gun rights in Iraq

[glassgowkiss]

i don't find anything funny when people are dying. do you? btw what about that support for the vets? somehow when it comes to facts all you offer is an empty rhetoric.

 

I'm not interested in engaging a nut like yourself in any debate yet alone associate with you. Clear enough?

 

need a tissue? don't get your panties in a wad! i am just simply pointing flaws in your thinking from the past. clear enough? still waiting on the answer on vets question.....

[kevbone]

 

I'm not interested in engaging a nut like yourself in any debate yet alone associate with you.

 

Funny....people usually say shit like that when they are on the losing end of a discussion.

 

Clear enough?

 

Just what am I losing, boner?

 

Your mind for starters....next comes your guns....

[Peter_Puget]

Peter,

The wording of your question confused me, though I did manage to parse it successfully I guess?

 

If the US was fighting a war on its soil would suspension of certain “constitutional rights” be considered legal by the Supreme Court?

To me this question asks how the Supreme Court would rule. That is usually what I think of when someone asks if the Supreme court considers something legal.

 

OK so please answer!

 

 

Chuck - the supreme court "should" be able to restict rights in a time of war, right?

This is entirely different. This is whether one agrees with a possible Supreme Court ruling, as opposed to what the Supreme Court ruling was.

 

 

[chucK]

I thought this was something everyone learned in high school history.

It was originally allowed in our country so that if we ever found ourselves under another tyrannical government, we could raise up our arms and overthrow them. I think this is as valid today as the day it was written.

 

I think it's pretty clear that the Iraqis in Basra find themselves to be under the control of tyrannical government. That is why they are fighting and shooting and stuff.

[kevbone]

Basra find themselves to be under the control of tyrannical government.

 

Like the USA....

[archenemy]

Peter,

The wording of your question confused me, though I did manage to parse it successfully I guess?

 

If the US was fighting a war on its soil would suspension of certain “constitutional rights” be considered legal by the Supreme Court?

To me this question asks how the Supreme Court would rule. That is usually what I think of when someone asks if the Supreme court considers something legal.

 

 

Chuck - the supreme court "should" be able to restict rights in a time of war, right?

This is entirely different. This is whether one agrees with a possible Supreme Court ruling, as opposed to what the Supreme Court ruling was.

Again, this is not the job of the SC.

The US SC is an appellate court (primarily) and does not hold original jurisdiction over cases like this. Learn your legal system people, you are responsible for knowing it.

[archenemy]

I thought this was something everyone learned in high school history.

It was originally allowed in our country so that if we ever found ourselves under another tyrannical government, we could raise up our arms and overthrow them. I think this is as valid today as the day it was written.

 

I think it's pretty clear that the Iraqis in Basra find themselves to be under the control of tyrannical government. That is why they are fighting and shooting and stuff.

Yes. And this has to do with our gun ownership rights how?

[chucK]

OK so please answer!

 

I think I did, in my reply post.

[Peter_Puget]

Peter,

The wording of your question confused me, though I did manage to parse it successfully I guess?

 

If the US was fighting a war on its soil would suspension of certain “constitutional rights” be considered legal by the Supreme Court?

To me this question asks how the Supreme Court would rule. That is usually what I think of when someone asks if the Supreme court considers something legal.

 

 

Chuck - the supreme court "should" be able to restict rights in a time of war, right?

This is entirely different. This is whether one agrees with a possible Supreme Court ruling, as opposed to what the Supreme Court ruling was.

Again, this is not the job of the SC.

The US SC is an appellate court (primarily) and does not hold original jurisdiction over cases like this. Learn your legal system people, you are responsible for knowing it.

 

Girl Power Rules!

[archenemy]

OK so please answer!

 

I think I did, in my reply post.

Now you know how it feels.

[Peter_Puget]

OK so please answer!

 

I think I did, in my reply post.

 

Your reply:

Peter, is that a question of me or of the Supreme court? Though I understand a lot of their decisions I certainly don't understand all of them. Not sure I could predict what they would consider legal. Here you basically avoid giving an answer.......

 

If you are asking me whether the supreme court "should" be able to restict rights in a time of war, I think that's fine. Here you made up another question.....

