Big Win for gun rights advocates

[Formaldehyde]

Freudian slip. I was thinking of The Donald when I posted that.

But I really don't think many people get arrested for free room and board. I think that is apocryphal except for an extremely few cases where they just can't adjust to life outside of prison after being in so long.

 

[El_Machinae]

If I'm reading this correctly, it's a big win for the 2A, in that it strongly recognizes it as an intrinsic right. Having previously committed a misdemeanor doesn't abrogate that right.

 

[Antilogic]

I understand now.
Corporations are people.
People aren't.

+1 for near-haiku format with a Shymalanesque twist at the end (I say "aren't" as a single syllable, so it's a bit off for me).

 

[Agent327]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/08/21/3693788/gun-rights-win-a-major-victory-in-federal-court-and-thats-actually-a-good-thing/

So where is this "Big Win" you speak of? The court's decision is on illegal residents' rights.

Typical Obama - trying to rob the people of their 2nd Amendment Rights. I also believe he is responsible for disabling tags.

I was unaware the US president resides in federal court now.

 

[Cutlass]

I understand now.
Corporations are people.
People aren't.

That is fundamentally Chief Justice Roberts and the Court's conservative majority's core belief.

 

[JollyRoger]

So where is this "Big Win" you speak of? The court's decision is on illegal residents' rights.

Gun owners' rights. What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

 

[Agent327]

The part of the illegal residents. The court ruled whether illegal residents can make a claim to belong to "the people" (you know, that bit you left out). The 2nd Amendment is one such right and the court ruled an illegal resident can make a claim to such rights. Ergo, illegal residents are part of "the people." The essence therefore is not 'gun rights', but illegal residents' rights.

 

[JollyRoger]

The issue was if an infringement would be allowed or not and the court came down on not infringing. Gun rights advocates should be celebrating.

 

[Borachio]

Oh, so some people aren't as much people as other people?

This isn't news to me. I've heard the same sort of nonsense spouted by Untermenschen of various stripes before, you know.

 

[Agent327]

The issue was if an infringement would be allowed or not and the court came down on not infringing. Gun rights advocates should be celebrating.

I doubt they are. The case could have been on any civil rights amendment. Alien residents (not a popular issue with gun rights activists) no doubt are celebrating, as the implication is that alien residents can lay claim to constitutional rights. But I'm glad to see you so supportive of alien residents' rights.

 

[JollyRoger]

Alien residents need guns to protect themselves from vigilante gun rights activists.

 

[Takhisis]

+1 for near-haiku format with a Shymalanesque twist at the end (I say "aren't" as a single syllable, so it's a bit off for me).

When Bruce Willis was dead, at the end of Sixth Sense, I…

If non-citizens count as 'the people', wouldn't that then make efforts to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons illegal if it's the government pursuing such efforts?

Iran's in US territory. They have an embassy and all.

What gives them the ability to proactively disarm people, if the 2A says that people have the right to bear arms?

My particular interpreatation of such a clause is that everyone has a right to hunting trophies. Does it help?

Alien residents need guns to protect themselves from vigilante gun rights activists.

Even if they vote for Khodos?

 

[Agent327]

Alien residents need guns to protect themselves from vigilante gun rights activists.

Possibly, but that's not really related to this court case, is it.

Iran's in US territory. They have an embassy and all.

That's not really relevant to the question - although frankly I fail to see how the question is even remotely relevant to this court case. 'Alien residents' does not equal foreigners residing in other countries, and the 2nd amendment can have no relevance to other countries anyway as it is part of the constitution of one country only - which is not Iran.

My particular interpreatation of such a clause is that everyone has a right to hunting trophies.

An interesting interpretation, though I doubt there is any jurisprudence on that with relation to the 2nd amendment.

 

[Antilogic]

When Bruce Willis was dead, at the end of Sixth Sense, I…

...jizzed in my pants?

 

[Takhisis]

That's not really relevant to the question - although frankly I fail to see how the question is even remotely relevant to this court case. 'Alien residents' does not equal foreigners residing in other countries, and the 2nd amendment can have no relevance to other countries anyway as it is part of the constitution of one country only - which is not Iran.

I'll just tell you that this thread isn't RD and let that fact sink in…

An interesting interpretation, though I doubt there is any jurisprudence on that with relation to the 2nd amendment.

Does Family Guy constitute jurisprudence?

...jizzed in my pants?

I just ate a grape…

 

[Agent327]

I'll just tell you that this thread isn't RD and let that fact sink in…

The subject here is law and the topics brought up don't relate to this case, sorry.

Does Family Guy constitute jurisprudence?

No.