Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire DC Gun Decision

Well, when it is all said and done, the Bush Haters will have to swallow a huge frog. THIS is GWB's Legacy to America. This ruling could not would not have happened without him. HE made the critical appointments to the Court and he deserves the credit above anyone else.

Many of our most leftist Supreme Court Justices were nominated by Republican presidents. I think McCain's nominees will be no worse than Obama's. Right now in our history, there is nothing more important than making certain that another RINO is not elected president of the United States. If we fail in that, the next Republican nominee will be even worse, guaranteed.

And Bush is unhappy about the decision. He thinks it went too far.

And Bush is unhappy about the decision. He thinks it went too far.
_________________


What's your authority?

I think McCain's nominees will be no worse than Obamas
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I think you haven't a clue as to the actual differences between the two. Or you do and your idolatry for that goofball Barr keeps you from thinking outside the box.

I tend to agree Ernie.

Let's see what Barack-tracking Obama does as this all settles in.

Fox News.

Can you do better than that?? Your the only mention of it I've heard.

Yes, they reported something to the effect of: "Sources say that the Whitehouse is not happy with the decision, thinking that it went too far."

Cut off your nose, to spite your face logic. Let Obama destroy the country with a filibuster proof Senate and control of the house and a minimum of 2 SCOTUS picks coming up.

2, not "many" of the leftist picks came from Republican presidents and how many conservative judges came from Democrats? Zero. Not a damn one.

By your use of "Another RINO president" I assume you are referring to Bush. Course Bush is the only Republican President in recent history that got both of his SCOTUS picks right and were responsible for 2/5 of todays majority. Ignore reality and continue with this backwards logic. You were one of those idiots that voted for Perot, weren't you? Thanks, Clinton did us a lot of good and the Breyer/Ginsberg combo have been wonderful.

So, how about the Kalifornicators banning a specific caliber? What's the take on that hogwash?

Wayne

My view on this is not a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I am convinced that the long term damage of another RINO presidency is immeasurably greater than that of a four or eight year term of a leftist Democrat.

First of all, a leftist Democrat president will be thwarted by a sure influx of conservative Congressmen, which will happen exactly two years following an Obama victory. Secondly, there's the issue of the future of the Republican Party. If you want a trend to continue, then support it with your loyal votes. If you want a trend to stop, withhold your loyal support. The trend in the Republican Party is towards more and more neocon/leftist presidential nominees. I want that trend stopped, because it means the destruction of the United States. I am willing to suffer even eight years of a leftist Democrat if that's what's necessary to reverse this trend. I will not, at any rate, participate in encouraging this trend. That is for certain.

Well, play the cards as you seem them TRH. Just don't blame us if Obama wins and when he does long term damage

For me I'll vote for McCain.

TRH, we don't have 8 years. The demographics trend of the country favor the Democrats right now. Obama and Pelosi will likely bless the addition of 14 million Mexican {Democratic} voters in that first year. Stevens and Ginberg will likely retire immediately upon an Obama victory. He will get whomever he nominates as we don't have enough Senators to stop him. Especially since we are likely to lose a few more seats this election as the GOP has more Senatorial seats open than the Dem's and the tide against them.

Yes, we can bet "all in" on a repeat of the 1994 election in 2010, but what if it doesn't happen? Also it took 10 years to undue the AWB that Clinton put into place in his first 2 years and Obama will have a larger Senate advantage than Clinton ever had. Obama is also much much more socialist than Clinton. He will likely get a 28% or higher cap gains in his first 2 years and run the highest tax rates up the flagpole with no one to stop him. How long before we have the white house and both houses to undue that damage? 9 years?

I believe the majority wrote that enumerated rights were off limits to the courts as far as balancing tests were concerned. Meaning it is a right, not sort of a right that they can fiddle with. That opens the door to the cases that will come. As far as keeping and bearing arms for self-defense and traditional uses go, the right may not be infringed, which if I get the inferences of the opinion correct, means that any restrictions can't be onerous, arbitrary, or capricious. If you are a criminal, or mentally disqualified you aren't covered by the ruling. But the court's scrutiny of any cases will put the burden of proving any restriction is constitutional on the gvt entity being sued. The individual bringing suit will not have to prove the restriction unconstitutional. If the case makes it to court there will be an assumption that the gvt entity is in the wrong. And, no lower court can impose a balancing test to create an over-riding government interest.

Thanks all for the updates. This is a good day!

since there is some discussion about who will appoint what kinda justices, just FYI since i looked this up for another board:

Justices who voted for Heller(gun owners) and who appointed them
Roberts - Bush Jr.
Scalia - Reagan
Kennedy - Reagan
Thomas - Bush Sr.
Alito - Bush Jr.

Justices who voted against Heller(gun owners) and who appointed them
Stevens - Ford
Souter - Bush Sr.
Ginsburg - Clinton
Breyer - Clinton

OUR ruling was 67 pages.
Stevens' dissent was another 44 pages, then Breyer ranted for another 33 pages that the District's law was PROPORTIONATE, 77 pages of dissent in total. Caddah and Clinton still pollute our lives.
Oops? You mean Bush the Senior and Ford are also part of this mess and CADDAH is INNOCENT? Polluted, I say! POLLUTED.

A surgeon friend of mine came to the OR door this morning as I was doing a case and waved me over. Anticipating a patient problem instead he asked if had heard the good news? 5-4!!

I don't mean to sound like a broken record here on the 'fire but in the big view even though McCain is unpalatable to the convervatives on some major issues today's descision undscores how important our next president will be and who he should be...or if you'd rather, who he should't be.

Gdv

What about this:
http://pun.org/josh/archives/2008/06/incorporation-o.html

"Incorporation of DC v. Heller

There are many that have said that the Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller only affects Federal laws and did not address incporation�the application of the Federal law to the laws of the states. However, the decision cited the role of the Second Amendment in arguments for ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment on pages 43 and 44:

The understanding that the Second Amendment gave freed blacks the right to keep and bear arms was reflected in congressional discussion of the bill [the Freedman's Bureau Act], with even an opponent of it saying that the founding generation �were for every man bearing his arms about him and keeping them in his house, his castle, for his own defense.� Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 362, 371 (1866) (Sen. Davis).

Similar discussion attended the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, Representative Butler said of the Act: �Section eight is intended to enforce the well-known constitutional provision guaranteeing the right of the citizen to �keep and bear arms,� and provides that whoever shall take away, by force or violence, or by threats and intimidation, the arms and weapons which any person may have for his defense, shall be deemed guilty of larceny of the same.� H. R. Rep. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3d Sess., pp. 7�8 (1871). With respect to the proposed Amendment, Senator Pomeroy described as one of the three �indispensable� �safeguards of liberty . . . under the Constitution� a man�s �right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead.� Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1182 (1866). Representative Nye thought the Fourteenth Amendment unnecessary because �[a]s citizens of the United States [blacks] have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.� Id., at 1073 (1866).

If the Second Amendment was a impetus to pass the Fourteenth Amendment in order to incorporate the right into all of the states, clearly today's decision affects state laws as well."