Well, Tomorrow is the 1st Monday....
- Thread starter The_Shootist
- Start date
- Status
arthurcw
Member
Not a troll. Read his sig. I imagine it stems from this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=367171
Troll? WTB? Master of Irony? You be the judge.
Troll? WTB? Master of Irony? You be the judge.
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
You pretty much have to ignore anything MASTEROFMALICE posts this week. Someone upset him by not agreeing with him and now he is now looking for attention by showing us how lucky we are he isn't a real jackbooted thug.
So, in a great show of TheHighRoad spirit, he's intentionally disrupting the board by playing "Opposite Day" for an entire week. Despite the fact his signature says a "select few", he is taking out his tantrum on the entire board. Sadly, he fails to realize that these posts will stick around and reflect his views and disrupt the board until long after he changes his signature back.
Thanks, buddy.
So, in a great show of TheHighRoad spirit, he's intentionally disrupting the board by playing "Opposite Day" for an entire week. Despite the fact his signature says a "select few", he is taking out his tantrum on the entire board. Sadly, he fails to realize that these posts will stick around and reflect his views and disrupt the board until long after he changes his signature back.
Thanks, buddy.
Gunnerpalace
Member
We need a sarcasm smilie. I think that was what he was trying to get across, or someone else is playing with his account.
learn2shoot
Member
I live close to DC, and would consider going to hear the reading, if I knew when it would be. Do they read the findings to the public, or are they simply "released"?
Last edited:
Dain Bramage
Member
MASTEROFMALICE=Drama Queen
MASTEROFMALICE
member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 711
Actually, that's Drama King.
I've altered my recent posts. It got old quick.
Dain Bramage
Member
Welcome back.
MASTEROFMALICE
member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 711
Thanks. It's good to be back.
El Tejon
Member
Let those guys have AKs, Kirk is taking a M240G.
learn2shoot:
As I understand, the Justice that authored the majority opinion usually reads a summary from the bench. Orders are released at 10am every Monday, who knows during which one Heller will be released (9, 16 or 23 June are the only valid dates remaining before the summer recess).
Kharn
As I understand, the Justice that authored the majority opinion usually reads a summary from the bench. Orders are released at 10am every Monday, who knows during which one Heller will be released (9, 16 or 23 June are the only valid dates remaining before the summer recess).
Kharn
DoubleTapDrew
Member
I hope when they announce it they have all kinds of music and lasers going off everywhere like an American Idol finale, and Kennedy comes charging out playing air guitar on a full auto Masada.
lance22
Member
Exactly. Those things just don't take optics that well. The Founders envisioned people running around with rifles that use Picatinny, not those crappy drill mount things. Drill mounts: bad.
Yellowfin
Member
Clearly they intended for an American rifle in their hands like a AR15 or Stoner 63A or a nice SMG like a Thompson. In the event of that not happening, however, since my name is neither Tom nor Dick nor Harry I'm off the excluded list so pass me my AK, thank you very much.
Seminole
Member
divemedic
Member
Actually, the Constitution exists to establish the powers of the federal government, and safeguard the rights of citizens. Furthermore, the founders did not envision citizens having internet access or radio. They did not want a standing army. What they DID want was a weak federal government, and a well armed citizenry.
Megistopoda
Member
Glad this "Masterofmalice" person is around to raise the intellectual bar a bit higher....
Anyway, my thoughts on this issue are as follows...and are perhaps just anticipatory musings....
Anyone inclined to predict when the ruling will be released? My money is on 23 June. That's in part because it seems most filings in this case have been on the last day possible; generally, why deliver something like this before the due date...what is the advantage in doing that? My prediction is also in part due to some wishful thinking....such as...
Does anyone suppose that given the lack of precedent, it's possible (if not probable) that the majority is seriously considering/studying some of the excellent scholarly work on the 2A (eg. the founding era thinking, historical documents, personal correspondence, etc.)? For example, David Young's book "The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms" is just out and has been cited scads of times in the Heller briefs. Moreover, Young's older book has been cited many times as well. Unless I am mistaken, these seem like "go-to" references for the majority opinion. Is it just wishful thinking on my part that we will receive some manner of favorable ruling, and thus should also expect that the majority would like to go down in history as getting this one right?
Perhaps...the longer they wait, the more informed their opininon stands to be. Any thoughts?
And another thing that I've been considering:
Given that all the words have meaning, I still think their greatest "hurdle" is to maintain a meaningful and robust right to keep and bear arms in light of one of the rights' obvious purposes ... to enable and preserve an effective citizen's militia ... which is necessary to the security of a free state.
