Gun Ruling -- Another example of Right Wing Hypocrites

[Armstead]

A basic tenant of so-called conservative right-wingnut "principles" is the notion of states and local rights trumping the federal government.

"We want to keep negroes out our schools, and it is a matter of states rights."

"We want to keep federal regulation out of (health care, the economy, the environment, etc.) and the Constitution says the federal government has to concede to the laws of states and localities."

They also don't like "activist judges" that interfere with legislation and the right of states.

Maybe there is a valid philosophical and political principle in there somewhere.

But the right wingers seem happy to jettison their own core "principles" when they become inconvenient.

That is what just happened at the Supreme Court, by superceding the ability of states and localities to determine their own laws and policies towards firearms. They make the "Constitutional case" that the Second Amendment trumps states rights.

But the fact is that wingnuts love them guns, and they are more than happy to embrace Federal judicial activism and toss out "states rights" to uphold their God given right to own a firearm with no restrictions.

Transparently hypocritical jerks they are.

[msongs]

1. guns don't kill people - gun owners do nt

[proteus_lives]

2. Your usual dose of fail.

"gun owners do"

Try again dearie.

[louis-t]

3. So that excuses it?

A 'snappy slogan'?

[X_Digger]

5. *hurk* *hurk* *spew* adding to your greatest hits again?

"all gun owners must be required to join the militia, like the constitution says nt"
"all gun owners should be required to join the militia, as the constitution says nt"
"gun owners should be required to join the militia - "A well regulated militia being necessary..." nt"
"all gun owners must be required to join the militia, like the constitution says nt"
"are you in the militia as required by the second amendment? nt"
"you only have a right to a gun if you're in the militia per 2nd amendment nt"
"if you're in the militia you have the right to bear arms nt"


"fear of a black president nt"
"gun sales soar as first BLACK president is sworn in - gee wonder who's rushing the gun stores? nt"
" having a black president has way jackkked up gun sales. hmm wonder why? nt"
"fear of a black president + right wing media hysteria egging things on nt"
"racist gun wingnuts and fear of a black president - great for business eh gun shops? nt"
"gun whackos run amok using fear of a black president nt"
" fear of a black president run amok nt"
"fear of a black president by a group which is full of racists lol nt"
"lol sales are way up amongst the fear of a black president crowd...WAY up amongst racists nt"
"fear of a black president is doing wonders for the gun industry nt"
"did they tell you a BLACK man is now president n u should run out n buy guns? nt"
"fear of black president - go out and buy lots more guns nt"
"fear of a black president is swelling your ranks for the most part imo nt"
"driven by fear of a black president, gun sales have soared in the USA :-) nt"


"the toddler was just excercising his 2nd amendment rights IF he was in the militia nt"
"nuclear weapons are "arms". every 6 year old should have some nt"
"should be legal for 5 yr olds to carry at day care centers, after all, the constitution"
"constitutution does not prohibit 5 yr olds from owning guns. free guns for all apt. kids nt"
"guns for everyone, serial killers, 5 years olds, nut cases - constitutional rights ya know nt"
"children have a right to own and shoot guns anytime they wish. no bidg deal really nt"
"students have a constitutional right to carry guns at school...there is no age listed in the"
"all kids should be allowed to carry to school - 2nd amendment does NOT probhibit this nt"
"kids at elementary school should be allowed to carry guns, 2nd amnd. doesnt say adults only nt"
"yes the 2nd amendment allows 6 year olds to take guns to school so lets allow that too :-) nt"
"2nd amendment does not prohibit gun ownership by 8 year olds anywhere they go nt"

