Comments on: On Standards of Interpretation http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/04/28/on-standards-of-interpretation/ The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State ... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:54:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: stephanazs http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/04/28/on-standards-of-interpretation/#comment-30015 stephanazs Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:35:56 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3340#comment-30015 Interesting facts.I have bookmarked this site. stephanazs Interesting facts.I have bookmarked this site. stephanazs

]]> By: Kazeleop http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/04/28/on-standards-of-interpretation/#comment-25762 Kazeleop Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:17:31 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3340#comment-25762 Hi webmaster! Hi webmaster!

]]> By: Kazellah http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/04/28/on-standards-of-interpretation/#comment-25751 Kazellah Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:54:44 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3340#comment-25751 Hi webmaster! Hi webmaster!

]]> By: nolvadex http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/04/28/on-standards-of-interpretation/#comment-25694 nolvadex Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:04:37 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3340#comment-25694 Hi! <a href="http://www.nola.com/forums/profile.ssf?nickname=buynolvadex" rel="nofollow">nolvadex</a> Hi! nolvadex

]]> By: Gregg http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/04/28/on-standards-of-interpretation/#comment-22340 Gregg Fri, 02 May 2008 03:14:52 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3340#comment-22340 Whoops forgot to put my whole thought down. Speech restrictions would be acceptable for the States not for the feds. Whoops forgot to put my whole thought down.
Speech restrictions would be acceptable for the States not for the feds.

]]> By: Gregg http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/04/28/on-standards-of-interpretation/#comment-22338 Gregg Fri, 02 May 2008 02:54:48 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3340#comment-22338 Allowing restrictions on speech are Constitutionally acceptable according to the 1st A which states that "Congress shall make no law" though possibly abhorent to the 14thA (I think the 14th). Whereas the 2nd states"... shall not be infringed." The choice of words is vastly different and I believe important. Allowing restrictions on speech are Constitutionally acceptable according to the 1st A which states that “Congress shall make no law” though possibly abhorent to the 14thA (I think the 14th).

Whereas the 2nd states”… shall not be infringed.” The choice of words is vastly different and I believe important.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/04/28/on-standards-of-interpretation/#comment-22289 Sebastian Thu, 01 May 2008 13:26:58 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3340#comment-22289 Well, I think for now they aren't going to talk much about standards. They are going to settle the question before them and let the circuit courts fight over it for a few years before taking another case. But The Courts are going to allow restrictions on guns, just as they allow some restrictions on speech (not talking about McCain-Feingold here, but things like time and manner restrictions governments may put on speech), the question then becomes is there an easy standard that courts would be willing to adopt that wouldn't handcuff us in later cases. Well, I think for now they aren’t going to talk much about standards. They are going to settle the question before them and let the circuit courts fight over it for a few years before taking another case. But The Courts are going to allow restrictions on guns, just as they allow some restrictions on speech (not talking about McCain-Feingold here, but things like time and manner restrictions governments may put on speech), the question then becomes is there an easy standard that courts would be willing to adopt that wouldn’t handcuff us in later cases.

]]> By: Gregg http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/04/28/on-standards-of-interpretation/#comment-22284 Gregg Thu, 01 May 2008 09:21:03 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3340#comment-22284 As far as swords being obsolete, while that may be true in modern warfare it is not necessarily so in self-defense situations. Swords are just BIG knives and we are all aware that 21-30 feet of seperation is necessary if we wish to survive an encounter with a knife armed assailant. OTOH, why would anyone want to regulate alleged obsolete weapons? It is nonsensical. Yes, I am aware that nunchucks and 3 section staffs are regulated or banned in many locales. Which in my opinion is incredibly nonsensical since most people trying to use one of the aforementioned weapons are more likely to knock themselves out than threaten anyone else. Sebastian, I know that we want as broad an interpretation as possible and others want as narrow as possible. Thing is, we are told on a daily basis that we live in a society of laws, not men. If the USSC rules that "reasonable" infringements are acceptable, then they are proving that statement to be a lie. As far as swords being obsolete, while that may be true in modern warfare it is not necessarily so in self-defense situations. Swords are just BIG knives and we are all aware that 21-30 feet of seperation is necessary if we wish to survive an encounter with a knife armed assailant.

OTOH, why would anyone want to regulate alleged obsolete weapons? It is nonsensical.

Yes, I am aware that nunchucks and 3 section staffs are regulated or banned in many locales. Which in my opinion is incredibly nonsensical since most people trying to use one of the aforementioned weapons are more likely to knock themselves out than threaten anyone else.

Sebastian, I know that we want as broad an interpretation as possible and others want as narrow as possible. Thing is, we are told on a daily basis that we live in a society of laws, not men. If the USSC rules that “reasonable” infringements are acceptable, then they are proving that statement to be a lie.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/04/28/on-standards-of-interpretation/#comment-22280 Sebastian Thu, 01 May 2008 04:04:49 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3340#comment-22280 True, but the government can infringe on them regardless. Rights may be natural, but that doesn't force the government to respect them. Judges do that. That's why we have to be concerned about this topic. True, but the government can infringe on them regardless. Rights may be natural, but that doesn’t force the government to respect them. Judges do that. That’s why we have to be concerned about this topic.

]]> By: workinwifdakids http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/04/28/on-standards-of-interpretation/#comment-22279 workinwifdakids Thu, 01 May 2008 03:53:33 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3340#comment-22279 I want us to be careful about saying that a judge can tell us what our rights are. Our rights were born of the laws of nature and nature's God, and nothing - not even a legal repeal of the 2nd Amendment - can change that. We could not give up these rights, even if we wanted earnestly to do so. I want us to be careful about saying that a judge can tell us what our rights are. Our rights were born of the laws of nature and nature’s God, and nothing – not even a legal repeal of the 2nd Amendment – can change that.

We could not give up these rights, even if we wanted earnestly to do so.

]]>