gun rights in Iraq

[chucK]

as per your last example, aren't guns already illegal in D.C.?

 

The Supreme Court is deciding that one as we speak. Though appearances can be deceiving, the oral arguments seemed to imply that the justices were leaning more toward making machine-gun ownership legal than toward upholding the D.C. gun ban (which the Bush administration solicitor general spoke in favor of BTW).

[glassgowkiss]

 

you don't think civil rights would be curtailed drastically?

 

It already is.....ever heard of Habis Corpus? Or illegal wire tapping....

 

Tell us all about Habis Corpus, boner.

 

 

Here you go.

 

Man, you are dense. And humorless.

 

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.

[kevbone]

The biggest question is why we are having a discussion as to whether Iraq gets to keep there guns? Who cares….

[KaskadskyjKozak]

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?

 

[archenemy]

That's clear.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

as per your last example, aren't guns already illegal in D.C.?

 

The Supreme Court is deciding that one as we speak. Though appearances can be deceiving, the oral arguments seemed to imply that the justices were leaning more toward making machine-gun ownership legal than toward upholding the D.C. gun ban (which the Bush administration solicitor general spoke in favor of BTW).

 

As a tangent, I would support a resumption on the ban on automatic weapons.

 

[glassgowkiss]

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

 

only congress can proclaim a war. supreme court has nothing to do with war proclamation.

[archenemy]

As would I; except for collectors (who have them disabled)

[archenemy]

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

 

only congress can proclaim a war. supreme court has nothing to do with war proclamation.

I just said that.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

As would I; except for collectors (who have them disabled)

 

Agreed.

[archenemy]

Semi-autos rule though.

[Peter_Puget]

Glassgowkiss -

How is that relevent?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Semi-autos rule though.

 

I wouldn't know. The only guns I've ever fired are .22's.

[glassgowkiss]

The biggest question is why we are having a discussion as to whether Iraq gets to keep there guns? Who cares….

 

that was an argument about Afghanistan some time ago. somehow it didn't work in our favor.

[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 loosing end of a discussion.

 

Clear enough?

 

[chucK]

OK Archenemy, sorry to not to be understanding you. Maybe this would clear things up for me:

 

You wrote:

Our laws exist for a reason, not for the mere practise of the language.

emphasis mine

 

What would be "the reason" for the existence of our gun-rights statutes.

 

(If you reply with "because it's in the constitution", I will cry )

 

And I promise no more questions.

 

[archenemy]

Glassgowkiss -

How is that relevent?

I think it is a good thing to point out what the different branches of our gov't are responsible for b/c it sometimes seems as if there is a bit of confusion around their roles. Declaring martial law is under the Congress' responsibility, so asking if the SC can restrict people's rights during that time is a non-sensical question if you know that.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

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 loosing end of a discussion.

 

Clear enough?

 

Just what am I loosing, boner? My shirt collar?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Glassgowkiss -

How is that relevent?

I think it is a good thing to point out what the different branches of our gov't are responsible for b/c it sometimes seems as if there is a bit of confusion around their roles. Declaring martial law is under the Congress' responsibility, so asking if the SC can restrict people's rights during that time is a non-sensical question if you know that.

 

Well, the SC does rule on the constitutionality of imposing martial law.

 

[archenemy]

OK Archenemy, sorry to not to be understanding you. Maybe this would clear things up for me:

 

You wrote:

Our laws exist for a reason, not for the mere practise of the language.

emphasis mine

 

What would be "the reason" for the existence of our gun-rights statutes.

 

(If you reply with "because it's in the constitution", I will cry )

 

And I promise no more questions.

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. So I guess my answer is "because it is in the Constitution"

[Peter_Puget]

Glassgowkiss -

How is that relevent?

I think it is a good thing to point out what the different branches of our gov't are responsible for b/c it sometimes seems as if there is a bit of confusion around their roles. Declaring martial law is under the Congress' responsibility, so asking if the SC can restrict people's rights during that time is a non-sensical question if you know that.

 

Here is my question:

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

 

Ya non-sense......

 

[glassgowkiss]

As would I; except for collectors

 

one might argue eric harris and dylan klebold were gun collectors too, sort of. and how would you ensure they can be disabled and stay disabled?

[chucK]

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.

[archenemy]

Glassgowkiss -

How is that relevent?

I think it is a good thing to point out what the different branches of our gov't are responsible for b/c it sometimes seems as if there is a bit of confusion around their roles. Declaring martial law is under the Congress' responsibility, so asking if the SC can restrict people's rights during that time is a non-sensical question if you know that.

 

Well, the SC does rule on the constitutionality of imposing martial law.

Well, not to be contrary, but it was actually the SEnate and the House of Reps that came up with this so technically the SC is not able to overthrow this process.

[archenemy]

Glassgowkiss -

How is that relevent?

I think it is a good thing to point out what the different branches of our gov't are responsible for b/c it sometimes seems as if there is a bit of confusion around their roles. Declaring martial law is under the Congress' responsibility, so asking if the SC can restrict people's rights during that time is a non-sensical question if you know that.

 

Here is my question:

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

 

Ya non-sense......

 

To restate the answer:

If there were war here and we were under martial law (which undoubtedly happen" then the SC would not have a say in the matter.

Does that make sense to you?