"crazies n nuts have a constitutional right to own and use guns too nt"
" legalize al weapons - convicted felons have a constitutional right to guns ya know nt"
"parolees, probationers, nuts, serial killers - everyone has the right to own guns . "
" the constitution does NOT bar serial killers from owning guns...or 4 year olds either nt"
"2nd amendment does NOT prohibit guns on airplanes or in the hands of criminals nt"
"2nd amendment does NOT prohibit felons or 5 year olds from owning guns nt"
"criminals have a constitutional right to carry guns on airplanes - not prevented by 2nd amendment nt"
"terrorists have a right to carry guns on planes, not prohibited by 2nd amendment. nt"
"terrorists have a 2nd amnd. right to carry guns on planes - not prohibited ya know nt"
"terroristsRKBA rights are denied when they cannot open carry on airliners nt"
"terrorists & serial killers have 2nd amendment rights too ya know. nt"
"prohibiting guns on airplanes and in schools = anti-RKBA bigotry right? nt"
"unlimited protection = terrorist RKBA rights to take guns on airplanes nt"
"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed for any reason at all ever lol nt"

"no righteous killing to get off on in this one? nt"
"let all those gangbangers shoot a bunch of kids - its their righteous killing rights nt"
"so will the resident gun lovers call this another "righteous killing"? stay tuned ..... nt"
"is this another "righteous killing" for the gun crowd to celebrate? nt"
" "another righteous shoot" ..... jesus loves u anyway nt"
"another "righteous killing" for sure - after all that's what guns are FOR nt"
"oh this one is not righteous enough for u lololol. nt"
"the righteous killings are wonderful if a gun is used crowd disagree with you nt"
"another righteous killing in gun land...oh wait, the kid didnt die....yet nt"

[virginia mountainman]

ROFLMAO!!! I need to save that one,

For future referance...

[virginia mountainman]

35. DUPE..

[Bold Lib]

36. OMG you really are keeping a greatest hits page. THAT is too funny!

[virginia mountainman]

34. That is so 1993......NT

[Bold Lib]

37. What about gun renters? Why do you discriminate against those that cannot

afford their own guns? Would you support a .gov program of grants to purchase guns for those that cannot afford their own?

[proteus_lives]

4. Even a stopped clock....

[villager]

6. And yet this tired line is almost always wrong...

...especially when hypocritically dragged out in flailing defense of the Roberts court...

[proteus_lives]

7. Not this time.

This was a great decision.

[villager]

23. Pretty much every time -- at least twice each day...

n/t

[proteus_lives]

40. Still a great decision.

[slackmaster]

8. States don't have rights. States have powers. People have rights.

HTH

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. OK, so what about the hypocrites who love people's rights and the constitution...

except when it comes to the 2nd amendment?

[Armstead]

18. Maybe there is some hypoceracy on both sides

But the right wing is more egregiously hypocritical.

I would rather everyone admit that they are willing to bend their stated principles to get what they want.

[Dank Nugs]

10. Sounds like you need to learn to "deal with it"

Yes, the second amendment does trump states rights. States Rights went out the window when the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were passed.

The 2nd should be incorporated and very much so. If you don't like it, too bad.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

22. Alerted for name-calling.

Let's keep it civil here.

[Armstead]

24. "If you don't like it, too bad." "Maybe you should learn to deal with it"

I'm all for civil...But civil is a two way street.

[PavePusher]

28. That wasn't using profanity as a personal epithet. n/t

[Armstead]

29. But it was rude and condescending

[PavePusher]

30. Possibly so.

But that was not the part I was addressing. Feel free to do so yourself if you feel strongly enough about it.

From my understanding, that comment was not a violation of DU rules and yours was. I might be wrong, of course.

[FLAprogressive]

11. A state can't make a law trumping the first amendment, for example.

[Common Sense Party]

15. Well, that one's different, because it doesn't involve those scary bang bang things.

[spin]

44. The pen is more powerful than the sword. (n/t)

[NoNothing]

12. The "States Rights" position is not that hard to understand

It's basically simply the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Basically, whatever is not specifically delegated to the federal government, or prohibited by the Constitution, is for the states and local governments to handle.

As a practical matter, it has had little legal effect.

[Statistical]

13. States don't have rights they have powers. Enacted powers can't be constrary to Constitunal rights.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So any right not delegated to the federal govt nor prohibited by the Constitution IS reserved by the States.

In this instance the RKBA is protected by the Constitution and a gun ban is prohibited thus State can't exercise prohibited powers.

