Gun ban deemed unconstitutional - Page 2 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 29th, 2010, 02:29 PM   #21
3stratman
Let's Go Red Wings!
 
3stratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Location: Michigan
Posts: 710
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Why does 5-4 surprise anyone? 5 conservatives and 4 liberals sit on the bench. We all know which way they lean on issues like gun control and ownership. It would be more of a surprise if a few of the Justices bucked the trend and leaned opposite of their usual position.
3stratman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old June 29th, 2010, 02:32 PM   #22
PavementPounder
I am the law.
 
PavementPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Birmingham, Michigan 48009
Posts: 29,824
iTrader: (224)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yota Bill View Post
The Constitution is to limit the power of the Federal Govt., and anything not expressly granted to the feds falls to the states to decide on thier own, for themselves.
I think that is just one protection it provides. Protecting us from "ourselves" (sovereign States) is another.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yota Bill View Post
Why would one state fight another over any law a state made for itself, if it does not affect the other states?

Who says any given State law won't have an affect any of the other States? Don't take this to mean that I am happy with how the Federal Government is handling things, but if this country was left to be managed solely by the States, it would have fallen the fukc apart already. It would turn into a bunch of Irans, Iraqs, and Turkeys with an Israel and maybe a France in there somewhere.
PavementPounder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2010, 02:56 PM   #23
Yota Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 08-24-08
Location: Morrice, Mi
Posts: 3,229
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PavementPounder View Post
I think that is just one protection it provides. Protecting us from "ourselves" (sovereign States) is another.





Who says any given State law won't have an affect any of the other States? Don't take this to mean that I am happy with how the Federal Government is handling things, but if this country was left to be managed solely by the States, it would have fallen the fukc apart already. It would turn into a bunch of Irans, Iraqs, and Turkeys with an Israel and maybe a France in there somewhere.
Yea, I agree with that, but basically, as I see it anyway, as long as the fed is there to keep the states united in some ways, such as standardized cash system, recognizing drivers licenses from other states so interstate travel is not restricted, etc, then the states should be allowed to decide for themselves what is and is not allowed within their own borders. I definately think both state and federal govt is needed, and that niether would work worth a shit on its own. Federal should be more generalized, and the states should be more specifics.
Yota Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2010, 03:21 PM   #24
Ebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: MI
Posts: 3,362
iTrader: (8)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yota Bill View Post
Yea, I agree with that, but basically, as I see it anyway, as long as the fed is there to keep the states united in some ways, such as standardized cash system, recognizing drivers licenses from other states so interstate travel is not restricted, etc, then the states should be allowed to decide for themselves what is and is not allowed within their own borders. I definately think both state and federal govt is needed, and that niether would work worth a shit on its own. Federal should be more generalized, and the states should be more specifics.
I would categorized the Constitution as one of those ways that keep the states united, those individual freedoms it provides to all. In other words, the constitution is supreme law and not to be infringed upon (by any level of government). Otherwise, the states could walk all over the bill of rights and the rest of the constitution. Now, if a state chose to succeed from the union that would be a different situation as the constitution would not longer apply.

Wikipedia:
Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Last edited by Ebs; June 29th, 2010 at 03:31 PM.
Ebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2010, 08:43 PM   #25
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,561
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

I have seen it typed incorrectly a couple of times in this thread.

It is SECESSION and SECEDE, not succession and succeed.

Figured with such a heavy topic as a possible civil war tearing this country apart again, you would at least want to get that particular word correct. Then you would SUCCEED in getting your point about SECESSION across.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2010, 10:23 PM   #26
Yota Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 08-24-08
Location: Morrice, Mi
Posts: 3,229
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
I have seen it typed incorrectly a couple of times in this thread.

It is SECESSION and SECEDE, not succession and succeed.

Figured with such a heavy topic as a possible civil war tearing this country apart again, you would at least want to get that particular word correct. Then you would SUCCEED in getting your point about SECESSION across.
its still not a spelling bee...everyone understood the intent and meaning , and thats all that really matters here
Yota Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2010, 10:30 PM   #27
Yota Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 08-24-08
Location: Morrice, Mi
Posts: 3,229
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebs View Post
I would categorized the Constitution as one of those ways that keep the states united, those individual freedoms it provides to all. In other words, the constitution is supreme law and not to be infringed upon (by any level of government). Otherwise, the states could walk all over the bill of rights and the rest of the constitution. Now, if a state chose to succeed from the union that would be a different situation as the constitution would not longer apply.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...Bill_of_Rights
Yes, I agree with that as well, and understand what your saying. Like I said earlier, I'm kinda torn on this one...one one hand, uphold the rights of the citizens of this country, on the other hand, uphold the states right to decide for themselves over the fed gvt telling the states what they can and cannot do...I normally side with what I see to be to the letter of the law (constitution or BoR) but I can see how this can be upheld and fought against, by both sides, with the same documents.

I think I would have to side with 2A on this one though.
Yota Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2010, 11:00 PM   #28
Kolin_Kapitalist
Member
 
Kolin_Kapitalist's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-24-10
Location: Clarkston
Posts: 53
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Why can't anyone own a firearm anywhere?

"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"

The bill of rights is the supreme authority over all law last time i checked...

