2nd Amendment - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to General Talk

2nd Amendment

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby Madison » Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:19 am

houstonherdfan wrote:My biggest concern though is that 4 supreme court justices voted agaisnt the reaffirmation.


I agree, that is very concerning. Should have easily been a 9-0 vote to uphold the constitution. Very scary that 4 voted against it. 8-o :-o
Image

I am the Reaper of Men,
The Chaser of Souls,
The Weaver of Nightmares,
I am The Heart of Darkness.
I now, and ever will be,
The Purity of Evil.
Madison
Lord of Darkness
Lord of Darkness

User avatar
ExecutiveMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberMatchup Meltdown ChampionLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5979
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby deerayfan072 » Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:40 am

Madison wrote:
houstonherdfan wrote:My biggest concern though is that 4 supreme court justices voted agaisnt the reaffirmation.


I agree, that is very concerning. Should have easily been a 9-0 vote to uphold the constitution. Very scary that 4 voted against it. 8-o :-o


The scary part was their supposed reasoning. They have no argument and they are using things that are not in the constitution. I can disagree with Scalia, but when you read his briefs you at least understand where he is coming from and can see his argument, even if it is wrong. With these other Justices you just don't see the Constitutional argument. It is pretty sad.
Image
deerayfan072
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18976
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: On an Island

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby houstonherdfan » Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:57 am

treat24 wrote:
houstonherdfan wrote:AS IT SHOULD BE IN MY OPINION.

However at present it does NOT make his state less safe. The law didn't doing anything to the present laws in NJ. In addition, all the conversation regarding the laws this decision might efect came from other states other than NJ not one mention of this affecting his state. If there was a law in his state that was affected by this then yea I could understand his statement.


once again, you need to reread his statement. He is not saying his state is less safe. Not once, nowhere... you keep adding that out of nowhere. He is saying this effects the safety of all communities. You disagree with this, which is cool... but he says nothing about it making his state less safe.


"Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future." — Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

how is it that the part of the statement above I bolded makes you believe that he said nothing about it making his state less safe. Me thinks you misread his quote.

He specifically mentions his state and goes on to generalize to the rest of the country.
You could think of government workers like teenagers. You pay them an allowance, but do you get any work out them? They eat the food, put their feet on the furniture and complain loudly whenever they are unhappy.
houstonherdfan
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Sweet 16 SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5065
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 10 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: The Center of the Universe

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby treat24 » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:07 am

houstonherdfan wrote:
treat24 wrote:
houstonherdfan wrote:AS IT SHOULD BE IN MY OPINION.

However at present it does NOT make his state less safe. The law didn't doing anything to the present laws in NJ. In addition, all the conversation regarding the laws this decision might efect came from other states other than NJ not one mention of this affecting his state. If there was a law in his state that was affected by this then yea I could understand his statement.


once again, you need to reread his statement. He is not saying his state is less safe. Not once, nowhere... you keep adding that out of nowhere. He is saying this effects the safety of all communities. You disagree with this, which is cool... but he says nothing about it making his state less safe.


"Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future." — Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

how is it that the part of the statement above I bolded makes you believe that he said nothing about it making his state less safe. Me thinks you misread his quote.

He specifically mentions his state and goes on to generalize to the rest of the country.


Firstly, you failed to bold "and across the country." Which means that he is talking about the whole country including his state. And you said
hhf wrote:The law has not changed in his home state how could it have made his state less safe?"
What he is saying is that his state, and all states could be safer, but the justices put rigid ideology ahead of safety. He is not saying that this decision has made his state less safe than it currently is, rather not as safe as it could be. I am reading his quote correctly. ;-D

All of this is just semantics about what this Senator said about it, the main point is that you disagree. He thinks this would have made the country safer. You think upholding the 2nd keeps the country safer. What is more important than this discussion of what this senator is saying is the decision itself, where the votes came from, and their reasoning. ;-D
treat24
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterCafecasterCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18188
Joined: 6 Oct 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: I'm drinking 'til I forget the 1999 NFC Championship game.

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby stomperrob » Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:02 pm

Ruling may offer lawyers years of full employment
By Michael Doyle
McClatchy Newspapers
Article Launched: 06/27/2008 12:30:00 AM MDT


tWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's landmark decision Thursday striking down the District of Columbia's gun ban will have wide-ranging legal, political and public safety consequences.