In essence every political power ever imagined in the past or future can be put into one of three categories:
Delegated Powers - powers defined in the Constitution as under the authority of federal govt.
Prohibited Powers - powers prohibited by govt
Reserved Powers - everything else reversed by the States.

[lynne]

14. This is about the Bill of Rights -

- and the Bill of Rights doesn't address any of the other issues you referenced which is the reason for the discord and the subsequent States rights claims. The Bill of Rights specifically addresses gun ownership. What we have today is a VICTORY for the Bill of Rights and it doesn't have anything to do with activist judges - it has to do with reading comprehension and a working knowledge of our history and our laws.

[Armstead]

20. Quite a convenient rationalization

the same people who rail about the sanctity of the Second Amendment are quite happy to toss out other sections of it when it conflicts with their own views. They're more than happy to sacrifice things like due process to get them terraists or sacrifice the rights of ethnic groups to get them illegal immigrants, for example.

[PavePusher]

25. Not the great majority of the folks I know...

Of course that treads perilously close to "Everyone I know voted for McGovern...".

But seriously, I think, if you were to actually take a poll, you'd find that most legal gun owners support the entire Constitution. Just a gut feeling here, I freely admit I do not have any supporting evidence.

[benEzra]

33. I shoot competitively with a so-called "assault weapon" and hold an NC CHL...

and I am anti-censorship, pro-gay-rights, pro-civil-unions, anti-Surveillance-Nation, anti-torture, pro-habeus-corpus, pro-choice, and pretty much line up with the ACLU on every position but their remarkably dyslexic views on gun ownership.

[lynne]

38. So you propose that we toss out MORE?

- Why do you hate the Bill of Rights?

[virginia mountainman]

39. I have stumped for DECADES for Democratic Candidates

I have volunteered, and knocked on doors, I have even drove people to the polls..

Many years ago when I was young, my parents where on the nightly NATIONAL news, in their fight to Unionize in my hometown...Peter Jennings, sat at our Dinner table, and broke bread with us...At other times, Democratic Congressmen,and other state legislators have done the same....

More recently, I have broke bread with them..

I am as much a CIVIL RIGHTS advocate, as I am a Democrat....

I collect military rifles, and handguns. My wife and I, both, have Concealed Carry Permits, and we carry everyday...


...How dare you say such a incredible evil thing about us....

[Armstead]

45. You're being too defensive -- My remarks were not directed at people like you

I have no problem with people who collect or use guns. I also am notcriticizing everyone who is against gun control.

My remarks are directed to the conservative hypocrites who champion states rights and local control and hate "activist judges" but who are ready to jettison those principles and embrace activist judges if it is a result they like.

In this case the issue is gun control,but the real issue is the phoniness of right wingers.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. States' Rights only apply when it serves the RWingnuts purposes.

They chose to fight states' right when it came to the vote count in Florida in 2000.

This should not surprise anyone...just add to that sickening feeling we are getting so used to.

[virginia mountainman]

17. Actually, it is more about liberal hypocrisy..

I, as a Liberal, support the WHOLE bill of rigths...

Anyone who calls themselves a liberal, and likes them all, but one...IS A Hypocrite.

The Bill of Rights, is not like a Cheap Chinese Buffet, it is ALL or nothing, you cannot "pick and choose"

How can anyone argue, that the Bill of Rights, who's original amendments where all about "Restrictions on Government power" but yet, this ONE amendment, is about states rights....

That's quite a reach...And it will "reach" no more...

[Armstead]

21. Maybe you support ALL the Rights -- but conservatives usually use the buffet approach

The same eight wingers who claim states rights when it suits their purposes are more than happy to use excessive federal power to impose religion, take away the rights of immigrants and others, block a woman's rights to privacy, etc.

[PavePusher]

26. Actually, silly people of all political stripes...

see the Constitution as a bunch of optional pieces, rather than an integral, mutually-supporting whole.

There's no political party lock on stupid, sadly.