Much of the opinion I suppose will speak to the defense of self, of home, etc., against common individual criminals. But in reality that's just one of the more obvious and unstated purposes. The people's militia, and it's importance to our security, is a clearly stated purpose. That purpose cannot be ignored by the court.
And that is where the trick will lie...for this subject includes what Polsby and Kates correctly described as "...the argument [that] deservedly poses the highest hurdle to dispassionate argument about civilian weapons policy."
http://www.foac-pac.org/laws/Polsby.html
Here is hoping that the Supremes don't attempt a headstand in order to reconcile the militia purpose with the right to arms.
Anyway, my thoughts on this issue are as follows...and are perhaps just anticipatory musings....
Anyone inclined to predict when the ruling will be released? My money is on 23 June. That's in part because it seems most filings in this case have been on the last day possible; generally, why deliver something like this before the due date...what is the advantage in doing that? My prediction is also in part due to some wishful thinking....such as...
Does anyone suppose that given the lack of precedent, it's possible (if not probable) that the majority is seriously considering/studying some of the excellent scholarly work on the 2A (eg. the founding era thinking, historical documents, personal correspondence, etc.)? For example, David Young's book "The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms" is just out and has been cited scads of times in the Heller briefs. Moreover, Young's older book has been cited many times as well. Unless I am mistaken, these seem like "go-to" references for the majority opinion. Is it just wishful thinking on my part that we will receive some manner of favorable ruling, and thus should also expect that the majority would like to go down in history as getting this one right?
Perhaps...the longer they wait, the more informed their opininon stands to be. Any thoughts?
And another thing that I've been considering:
Given that all the words have meaning, I still think their greatest "hurdle" is to maintain a meaningful and robust right to keep and bear arms in light of one of the rights' obvious purposes ... to enable and preserve an effective citizen's militia ... which is necessary to the security of a free state.
Much of the opinion I suppose will speak to the defense of self, of home, etc., against common individual criminals. But in reality that's just one of the more obvious and unstated purposes. The people's militia, and it's importance to our security, is a clearly stated purpose. That purpose cannot be ignored by the court.
And that is where the trick will lie...for this subject includes what Polsby and Kates correctly described as "...the argument [that] deservedly poses the highest hurdle to dispassionate argument about civilian weapons policy."
http://www.foac-pac.org/laws/Polsby.html
Here is hoping that the Supremes don't attempt a headstand in order to reconcile the militia purpose with the right to arms.
George C Morrison
member
With the makeup of this Supreme Court ,the chances of this happening are very slim,IMO.
It's going to be clearcut,with the amount of scrutiny the headline.
Here's hoping for strict.
learn2shoot
Member
Ok... what are the odds that the opinion is not read by the 23rd? what happens then? Is there a provision to allow justices to hold an opinion from one session to the next?
Megistopoda
Member
Good points. I would venture to guess that there might exist at least 4 votes for strict scrutiny. But that last one might be tough.
But if not strict scrutiny, then I might venture to guess that there will be no ruling per standard at all. Roberts seemed to want to avoid addressing standard, at least during the argument.
And yes....I feel like a kid at Christmastime. Three more weeks until Christmas day (my prediction, at least).
And suddenly, there will be national discussions about the 2A and gun rights. And who will be forced to talk about it? Barack Obama and John McCain. And VP candidate Hillary Clinton will carry on her rhetoric that the 2A applies in places like...Montana....but not in NYC, or DC, or Chicago. We could hope they talk. Any talk at the national level would be good.
Megistopoda:
Justice Kennedy remarked that Miller could be flawed, so if they're willing to go that route (and Kennedy's the swing vote) anything could happen with regards to depth of examination.
They normally wait until the very end for controversial cases, and most lawyers wait until the last possible day to file briefs.
learn2shoot:
The Court would then hold the decision over until the next term, beginning in October. It has happened before, but it is rare (the Justices hate working during their vacation).
Kharn
Justice Kennedy remarked that Miller could be flawed, so if they're willing to go that route (and Kennedy's the swing vote) anything could happen with regards to depth of examination.
They normally wait until the very end for controversial cases, and most lawyers wait until the last possible day to file briefs.
learn2shoot:
The Court would then hold the decision over until the next term, beginning in October. It has happened before, but it is rare (the Justices hate working during their vacation).
Kharn
Autolycus
Member
Tag for later.
- Status
