Court says individuals have right to own guns

[Faustian]

For the question I posed, generally most people, when confronted when 4 Thai men with machetes, would surrender their belongings. I didn't. I threw 1/2 cup of boiling hot coffee in one man's face and then threw the rest in another man's face. (The cup had a cover on it). Then I turned and ran as fast as I could. Either on my second or forth step, I fractured 3 metatarsal bones in my left foot. As I went down, I put my right arm out and seperated my right shoulder. As I was going down, I could feel the blade of the second man coming toward me. As I went down, his blade went over my body. By the way, his blade was brownish red.

Before they tried robbing me, they robbed another farang. He gave them his money but I guess they thought he was holding back so they cut him on both sides of his neck. Then they brought a machete blade down on to the top of his head and left him on the sidewalk for dead.

Moral of the story: You were not there.

How a person protects themselves is there choice. Governments should not outlaw the right to protect yourself.

 

I'd have kicked their asses...4 HA! Takes more than that to stop me!

 

Ok, I'd have surrendered my stuff. So what? Machetes aren't guns and you can defend yourself without them. Goal-posts being moved I'd suggest, by your good self.

 

My point still stands, having guns allows people to kill people. Allowing them means more people will be shot. In your scenario, if you'd have had a gun, then you could have shot four people brandishing machetes....hardly a fair fight!! Hardly a fair outcome.

 

Furthermore, you were unlucky, but you're not going to convince me your 'bad luck' equals a right to bear arms. 'What ifs' are a ridiculous way to go about business.

 

[rogueyam]

Rogueyam, your thoughts?

 

This is an excellent ruling and I am delighted. There was a rumor over the last few days that Justice Scalia was writing the majority opinion for this case so I was hoping for great things. So far I am not disappointed, to say the very least.

 

Also, this is clearly NOT judicial activism. The text of the Second Amendment was ratified into the Constitution (back in 1791, I believe) for some specific purpose. Our Constitution does not contain window dressing. It creates the law of the land. It is the job of the US Supreme Court to understand the intent of the original ratifiers of Constitutional language and to determine whether current laws conform to that intent. This is what they must do and they should do no more.

 

Judicial activism is when the Court concludes that the ratifiers of a section of the Constitution intended for that section to mean one thing but that now the very same words mean something else and that it is the exclusive purview of the Court to determine what that new meaning is. This is what the USSC did earlier this week regarding the Eighth Amendment and the Louisiana death penalty law.

 

In the LA death penalty case the majority implicitly admitted that the Louisiana death penalty law would have been constitutional at the time the Eighth Amendment was ratified but that it is unconstitutional now even though the text of the Eighth Amendment has not changed.

 

In today's case the majority ruled that the DC gun ban is unconstitutional now and would have been unconstitutional at any time since the ratification of the Second Amendment.

 

This difference between the two cases is quite clear and easy to understand but I expect the leftists here to at least pretend not to be able to grasp this because that is what leftists do.

[Bangkoktraveler]

I guess you didn't read my comments. You claim [color:red]"I'd have surrendered my stuff. So what?"[/color] That is the role the other farang took who got robbed before me. They cut both sides of his neck and then dropped a machete blade straight down on his head and left him for dead on the side walk.

 

You further said [color:red]"Furthermore, you were unlucky, but you're not going to convince me your 'bad luck' equals a right to bear arms."[/color] Actually I was very lucky. I went down as the blade from the second guy went over my body. If I didn't go down, he might have killed me.

 

My position is that each of us should be allowed to make the choice to defend ourselves or not. I choice to defend myself, and in my case, lived to tell the tale. As for the other farang, in this case, he choice to turn over his money and in turn was left on the street for dead. I doubt he will ever be right.

[Hugh_Hoy]

Mr Hoy-

 

As spokesmodel for RogueCo, maybe you can explain to us:

 

1. Why this is not considered judicial activism?...missed interrogatives in school, since he's incapable of recognizing a question. Or perhaps he's just waiting for Fox Nowse to spoon-feed some drivel responses.