I still don't know how gun rights advocates would feel about that vis-a-vis their guns though. I'd guess (though of course, I do not presume to speak for Archenemy) that they would be even more reluctant to lay down their arms if open warfare were going on inside the US. See my post above.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Peter_Puget

[archenemy]

Peter,

The wording of your question confused me, though I did manage to parse it successfully I guess?

 

If the US was fighting a war on its soil would suspension of certain “constitutional rights” be considered legal by the Supreme Court?

To me this question asks how the Supreme Court would rule. That is usually what I think of when someone asks if the Supreme court considers something legal.

 

 

Chuck - the supreme court "should" be able to restict rights in a time of war, right?

This is entirely different. This is whether one agrees with a possible Supreme Court ruling, as opposed to what the Supreme Court ruling was.

Again, this is not the job of the SC.

The US SC is an appellate court (primarily) and does not hold original jurisdiction over cases like this. Learn your legal system people, you are responsible for knowing it.

 

Girl Power Rules!

Indeed. Losing Sandra Day O'Connor sucked.

[chucK]

Not our gun ownership rights, but theirs. Using our experience as a model, and going on the premise that it should be the right of a populace to bear arms to hold off a tyrannical government, then it seems to logically follow that these folks in Basra, clearly fearful of being controlled by a tyrannical government should be allowed to bear arms. Unless, of course, one could make a clear distinction between their situation and ours, between our fear of tyrannical despots and theirs, etc...

[archenemy]

Not our gun ownership rights, but theirs. Using our experience as a model, and going on the premise that it should be the right of a populace to bear arms to hold off a tyrannical government, then it seems to logically follow that these folks in Basra, clearly fearful of being controlled by a tyrannical government should be allowed to bear arms. Unless, of course, one could make a clear distinction between their situation and ours, between our fear of tyrannical despots and theirs, etc...

Yes, and it is my sincere hope that they, along with all the other people suffering under horrible gov'ts, are successful in securing their own rights.

[sobo]

Just a point of clarification regarding Martial Law:

 

The President can declare it, and mobilize the National Guard as the force to implement it, but only if the NG is not federalized (this prevents the President from having a federalized military force not controlled by the Congress). The Congress does not declare Martial Law. However, they are the only body of the US government allowed to declare war.

 

Also, state's governors can also declare Martial law, although it's actually called a State of Emergency (although the two [ML and SoE] have virtually identical powers when enacted).

 

And during a time of war, a military official (typically at least a general) can unilaterally declare Martial Law in the theater of that general's operations.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Not our gun ownership rights, but theirs. Using our experience as a model, and going on the premise that it should be the right of a populace to bear arms to hold off a tyrannical government, then it seems to logically follow that these folks in Basra, clearly fearful of being controlled by a tyrannical government should be allowed to bear arms. Unless, of course, one could make a clear distinction between their situation and ours, between our fear of tyrannical despots and theirs, etc...

Yes, and it is my sincere hope that they, along with all the other people suffering under horrible gov'ts, are successful in securing their own rights.

 

What about the Right of Self-Determination? If the people of Iraq want to secede, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Why should Sunnis be forced to live under Shia's or vice versa?

 

 

[archenemy]

Just a point of clarification regarding Martial Law:

 

The President can declare it, and mobilize the National Guard as the force to implement it. Not the Congress.

 

Also, state's governors can also declare Martial law, although it's actually called a State of Emergency (although the two have virutally identical powers when enacted).

 

And during a time of war, a military official (typically at least a general) can unilaterally declare Martial Law in the theater of that general's operations.

The Pres, traditionally, could only do this after he Federalized it. This has only been done once. Of course, Bush pissed all over that when he changed the rule recently (which obviously I disagree with)

 

State of Emergency has a different air about it and is used mainly to help people after a disaster. therefore, things like civil rights are rarely called into question.

 

I didn't know that part about the Generals. Cool.

[archenemy]

Not our gun ownership rights, but theirs. Using our experience as a model, and going on the premise that it should be the right of a populace to bear arms to hold off a tyrannical government, then it seems to logically follow that these folks in Basra, clearly fearful of being controlled by a tyrannical government should be allowed to bear arms. Unless, of course, one could make a clear distinction between their situation and ours, between our fear of tyrannical despots and theirs, etc...

Yes, and it is my sincere hope that they, along with all the other people suffering under horrible gov'ts, are successful in securing their own rights.

