Tweet
Reading the petitioners' and their amicis' briefs, they all come down claims of expediency: "We need this law because statistics show that so-and-so many people are victims of gun violence..." And then they also throw in tortured sentence parsing and re-interpretation. Neither of those things are legally persuasive. I hope.
-
"Weakness is provocative."
Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024
Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. -
Zombie thread strikes again... Mmm... Brains...
-GeneGene Hoffman
Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation
DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!
"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Comment
-
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/Comment
-
Last edited by aileron; 02-26-2008, 6:23 AM.Look at the tyranny of party -- at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty -- a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes -- and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction... Mark Twain
sigpicComment
-
Could be taken another way...Maybe wanting to hear the anti-gunners side more means that they have more work to do convincing the justices.
The other thing is maybe it's standard to give the current administration time in SCOTUS cases if they want it. I don't know...just a thought."A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have, starting with your sense self reliance." - Mark SteynComment
-
I dont think this is really a big deal. I think its actually a good thing for us. I think it speaks of the strength of our position, and that SCOTUS feels D.C.'s brief is weak enough to necessitate additional time to make a case based on their position.
EDIT: also... as I understand it, SCOTUS rarely appears BLATANTLY one-sided or unfair in any procedural matter. There is a reason for this, which will be apparent soon me thinks.Last edited by tgriffin; 02-26-2008, 2:57 PM.Originally posted by pullnshoot25Originally posted by aileronOriginally posted by Neil McCauleyComment
-
Look at the tyranny of party -- at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty -- a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes -- and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction... Mark Twain
sigpicComment
There are currently 2949 users online. 85 members and 2864 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 7:20 PM on 09-21-2024.
Comment