Supreme Court Upholds Right to Own A Gun

[wjk]

This is a very interesting debate. I have a few questions for those who would treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue:

When a mushroom cloud goes up over a western city (or some other WMD attack), at the hands of a few deranged fanatics, will it be a law enforcement issue, or an act of war?

If fanatical terrorism is treated as a war, it's simple. If a government supports, finances, teaches this hatred of the west, or hides these fanatics, they are legitimate targets.

If the same is treated as a law enforcement issue, how do these
governments get treated? How are they brought to justice without initiating war?


As far as defeating them by promoting our civilized culture:

It is our civilizing culture that the fanatics are opposed to and wish to destroy at any and all costs. Certain governments seem to feel this way about the west, as well. If this is law enforcement, the cops got their work cut out for them.

 

[stu]

Quote from wjk:

This is a very interesting debate. I have a few questions for those who would treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue:

When a mushroom cloud goes up over a western city (or some other WMD attack), at the hands of a few deranged fanatics, will it be a law enforcement issue, or an act of war?

If fanatical terrorism is treated as a war, it's simple. If a government supports, finances, teaches this hatred of the west, or hides these fanatics, they are legitimate targets.

If the same is treated as a law enforcement issue, how do these
governments get treated? How are they brought to justice without initiating war?


As far as defeating them by promoting our civilized culture:

It is our civilizing culture that the fanatics are opposed to and wish to destroy at any and all costs. Certain governments seem to feel this way about the west, as well. If this is law enforcement, the cops got their work cut out for them.

Your questions suggest the people of our civilized culture, our democracy which are essentially based on the rule of common law, need acquiesce to its core fundamental grounding principles being de-assembled in order to keep it in tact. That is first off outrageous and of course obviously impossible anyway. Once done, neither that civilized culture or the democracy, are what we were talking of.

Now powerful politicians need only suggest a threat and the terrorists do nothing but watch as their aims are achieved. The undermining of the culture they hate is being carried out by those who govern it in the name of the people who cherish it. Just how the hell does that lead anywhere but the road to where terrorists are already at?
Couldn't help them more if you tried. You don’t defeat terrorism by stooping to it.

 

[jem]

Quote from wjk:

This is a very interesting debate. I have a few questions for those who would treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue:

When a mushroom cloud goes up over a western city (or some other WMD attack), at the hands of a few deranged fanatics, will it be a law enforcement issue, or an act of war?

If fanatical terrorism is treated as a war, it's simple. If a government supports, finances, teaches this hatred of the west, or hides these fanatics, they are legitimate targets.

If the same is treated as a law enforcement issue, how do these
governments get treated? How are they brought to justice without initiating war?


As far as defeating them by promoting our civilized culture:

It is our civilizing culture that the fanatics are opposed to and wish to destroy at any and all costs. Certain governments seem to feel this way about the west, as well. If this is law enforcement, the cops got their work cut out for them.

Who said anything about law enforcement.

I was just advocating protecting americans and innocent foreigners from an over zealous military or police force.

As far as capturing terrorists, attacking terrorists or torturing terrorists... If it makes sense it should be considered.

Seriously. I care not one iota about world opinion on that issue. Torture has a time and a place when it comes to saving lives from people who could be setting off bombs. Lets just make sure we are torturing a terrorists who may have immediately important information. So again I advocate due process. its just that I do not artificially cut off what is reasonable under the circumstances.

 

[stu]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

[....]

Many people take the view that whatever the Court says is "The Law" and must be followed explicitly, no matter the consequences. That is not a view that is supported by the Constitution or by history. The Constitution sets up three co-equal branches, not two equal branches with a judiciary to resolve tough issues. The Constitution has elaborate checks and balances that were clearly designed to keep any one Branch from overstepping its boundaries. Congress can impeach the President or judges. The President can veto laws or in extreme cases, refuse to carry them out. The Supreme Court can rule laws unconstitutional. Note however that they have no way to enforce their decisions without the assistance of another branch. In this case, they blatantly trespassed upon both the Executive and Legislative Branch's turf. It would be entirely appropriate for those Branches to respond in kind by agreeing to treat the ruling as a nullity.

The writ of habeas corpus under Common Law is the crucial key to those checks and balances you mention. An American citizen has no means to be found as such when no person is allowed to have any hearing in order to seek relief from unlawful detention on foreign soil. The cornerstone of freedom and liberty is removed , it’s the Constitution which gets nullified , and arbitrary state control is in place. At root level that is no better a form of government than despot regimes the 200 years development of civilized culture, Common Law and democracy were essential in raising us to.
I don’t want legislators removing or suspending core aspects of common law because 1. that removes any right for an American citizen to establish themselves in Court to be heard on foreign land (eventually at home when Congress cares to make “war” in any definition ) for unlawful arrest.
2. it demonstrates we have no better a system at heart than ones run by those who would destroy ours if they could. Which is what they succeed in doing anyway when the Executive suspend remedy under Common Law for Christ sake.