 

What about the Right of Self-Determination? If the people of Iraq want to secede, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Why should Sunnis be forced to live under Shia's or vice versa?

 

Exactly. More power to them. I will not be mailing them guns though.

[kevbone]

What about the Right of Self-Determination? If the people of Iraq want to secede, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Why should Sunnis be forced to live under Shia's or vice versa?

 

 

 

The bigger question is why should Sunnis and Shia’s be forced to live under the USA occupation?

 

[chucK]

If the US was fighting a war on its soil would suspension of certain “constitutional rights” be considered legal by the Supreme Court?

Peter, is that a question of me or of the Supreme court? Though I understand a lot of their decisions I certainly don't understand all of them. Not sure I could predict what they would consider legal. Here you basically avoid giving an answer.......

 

???? I think I replied with a basic variant of "I don't know how they would rule, didn't I? Is "I don't know" an acceptable answer?

 

How would the Supreme court rule Peter?

[archenemy]

If the US was fighting a war on its soil would suspension of certain “constitutional rights” be considered legal by the Supreme Court?

Peter, is that a question of me or of the Supreme court? Though I understand a lot of their decisions I certainly don't understand all of them. Not sure I could predict what they would consider legal. Here you basically avoid giving an answer.......

 

???? I think I replied with a basic variant of "I don't know how they would rule, didn't I? Is "I don't know" an acceptable answer?

 

How would the Supreme court rule Peter?

Here is the answer:

The SC would not rule on this. They use a system of precedents and there are none for this (as far as I know--correct me if I am wrong here. Maybe Mattp can set me straight if I am totally missing the ball here).

[sobo]

Just a point of clarification regarding Martial Law:

 

The President can declare it, and mobilize the National Guard as the force to implement it, but only if the NG is not federalized (this prevents the President from having a federalized military force not controlled by the Congress). The Congress does not declare Martial Law. However, they are the only body of the US government allowed to declare war.

 

Also, state's governors can also declare Martial law, although it's actually called a State of Emergency (although the two [ML and SoE] have virtually identical powers when enacted).

 

And during a time of war, a military official (typically at least a general) can unilaterally declare Martial Law in the theater of that general's operations.

The Pres, traditionally, could only do this after he Federalized it. This has only been done once. Of course, Bush pissed all over that when he changed the rule recently (which obviously I disagree with)

 

State of Emergency has a different air about it and is used mainly to help people after a disaster. therefore, things like civil rights are rarely called into question.

 

I didn't know that part about the Generals. Cool.

Exactly, regarding the federalization bit. That's what (used to be) was keeping a president from becoming the next Adolf Hitler. I do not agree with the John Warner Defense Authorization Act either. It's our very own version of the Enabling Act. The slippery slope starts there.

 

Regarding SoE: Although it sounds "nicer" than Martial Law, it is effectively the same thing. Mayor Ray Nagin, when establishing his SoE after Hurricane Katrina, effectively declared Martial Law, and suspended civil and Miranda Rights when he told his police force not to worry about civil rights of looters (and to just shoot them).

[KaskadskyjKozak]

If the US was fighting a war on its soil would suspension of certain “constitutional rights” be considered legal by the Supreme Court?

Peter, is that a question of me or of the Supreme court? Though I understand a lot of their decisions I certainly don't understand all of them. Not sure I could predict what they would consider legal. Here you basically avoid giving an answer.......

 

???? I think I replied with a basic variant of "I don't know how they would rule, didn't I? Is "I don't know" an acceptable answer?

 

How would the Supreme court rule Peter?

Here is the answer:

The SC would not rule on this. They use a system of precedents and there are none for this (as far as I know--correct me if I am wrong here. Maybe Mattp can set me straight if I am totally missing the ball here).

 

The Supreme Court is an appellate court as you indicate. A case has to come up through the court system for them to hear a case, and they choose whether to hear it or not. The Supreme Court does rule on precedent, but *can* reverse a precedent, although they are averse to doing so. If there is no precedent, they can establish one.

 

[chucK]

I wonder if Peter's question is answered yet?

[Peter_Puget]

Chuck -

 

Hazard a guess silly boy.

 

Archy -

 

I can see why you have learned to enjoy pain. You seem to run into alot of walls.......