The court's 5-4 decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller poses myriad questions for which answers are still a work in progress. Here are some of them.

Q. Does this eliminate all gun restrictions?

A. No. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court's majority, stressed that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an "unlimited" right to bear arms. Scalia cited as legitimate long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, as well as bans on carrying firearms into schools and government buildings.

Q. But the ruling will extend beyond Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, right?

A. Yes, although not right away. The latest federal compilation of state and local firearm laws is some 458 pages long, and it was published in 2005, so it's not up to date. An untold number of these existing laws will be subject to challenge. This will take time and money as lawsuits are filed and ordinances are revised.

con't...



rest of article: http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_9712756
Image
Fantasy Football: "Luck is where preparation meets opportunity"
stomperrob
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 13579
(Past Year: 138)
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Steeler Nation!!!

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby Omaha Red Sox » Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:42 pm

Madison wrote:
houstonherdfan wrote:My biggest concern though is that 4 supreme court justices voted agaisnt the reaffirmation.


I agree, that is very concerning. Should have easily been a 9-0 vote to uphold the constitution. Very scary that 4 voted against it. 8-o :-o


Actually, I think most votes end up 4-5.
Omaha Red Sox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 12290
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Probably over there

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby deerayfan072 » Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:16 pm

Omaha Red Sox wrote:
Madison wrote:
houstonherdfan wrote:My biggest concern though is that 4 supreme court justices voted agaisnt the reaffirmation.


I agree, that is very concerning. Should have easily been a 9-0 vote to uphold the constitution. Very scary that 4 voted against it. 8-o :-o


Actually, I think most votes end up 4-5.


depends on what side of the issue you are on ;-)
Image
deerayfan072
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18976
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: On an Island

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby Omaha Red Sox » Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:28 pm

deerayfan072 wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:Actually, I think most votes end up 4-5.


depends on what side of the issue you are on ;-)


4-5, 5-4, whatever. I think nearly every time I hear about a vote in Congress, it's always 4-5, 5-4.

Smartass. :-D
Omaha Red Sox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 12290
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Probably over there

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby BGbootha » Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:51 pm

The second amendment is nothing more than a relic left in our constitution, it is historically mis used and misrepresented. Our forefathers did not write the second amendment in a world view that exists today.

It drives me crazy that we look at the constitution without realizing the historical tenants in which it was written.

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.


I am not sure private gun owners make up a well regulated militia, nor are they necessary to the security of a free state.

But hey, it our constitution and we can't change that right?!? We just need to pick and choose which part of the sentences work for us.

Now that I think about it....how about this....you want to own a gun fine!!! Thats your right thanks to the constitution...but now instead of a background check and all that jazz, you first have to take your gun join a militia and head over to Iraq for a year, when you get back you can keep your gun.
Image
BGbootha
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 3830
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Teaching is the Greatest Job in the World!!! (during the Summer)

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby deerayfan072 » Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:20 pm

BGbootha wrote:The second amendment is nothing more than a relic left in our constitution, it is historically mis used and misrepresented. Our forefathers did not write the second amendment in a world view that exists today.

It drives me crazy that we look at the constitution without realizing the historical tenants in which it was written.

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.


I am not sure private gun owners make up a well regulated militia, nor are they necessary to the security of a free state.

But hey, it our constitution and we can't change that right?!? We just need to pick and choose which part of the sentences work for us.

Now that I think about it....how about this....you want to own a gun fine!!! Thats your right thanks to the constitution...but now instead of a background check and all that jazz, you first have to take your gun join a militia and head over to Iraq for a year, when you get back you can keep your gun.


That has nothing to do with this ruling. Scalia even said so himself. This has to do with a law that BANNED ALL TOGETHER the rights of people to own guns. You see people talking on the TV (mainly liberals) about how this erodes the background checks and other gun laws. Good luck in the court system trying to stretch this court ruling to mean that you can require background checks.

The reason for the second amendment if you do look at historical significance goes back to the US freeing themselves from Britain. Part of the US has always been your right to protect yourself from the government, by force if need be. They allowed people to have weapons just in case they needed to rise up against the government.
Image
deerayfan072
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18976
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: On an Island

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 14:10 hours
(and 38 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact