Obama 2nd term "abolish gun rights"

[BC1]

SCOTUS doesn't make the laws. They rule on existing laws. Even with an anti-2A SCOTUS, any bill would have to pass the senate and house first. That's nowhere near happening. Also, SC justices have to be approved by congress.

I do appreciate the watchdog attitude that you and other have with regards to 2A. I just don't think there's much of an issue here.

The law is open to interpretation by the justices. Should Chicago once again deny citizens the right to own a gun the case will go back to the supreme court where a majority of anti-gun liberal judges can reverse the McDonald decision on the grounds that the second amendment only applies to the state militia. Five judges rule that the right to bear arms is not an individual one but rather a right of the state. Congress doesn't get involved because their is no legislation. It's a court decision.

If Congress should again turn to a democrat majority Obama may very well have the votes to appoint who he wants.

This is exactly how Obama intends to dispose of guns... by redefining the right to bear arms.

 

[B2Tall]

The guy told us he wanted to fundamentally change the United States, and he is doing it....

How. Please be specific.

If you expect the House or Senate to stand up to him and try to block him...You are smoking crack!

Based on his utter ineffectiveness and battles with congress on just about everything, I'd have to disagree with this. And I don't smoke crack or anything else :biggrin:

You need to vote and convince all your friends and relatives to vote...

Vote for anyone running against him... Even if he was not your choose...

I plan on it even though I don't believe this 98lb weakling of a leader is suddenly going to morph into Charles Atlas.

 

[B2Tall]

The law is open to interpretation by the justices. Should Chicago once again deny citizens the right to own a gun the case will go back to the supreme court where a majority of anti-gun liberal judges can reverse the McDonald decision on the grounds that the second amendment only applies to the state militia. Five judges rule that the right to bear arms is not an individual one but rather a right of the state. Congress doesn't get involved because their is no legislation. It's a court decision.

If Congress should again turn to a democrat majority Obama may very well have the votes to appoint who he wants.

This is exactly how Obama intends to dispose of guns... by redefining the right to bear arms.

There is a lengthy process by which a case ends up in the hands of SCOTUS. They don't just spontaneously rule on things. We're not going to wake up one day and find that the SC has taken it upon themselves to reverse 2A or anything associated with it.

You speak of McDonald. Mr. McDonald (and his fellow petitioners) had record-setting support in congress....support that cut accross party lines, and that was before the midterm elections that eroded BO's power. That case was based more on state's rights, not about any individual's 2A right (I know....McDonald is an individual but the justices were arguing how far a state could go with respects to 2A. They weren't arguing over Mr. McDonald). Supporting a state's right to apply 2A as it sees fit doesn't necessarily mean a justice wants to abolish 2A. Pro-gun justices have frequently upheld a state's right to limit how 2A may be applied within that state's boundries, does that mean they want to abolish 2A as well?? No, it doesn't. Heller is similar. These are state/local issues, not federal. BO is a weak prez to begin with and his power over individual states is almost nil. That's why the most restrictive state in the union (His state - IL) is surrounded by much more gun-friendly states.

State and local lawmakers are much more of a threat to an individual's 2A rights than our impotent president.

 

[Bob in Bristol]

IMO believe the Supreme Court could be the 2nd A worse nightmare. The Democratic controlled Senate (hopefully will change in 2012) approves Supreme Court Justices, not Congress (both Houses). That is how Obama got Kagan and Sotomayor appointed (two very anti 2nd A Justices). Obama is tipping the scale with Justices that will be in place for years after Obama`s (god forbid) 2nd term. I agree not every case ends in the SC, but if you have big money behind it from the gun grabbers or gun rights supporters, there is a better than 50% chance it will end in the SC. These Justices legislate from the bench, history proves it, and some times I do not mind it as much (depends on the ruling). I am not willing to gamble on Barack Hussein Obama supporting my 2nd A right, history tells me I can not trust him. IMO that is just one of the many reasons, Barack Hussein Obama has to be a one term President. If you can not see it, that`s your right, but it make me suspect some posters are Truth Team plants. Enjoy your freedoms, because they are the only freedoms you have.

 

[Tucker's Mom]

The more the reason why Supreme Court justices needs to have terms of office. They too should get a real job along with Congress and the Senate.

 

[Timothy R]

For all of you jumping on me about the birth contol, check the post I was not the one who brought it up.
My point with the women's and LGBT commit is how the Republicans will not back off even if they know they are wrong. President Obama is man enough to know when to back off Koch brothers aren't pulling his strings.
As far as one of y'all standing up for me, you don't know me. If they come for my guns I will give them to them one bullet at a time.

 

[B2Tall]

The more the reason why Supreme Court justices needs to have terms of office. They too should get a real job along with Congress and the Senate.

I agree. SC justices are given the job for life so that they can, in theory, issue rulings based on the law and not based on what might be popular at the time. Doesn't always work that way.

 

[B2Tall]

IMO believe the Supreme Court could be the 2nd A worse nightmare. The Democratic controlled Senate (hopefully will change in 2012) approves Supreme Court Justices, not Congress (both Houses). That is how Obama got Kagan and Sotomayor appointed (two very anti 2nd A Justices). Obama is tipping the scale with Justices that will be in place for years after Obama`s (god forbid) 2nd term. I agree not every case ends in the SC, but if you have big money behind it from the gun grabbers or gun rights supporters, there is a better than 50% chance it will end in the SC. These Justices legislate from the bench, history proves it, and some times I do not mind it as much (depends on the ruling). I am not willing to gamble on Barack Hussein Obama supporting my 2nd A right, history tells me I can not trust him. IMO that is just one of the many reasons, Barack Hussein Obama has to be a one term President. If you can not see it, that`s your right, but it make me suspect some posters are Truth Team plants. Enjoy your freedoms, because they are the only freedoms you have.

I doubt very much if any conservative justice is going to retire during BO's administration. They know what's going on. He'd have to hope one of them dies.

Also, in order for a case or petition to be heard in the first place, 6 justices have to agree....not just 5. So even if BO did manage to get another lib on the SC (for a total of 5), the other 4 could easily block a hearing, and that's assuming that all the lib justices are as vehemently anti-2A rights as Kagan and Sotomayor are.

If, if, if, if, if..........so many "if"s. Too many variables would have to fall into place for these nightmare scenarios to come to fruition.

 

[fuhr52]

I agree, the Supreme Court isn't suppose to create law. It's job is only to rule based on the letter of the law. If that was true, it would not matter if they were liberal or conservative, democrat or republican. The letter of the law would be all that is applied, no personal opinion. Doesn't work that way. Our elected representatives are elected to represent us the people. Not the political leadership.

 

[CapGun]

SCOTUS doesn't make the laws. They rule on existing laws. Even with an anti-2A SCOTUS, any bill would have to pass the senate and house first. That's nowhere near happening. Also, SC justices have to be approved by congress.

I do appreciate the watchdog attitude that you and other have with regards to 2A. I just don't think there's much of an issue here.

activist judges sure interpret things differently then what the Constitution actually says. They back their decisions on case law not constitutional law!
Guess you didn't hear Ruth Bader Ginsberg's latest comment
"If I was drafting a new Constitution in 2012, I wouldn't look to our Constitution I would look to South Africa's Constitution!" THAT MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER? tHAT IS THE MINDSET OF SOMEONE RULING ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OUR LAWS! Makes me all warm and tingly!

 

[CapGun]

For all of you jumping on me about the birth contol, check the post I was not the one who brought it up.
My point with the women's and LGBT commit is how the Republicans will not back off even if they know they are wrong. President Obama is man enough to know when to back off Koch brothers aren't pulling his strings.
As far as one of y'all standing up for me, you don't know me. If they come for my guns I will give them to them one bullet at a time.

NO that woud be GEORGE SOROS!

 

[CapGun]

The catch phrase a few elections ago was "It's the economy stupid!"
Love to hear for this election and the rest "It's about the Constitution stupid! Defend and adhere to it like you swore to in the oath you took!"

 

[B2Tall]

activist judges sure interpret things differently then what the Constitution actually says. They back their decisions on case law not constitutional law!
Guess you didn't hear Ruth Bader Ginsberg's latest comment
"If I was drafting a new Constitution in 2012, I wouldn't look to our Constitution I would look to South Africa's Constitution!" THAT MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER? tHAT IS THE MINDSET OF SOMEONE RULING ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OUR LAWS! Makes me all warm and tingly!

A SC justice can't always be a literal interpreter of the constitution. If that was the case we'd still have slavery, women couldn't vote, parents could deny their sick child critical medical care and simply try to "pray away" the illness, etc. etc.

SCOTUS has pretty much always given the states quite a bit of leeway in how 2A is applied within their borders, liberal and conservative justices alike. Why do you think there's such disparity among the states concerning gun laws??

Anti-gun insanity on a national level has an awful long way to go before it would end up in the hands of SCOTUS, if at all. Such things will never get that far. Hell, when Feinstein tried to extend the assault weapon ban, it was utterly destroyed in the senate with even her fellow Dems voting against it by nearly 5:1. People were saying the same about Bill Clinton that they're saying now about BO. Didn't happen then and it won't happen now. There's just no real support for it.

Being cautious and alert doesn't mean living in fear. Stop living in fear.

 

[BC1]

There is a lengthy process by which a case ends up in the hands of SCOTUS. They don't just spontaneously rule on things. We're not going to wake up one day and find that the SC has taken it upon themselves to reverse 2A or anything associated with it.

You speak of McDonald. Mr. McDonald (and his fellow petitioners) had record-setting support in congress....support that cut accross party lines, and that was before the midterm elections that eroded BO's power. That case was based more on state's rights, not about any individual's 2A right (I know....McDonald is an individual but the justices were arguing how far a state could go with respects to 2A. They weren't arguing over Mr. McDonald). Supporting a state's right to apply 2A as it sees fit doesn't necessarily mean a justice wants to abolish 2A. Pro-gun justices have frequently upheld a state's right to limit how 2A may be applied within that state's boundries, does that mean they want to abolish 2A as well?? No, it doesn't. Heller is similar. These are state/local issues, not federal. BO is a weak prez to begin with and his power over individual states is almost nil. That's why the most restrictive state in the union (His state - IL) is surrounded by much more gun-friendly states.

State and local lawmakers are much more of a threat to an individual's 2A rights than our impotent president.

Because Heller and McDonald were already decided at the SCOTUS level they cannot be overturned by a court of appeals. SCOTUS is the end of the line. The issue could only be decided at the SCOTUS level. The court can refuse to take the case, allowing the prior decision to stand but one can bet that a majority of anti-gun judges will jump to the opportunity to reverse Heller and McDonald. Both decisions can be reversed if either decision comes back before the high court. Once decided at that level the lower courts can not overturn the SCOTUS decision. For example, only the SCOTUS can overturn Roe v. Wade (abortion legality). They don't accept any new challenges to it but they could, using a majority of republican justices to outlaw abortion, thus the abortion argument stays alive in politics.

There was a post a while back about liberals being mentally disturbed. I believe to some extent they are. The elitest attitude dictates they will continue to push a position in any way possible, including subverting Congress through re-interpretation of the constitution. They do this despite any proof that their position has merit.

The Congressional reps that supported both Heller and McDonald did so in the form of an Amicus Brief (friend of the court brief). It is a brief not a motion. They are not a party to the suit and cannot file a motion. They can merely offer an opinion, which is what an Amicus Brief is. The court has no obligation to accept the brief or give any consideration to the position therein.

The things that are absolute in life?

- Death
- Taxes
- Liberals will cheat and lie

 

[CapGun]

"Being cautious and alert doesn't mean living in fear. Stop living in fear."

B2Tall>>> pot stirrer. Please put into perspective the Justice Ginsberg quote I posted here in the context of this thread and your views as stated here.
I do appreciate your appreciation of my dedication to the Second Amendment.
I am very serious! Heck I quit grade school 'cause they had recess!
Live in fear? Me? Absolutely not! Wait I just heard something...did you hear that? I 'll be right back.
I hope.

 

[B2Tall]

Please put into perspective the Justice Ginsberg quote I posted here in the context of this thread and your views as stated here.

Thankfully, Ginsburg doesn't make the laws nor can she alter our constitution. She only gets to give a "yes" or "no" on what gets fed to her.

Heller and McDonald were SCOTUS reactions to gun control laws in a particular state (and D.C.). The SC is a purely reactionary body.... they rule on issues that are brought to them. They don't (and can't) take it upon themselves to start adding or subtracting laws willy-nilly as they see fit. That's not how it works, you follow me??

SCOTUS either upholds or strikes down existing laws. They decide if a particular law restricts a constitutional right (i.e. is unconstitutional). The SC will never add a restriction....only remove them. In other words, the Supreme Court will never make an anti-gun law more potent. They can only leave it as-is or strike it down (which helps us). SCOTUS does not have the power to make things worse for us. The most they can do is maintain the status quo (more on that later).


By dissenting on Heller and McDonald, the liberal justices are actually supporting 5A and 10A - the very amendments that give the states the right to set their own levels of gun control....the very things that give me (in FL) or the folks in states like UT, PA, IN, etc. the option to carry a gun as opposed to the citizens of NJ, IL, etc. who're severely restricted. Ya still with me?? I hope so.

Now back to that "status-quo" thing. SCOTUS can't rule on anything that's not already a law, and in order for any sort of gun control to become law, it has to go through the process that we're all familiar with. On a national level there's just no support for it on Capitol Hill. Those that do want it are are vastly outnumberd by those who don't (or are afraid to vote for it for fear of their political lives). Hence my belief that BO is nearly helpless when it comes to any sort of broad, federal law that would result in a serious impact on our 2A rights. Individual state and local lawmakers?? That's another thing entirely but obviously their impact is limited. What a CA lawmaker does has no effect on me here in FL, and so on...

Anyway, that's what it boils down to IMO. BO is pretty much helpless and state/local anti-gunners can only affect those people unfortunate enough to live under their boot.

 

[sixgun_symphony]

The only problem I have with this is again somebody said he said : Obama: We’re working on gun control “under the radar” « Hot Air
The way the Republican candidates are attacking women's choice and the LGBT community is what I have a problem with. President Obama changed the way he originally mandated birth control to respect religion. I have not heard the Republican candidates change theirs.

Obama forced the insurance companies to provide birth control. These are the insurance companies that the Churches go to for insurance providers. So nothing has changed, the churches are still forced into paying for abortions.

 

[sixgun_symphony]

Thankfully, Ginsburg doesn't make the laws nor can she alter our constitution. She only gets to give a "yes" or "no" on what gets fed to her.

Heller and McDonald were SCOTUS reactions to gun control laws in a particular state (and D.C.). The SC is a purely reactionary body.... they rule on issues that are brought to them. They don't (and can't) take it upon themselves to start adding or subtracting laws willy-nilly as they see fit. That's not how it works, you follow me??

SCOTUS either upholds or strikes down existing laws. They decide if a particular law restricts a constitutional right (i.e. is unconstitutional). The SC will never add a restriction....only remove them. In other words, the Supreme Court will never make an anti-gun law more potent. They can only leave it as-is or strike it down (which helps us). SCOTUS does not have the power to make things worse for us. The most they can do is maintain the status quo (more on that later).


By dissenting on Heller and McDonald, the liberal justices are actually supporting 5A and 10A - the very amendments that give the states the right to set their own levels of gun control....the very things that give me (in FL) or the folks in states like UT, PA, IN, etc. the option to carry a gun as opposed to the citizens of NJ, IL, etc. who're severely restricted. Ya still with me?? I hope so.

Now back to that "status-quo" thing. SCOTUS can't rule on anything that's not already a law, and in order for any sort of gun control to become law, it has to go through the process that we're all familiar with. On a national level there's just no support for it on Capitol Hill. Those that do want it are are vastly outnumberd by those who don't (or are afraid to vote for it for fear of their political lives). Hence my belief that BO is nearly helpless when it comes to any sort of broad, federal law that would result in a serious impact on our 2A rights. Individual state and local lawmakers?? That's another thing entirely but obviously their impact is limited. What a CA lawmaker does has no effect on me here in FL, and so on...

Anyway, that's what it boils down to IMO. BO is pretty much helpless and state/local anti-gunners can only affect those people unfortunate enough to live under their boot.

What the liberal activist judges are doing is to "interpret" the US Constitution rather than make sure that laws are in compliance.

As for your arguement that the dissenting judges were supporting the 5th and 10th Amendments. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? The liberal activist judges are subverting the US Constitution to support a hard left socialist agenda.

 

[B2Tall]

The liberal activist judges are subverting the US Constitution to support a hard left socialist agenda.

How? Please be specific.

 

[BC1]

How? Please be specific.

I think heller and Mcdonald are good examples. The fab-four liberal judges wrote a dissenting opinion that the second amendment didn't apply to you and I but rather to the states to raise a militia. Despite the hundreds of documents written by the founding fathers to indicate the basis of the second was a right of the individual they continued to try to push a position with no historical basis. The entire purpose of the second amendment was to prohibit a president, congress or supreme court from subverting inalienable God-given rights. They wanted to ensure their would never be another King George. In other words... all freedom shall exist at the end of a gun. We must remember that the declaration of independence says that when government fails to represent the people, the people have a responsibility to tear it down and start anew. Liberals clearly don't like that. They choose to view the constitution as a living-breathing document, subject to change and re-interpretation with the times. I don't believe our country was founded on that principal.