O thats rights, No one gives a shit about the constitution. Hence why it's completely useless and we plague ourselves with stupid questions like these.
Kolin_Kapitalist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2010, 08:14 AM   #29
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,115
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolin_Kapitalist View Post
The bill of rights is the supreme authority over all law last time i checked...
This is exactly what is being discussed. The bill of rights is not, in fact, "the supreme authority over all law", not if you understand the original intent of the constitution.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2010, 11:26 AM   #30
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,115
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
I have seen it typed incorrectly a couple of times in this thread.

It is SECESSION and SECEDE, not succession and succeed.

Figured with such a heavy topic as a possible civil war tearing this country apart again, you would at least want to get that particular word correct. Then you would SUCCEED in getting your point about SECESSION across.
Why do think it has to end in secession and/or civil war?

Nullification does work and is being used today without a shot fired or any state leaving the union. The Federal govt' doesn't have the man power to enforce Federal laws without the states co-operation.

In addition, there is the option of an Article V constitutional convention called by the states.

Sucession would be an absolute last resort, on the same level as the Feds declaring martial law. Neither are forbiden by the constitution, but either would lead to a dark day in American history.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2010, 01:19 PM   #31
Just a Spouse
Motrcytman's spouse
 
Just a Spouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Lake View, AL
Posts: 7,143
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3stratman View Post
Why does 5-4 surprise anyone? 5 conservatives and 4 liberals sit on the bench. We all know which way they lean on issues like gun control and ownership. It would be more of a surprise if a few of the Justices bucked the trend and leaned opposite of their usual position.
Because, being able to bear arms is a constitutional right. It shouldn't be a division along party lines. Sometimes, it is cut and dried. Owning firearms is one of those (to me)....
Just a Spouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 12:14 AM   #32
Stan
I got a gold chain
 
Stan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Shelby Twp.
Posts: 15,699
iTrader: (8)
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlatFender View Post
Stan, is your last name Daley, or Bloomberg?
Guns kill kids, you want dead kids running around your neighborhood killing other kids? I sure don't.

This is very scary stuff. It will be the wild west all over again.
Stan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 04:40 AM   #33
Yota Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 08-24-08
Location: Morrice, Mi
Posts: 3,229
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan View Post
Guns kill kids, you want dead kids running around your neighborhood killing other kids? I sure don't.

This is very scary stuff. It will be the wild west all over again.
so, if one person (or kid) decides to kill another, they must use a gun? They cannot use a knife from the kitchen, a baseball bat from the school, or any one of a thousand different tools from the garage?

A gun is a tool, no different then a knife or car. Both of those tools also kill people, should they be banned as well?
You cannot blame the tool for the decisions of the user. The person using the tool is the killer, not the tool.
Yota Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 07:29 AM   #34
FlatFender
Tap Tap Splat
 
FlatFender's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 15,782
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yota Bill View Post
so, if one person (or kid) decides to kill another, they must use a gun? They cannot use a knife from the kitchen, a baseball bat from the school, or any one of a thousand different tools from the garage?

A gun is a tool, no different then a knife or car. Both of those tools also kill people, should they be banned as well?
You cannot blame the tool for the decisions of the user. The person using the tool is the killer, not the tool.
Let it go dude. The sarcasm was pretty thick, and you missed it.
FlatFender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 07:37 AM   #35
curt1656
Praise the lowered
 
curt1656's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-26-07
Location: WTFWJD?
Posts: 2,917
iTrader: (24)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Sweeeet! Now I'm going to shoot some island beach bum ballers!
curt1656 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 09:01 AM   #36
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,115
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just a Spouse View Post
Because, being able to bear arms is a natural right. It shouldn't be a division along party lines. Sometimes, it is cut and dried. Owning firearms is one of those (to me)....
fixed it for you.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 12:04 PM   #37
mudviper
getting dirty
 
mudviper's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-22-06
Location: Flint
Posts: 802
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via Yahoo to mudviper
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yota Bill View Post
so, if one person (or kid) decides to kill another, they must use a gun? They cannot use a knife from the kitchen, a baseball bat from the school, or any one of a thousand different tools from the garage?

A gun is a tool, no different then a knife or car. Both of those tools also kill people, should they be banned as well?
You cannot blame the tool for the decisions of the user. The person using the tool is the killer, not the tool.
If you had a choice in front of you to either use a gun, knife, or bat, which would you choose?

A gun is a little bit harder to defend yourself against. A kid can probably run away a bit easier from someone coming at them with a knife or a bat, but it is kind of hard to out run a bullet..lol.
mudviper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 12:40 PM   #38
High Center Hancho
rack tap re-rack click
 
High Center Hancho's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-10-07
Location: Genesee County
Posts: 13,091
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yota Bill View Post
so, if one person (or kid) decides to kill another, they must use a gun? They cannot use a knife from the kitchen, a baseball bat from the school, or any one of a thousand different tools from the garage?

A gun is a tool, no different then a knife or car. Both of those tools also kill people, should they be banned as well?
You cannot blame the tool for the decisions of the user. The person using the tool is the killer, not the tool.
I say ban all guns..people that own them have proven they cannot control them, or keep track of them...they get stolen all the time and I blame the gun owners for that
High Center Hancho is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.36228 seconds with 76 queries