 

I have no idea what RY was waiting for, but I'm sure he can reply without the need to be assisted by Fox News. Indeed, it seems that he has.

 

But, to answer the question above, when the Supreme Court affirms a right bestowed by the Constitution, it is NOT activism. To rule opposite what the Constitution states is activism. You have a better way of putting it?

 

HH

 

 

 

[Bangkoktraveler]

Okay I got it. The way you write HH, I can understand.

[rogueyam]

I have no idea what RY was waiting for, but I'm sure he can reply without the need to be assisted by Fox News. Indeed, it seems that he has.

 

I am grateful to be missed on those days when I am away from my computer.

[Khun_Kong]

The issue here is the meaning of the Eighth Amendment, not all of this nonsense.

 

Substitute Second

 

Who taught you guys how to speak out of both sides of your mouth?

 

[rogueyam]

Substitute Second

 

Who taught you guys how to speak out of both sides of your mouth?

 

The issue is whether the meaning of any of the Constitution's text is static or ever-changing, but as I said above it was certain that many here would simply refuse to address this.

[Hugh_Hoy]

K_K...why don't you discuss rather than keep asking questions and then accuse others of talking out both sides of their mouths? Of course, it would help if you would narrow the subject that you would like to discuss. If you want to discuss "judicial activism", it would be helpful if you would research the term. If you want to discuss the 2nd amendment, say so in the first place. If you want to discuss the 8th amendment, say so in the first place. I was interested in your feelings about the topic and asked for your opinion. It seems that the only opinion you have thusfar promoted is that people are talking out both sides of their mouths. Lame.

 

HH

 

 

[Khun_Kong]

HH-

 

I generally favor "Government Back Off" on just about everything. WTF should the government tell me what chemicals I can ingest? Don't we have enough laws to cover negative actions caused by that ingestion? As much as I am pro-life, i.e., women should have the right to choose what to do with the little parasite, and as much as I am against gun ownership and government sponsored executions personally, I also feel strongly about states' rights. Hey- you don't like the rules here, go somewhere else.

 

But all of this must be within the bounds of the Constitution. Fr example, yes, some guilty might go free if individuals' rights to due process are 100% followed. That's the price of freedom. And... it's the price of the Constitution.

 

What we seem to be on about here is interpretation of the Constitution. It seems that some here call SCOTUS' interpretations judicial activism if it does not fit their goals and hail the same court for their strong defense of the Constitution when it does.

 

SCOTUS has a tough job. They have to try to figure out what the founding fathers meant, as well as interpret that meaning in the context of today's reality.

 

Why narrow the subject? Why not discuss this in broad strokes? Narrowing gives us, out of one side of the mouth, "States have a right to decide whether death is cruel and unusual punishment. Feds butt out" and out of the other side, "Only the Feds have a right to limit weapons ownership. States butt out".

 

I ask many questions to try to understand where you guys actually stand, other than just taking the GWB-everything-is-black-or-white knee-jerk response to issues. When itsmedave gave a (partial) list of the utter failures of BushCo, why don't you guys tell us how those were actually accomplishments, so we can understand your support of The Great Moron? When I asked about how you guys talk about "no increased financial burden/no raising taxes" without considering the huge debt load bestowed on our children, why don't you respond so that I can understand the dichotomy between your stance and what seems to be so apparent?

 

I have trouble narrowing the subject because the subject seems a bit fluid. Take Iraq. Was the subject WMD? Saddam's mistreatment of people? (Oh yeah, we care about that: zimbabwenkoreadarfurrawandaburma etc.)? Democracy in the ME? Stable guv for Iraqi's? Getting OBL? C'mon, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED or not? WTF is the mission today?

 

This is so fucking Orwellian that it is almost hard to believe that it's our reality.

 

Newspeak- Now Even Newer and More Improved: sounds even better when it comes out of both sides of your mouth.

 

And be honest, HH- you read my little pieces and don't have a clue about my opinions? Get real.

 

Gotta go. Temp Thai GF has lunch ready.