 

[lilduckling]

what came first, the criminal or the gun?

if the gun came first, then we can solve all our proplems by banning and confiscating all guns.

if the criminal came first, then no laws or regulations against guns will make anyone safer.

there are countries were no hundguns are allowed and they have almost no crime..... and there are also some countries where citizens can own any gun including machine guns, and they have almost zero crime.

the issue is not guns....... the issue is people, becuse here in this country we have some really screwed up people and women having children that shouldnt be allowed to.

until something is done about screwed up people raising kids..... nothing will change.

Maybe people should have to get a licence before they are allowed to have kids....

 

[wjk]

Quote from stu:

Your questions suggest the people of our civilized culture, our democracy which are essentially based on the rule of common law, need acquiesce to its core fundamental grounding principles being de-assembled in order to keep it in tact. That is first off outrageous and of course obviously impossible anyway. Once done, neither that civilized culture or the democracy, are what we were talking of.

Now powerful politicians need only suggest a threat and the terrorists do nothing but watch as their aims are achieved. The undermining of the culture they hate is being carried out by those who govern it in the name of the people who cherish it. Just how the hell does that lead anywhere but the road to where terrorists are already at?
Couldn't help them more if you tried. You don’t defeat terrorism by stooping to it.

Let's be specific. If a city, maybe even yours, is destroyed by a terrorist, what would your course of action be, assuming you were in a leadership postion, and you were fortunate enough to survive? Not theory, but specific action. Or would you take none?

 

[wjk]

Quote from jem:

Who said anything about law enforcement.

I was just advocating protecting americans and innocent foreigners from an over zealous military or police force.

As far as capturing terrorists, attacking terrorists or torturing terrorists... If it makes sense it should be considered.

Seriously. I care not one iota about world opinion on that issue. Torture has a time and a place when it comes to saving lives from people who could be setting off bombs. Lets just make sure we are torturing a terrorists who may have immediately important information. So again I advocate due process. its just that I do not artificially cut off what is reasonable under the circumstances.

My response was not to your post. I was responding to the following quote

"The fight against terrorism ..... is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.
........it is obvious that the process of winning convictions ought to be in keeping with a consensual rule of law and not detached from it. Otherwise we sacrifice fundamental values critical to the maintenance of the rule of law - upon which everything else depends."

We treated terrorism as law enforcement, or reactive, in the 80's and 90's. It has been treated as a war, or proactive, since 911. One needs to draw one's own conclusion as to which has been more successful. I agree with you completely regarding doing what must be done.

I believe if they are on our soil, they have the rights we have, but if they are on a foreign battle field, they should not. It would perhaps behoove us to determine exactly what the battle field is in the current situation. Do multipe establishments in a civilized city being bombed by organized terrorists constitute a battlefield?

In our history, rights have been lessoned during wartime, but yet here we are, still one of the most free nations. I would suggest that we are losing much more freedom to ideology in the courts then we are from wartime restrictions.

 

[maxpi]

Quote from cgroupman:

You worry about guns being confiscated, yet you support an administration that illegally spies and wiretaps it's citizens? I have respected you as a thinker as opposed to left or right on command. You have had some good ideas, but you seem to be getting a bit more polarized, that's too bad.


c

Spies and wiretaps, BFD... I sent a nice email to a Pacifica station recently, congratulated them on having a link to a suicide help hotline because their listeners are going to need it after they listen to 24/7 leftist drivel... they are whining pretty much all the time about the old days when the US government would not tolerate it's own violent overthrow and actually treated leftists like shit.... good for them... go listen to their nice stories and don't bother grown ups..

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from AlpineTrout:

Here's a nice little article that will no doubt make an anti-gun nut wince. It's a town not too far away from where I live.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

================
Great GA article of 2ND amendment [required];
Alpine-T.

Great ruling;
no doubt an answer to prayers

But I cant emphasize safety rules enough[10 commandments of gun safety''; FOX news had 16 wounded ''accidentally'' in Paris France

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from wjk:

My response was not to your post. I was responding to the following quote

"The fight against terrorism ..... is *** a war.

We treated terrorism as law enforcement, or reactive, in the 80's and 90's. It has been treated as a war, or proactive, since 911. One needs to draw one's own conclusion as to which has been more successful. I agree with you completely regarding doing what must be done.


In our history, rights have been lessoned during wartime, but yet here we are, still one of the most free nations. I would suggest that we are losing much more freedom to ideology in the courts then we are from wartime restrictions.

===================
Great points, gentlemen,and with all due respect;
but President Ronald Reagan treat terrorists as enemies in a war;
no lame-brain liberals/judges to stop capital punishment/war.

I am in favor of executing terrorists, wherever they live/fight;
no trials or taxpayers funds wasted on their jail time.

Great Supreme court ruling on 2ND amendment