Comments on: have it your way

By: follow the money | walls of the city

follow the money | walls of the city — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:06:37 +0000

[...] of pro-control legislation making headway throughout the country. Unfortunately, time and time again, those organizations turn out to be staffed lie-spewing children cutting out paper tigers. [...]

By: poor little narcissist-in-chief | walls of the city

poor little narcissist-in-chief | walls of the city — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 22:56:28 +0000

[...] President we have ever managed to elect, does not grasp this concept? Crap on a crutch – McDonald v. Chicago and Heller v. D.C. just provided two very recent examples of exactly this – pro-rights [...]

By: taking the ball and running with it | walls of the city

taking the ball and running with it | walls of the city — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 22:44:49 +0000

[...] the patently obvious: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that right cannot be legislated into non-existance simply because a government wants to. Today, the majority of Americans agree with both those statements, with an impressively wide [...]

By: take what you can get | walls of the city

take what you can get | walls of the city — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:58:06 +0000

[...] difference, can you?Linoge on Deputy killed in odd circumstancesLinoge on without a rippleLinoge on have it your wayMike-ENDOtactical on Deputy killed in odd circumstancesEnd of the day roundup. « A Dixie [...]

By: Linoge

Linoge — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:56:52 +0000

Thanks for the heads-up regarding your post, and your blogroll link has been appropriately… adjusted .

By: End of the day roundup. « A Dixie Carpetbagger

End of the day roundup. « A Dixie Carpetbagger — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:56:38 +0000

[...] Second Amendment now applies to the states through the 14th Amendment. Alito wrote the majority opinion, Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, and Breyer whined (a spine, grow one, Stoddard*). [...]

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:30:10 +0000

Nevermind… I found me.. You used the literal URL… Where Angels Fear To Tread is the blog name.. no harm no foul and you are forgiven and all that..

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:29:15 +0000

I’m not on your blogroll (cough), but I just posted mine.

By: Linoge

Linoge — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 01:15:24 +0000

….crap. Shows how much I eat fast food / pay attention to advertisements.

By: Rustmeister

Rustmeister — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:09:55 +0000

LOL that’s a Burger King slogan. =)

By: Linoge

Linoge — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:44:21 +0000

Originally Posted By BillH
5 to 4? Another year or two of President 0, or a Rodham term following, and the result will be 4-5 or even 3-6. Then what?

I will not lie – the vote count disturbs the hell out of me, not only from the angle you are considering, but also from the perspective of, “How could four people who have no regard for basic human rights get appointed to the Supreme Court?”

Then, I remind myself who our current President is, and who he is proposing for the upcoming open slot, and the answer is a little more obvious, if not concerning. The best I can say is that we should celebrate what victories we have, no matter how tenuous they might be, for as long as we have them, and cement as much of a judicial precedent as we can, as quickly as we can.

Originally Posted By BillH
And the 2nd really _isn’t_ about self-defense within the home, is it? What ever happened to the whole “security of a free state” thing? You know, protecting the citizens from tyrants and all? Not really an issue anymore, is it? After all, everyone knows, only government can keep us safe and solve all our problems.

When I say “self-defense”, I mean defending one’s person and property from anyone who would threaten either, whether that is someone breaking into your home at night, or whether that is a government looking to liberate you of the burden of your hard-earned money.

When the Supreme Court says that, I have no honest idea what, specifically, they mean, and while Heller went out of its way to postulate that the self-defense it was defining was primarily limited to the home, notice the words you quoted – “most notably for…” Not “solely for”, not even “primarily for”, but rather that the most-common example the SCOTUS decided to identify was self-defense in the home – this does not preclude the acceptance of other forms in the future, when their particular questions are raised.

And, speaking of, I sincerely hope a case involving the carrying of firearms (i.e. “bearing of arms”) comes up to the Court within the next few years – that would be yet another precedent that would be invaluable in the future.

I certainly fault no one for being less than enthused about this ruling. I am certainly not giddy either. But I do believe in taking what you can get, and using it as a stepping stone for future actions, and this is one hell of a shiny stone .

By: BillH

BillH — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:11:25 +0000

“Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and beararms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.”

Two points keep me from hoisting a glass with you all…

5 to 4? Another year or two of President 0, or a Rodham term following, and the result will be 4-5 or even 3-6. Then what?

And the 2nd really _isn’t_ about self-defense within the home, is it? What ever happened to the whole “security of a free state” thing? You know, protecting the citizens from tyrants and all? Not really an issue anymore, is it? After all, everyone knows, only government can keep us safe and solve all our problems.

I’m afraid this “win” is weaker than anyone wants to admit, and it has the potential to reframe the whole argument. I’ll try to read the whole thing in the next few days though… maybe I can get enthused?