[virginia mountainman]

27. Your absolutely correct...

And while we fight the right wing doing that, many of us Democrats, are forced to fight a "rear guard" action against many in our party on "Gun Rights"

This Cartoon, demonstrates this clearly..



We must save the WHOLE document.. Even parts some of us, don't like..

If an argument can be made, say "You don't NEED a gun", than that same argument can be used against the rest of the document..."you don't NEED free speech"...Needs arguments are deadly to the bill of rights... And the right to own a gun, IS, a recognized civil right...

[Abq_Sarah]

47. The Bill of Rights

Aren't contingent upon what government officials think we "need". They are a restriction on government, not on citizens. Until the 14th amendment passed, they were a restriction on the federal government. Of course, the courts immediately started meddling with "interpretation" and refused to incorporate the Bill of Rights entirely.

[benEzra]

32. Gun owner and conservative are not synonymous.

And don't forget that Sarah Brady is a Reagan Republican, the Brady Campaign is run by a former Republican governor, and the original Federal "assault weapon" fraud was the brainchild of arch-right-winger William J. Bennett.

Somewhere around half of gun owners registered to vote are registered Dem and independent, from looking at the ownership rates vs. population slices.

[Armstead]

46. I know that -- My post was not about all gun owners

Just conservative assholes who use a double standard to get what they want

[Abq_Sarah]

48. All politicians

Play that game. I am pissed beyond words that the liberal members of the court and many of our elected officials have taken the position that we must be "protected" from Constitutional rights.

[SteveM]

54. "Liberals" and "conservatives" both use the buffet -- esp. the 5th Amendment.

I think this decision shows how such notions as "incorporation" (14A), used by liberals throughout the 50s and 60s with regards civil rights, get shunted aside by those same liberals, and how conservatives, who grind their teeth over that same notion, suddenly choose to exercise it when they wish.

I believe it was Scalia who described incorporation as "flotsam."

[proteus_lives]

41. +10,000

[benEzra]

31. You're assuming the vast majority of gun owners are right-wingers.

Not the case.

[Recursion]

42. For once, thank God for hypocritical right-wingers NT

[virginia mountainman]

43. Even a broken Clock, is right, twice a day...NT

[Tejas]

49. So..........the SCOTUS dissenters are RW hypocrites?

"A basic tenant of so-called conservative right-wingnut "principles" is the notion of states and local rights trumping the federal government."


5 voted no to this tenant, 4 voted yes.

[DLine]

50. I support the ruling...

But also recognize the right wing hypocrisy.

[-..__...]

51. LOL... all aboard the fail train...

Ruling on gun ban may have impact on Connecticut assault weapons law

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense wherever they live has focused attention on whether Connecticut's landmark 1993 ban on assault-style weapons could be vulnerable to legal challenge.

The decision casts doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but also indicates that some limitations on Second Amendment rights might escape legal challenge. The 5-4 ruling, with liberals in the minority, was led by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, whose decision sent the issue back to a lower federal appeals court.

Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the legislative Judiciary Committee, said that in light of the high court's ruling Connecticut lawmakers will have to study the possible repercussions and may even rewrite the ban on such weapons as the MAC-10, TEC-9, Colt AR-15 and the Colt Sporter.

"It seems to represent a broad attack on states' rights," McDonald said in a phone interview.

Complete article here...

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Ruling-on-gun-ban-may-have-impact-on-Connecticut-540291.php

Best wishes and good fortune to my brothers and sisters stranded in CT in overturning your unconstitutional AWB.

:headbang:

[Callisto32]

52. States have no rights.

Only powers.

That is all, please move along.

[Euromutt]

53. It's "tenet," fer Chrissakes, "TENET," not "tenant"

A tenant is someone who rents a piece from real estate from its owner (aka the landlord). A tenet is a concept that one holds as part of a doctrine.

I acknowledge they are somewhat easy to confuse as they are both derived from the French tenir, "to hold," but the most bovisou distinction is that a tenant is one who holds the land on behalf of its owner, while a tenet is held.

Okay, vocabulary rant over. Since I'm not actually an advocate of "states' rights" I don't have a dog in this fight.