Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012

                      When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah

                      Comment

                      • #26
                        Don't need to be conservative to be resistant to novel interpretations of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
                        I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                        Comment

                        • #27
                          Originally posted by lord of the mark


                          thats ok, you clearly dont believe in popular authority, letting legislative bodies decide political questions, etc.
                          Should we let local legislative bodies decide questions of freedom of speech or freedom of religion? I'm sure you'd be tickled pink seeing what kind of rulings Alabama or Utah would come up with if we just repeal the Constitution altogether.

                          But of course when the Constitution says something you like then it is a sacred document, when it says something you disagree with then it is much easier to just ignore it.
                          Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012

                          When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah

                          Comment

                          • #28
                            Originally posted by BlackCat
                            Well, if a society descides that they don't care about how many of their citicens that get killed each year because people has free acces to weapons, that is their choice. Just don't start whine when body count rises.
                            You have no idea...
                            I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                            Comment

                            • #29
                              Originally posted by DanS


                              You have no idea...
                              What I see is that there is a society that accepts that lots of its citicens are killed because guns are legal.

                              What really is crazy is that this state is based on conditions as they where some 200+ years ago.
                              With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                              Steven Weinberg

                              Comment

                              • #30
                                OzzyKP!

                                I was going to mellow my stance on gun control.. but you are right. In fact, I wonder at the legality and wisdom of limiting automatic rifles...

                                JM
                                Jon Miller-
                                I AM.CANADIAN
                                GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 18 template Next
                                Working...
                                X