Comments
3,281 - 3,300 of 8,007 Comments Last updated Wednesday Jul 23

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3567
Jan 27, 2013
 
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I had a '76. Solid, comfortable transportation.
I agree, for its time. I loved my '76 Elite, too. But I wouldn't love it in today's highway realities. Those were fine cars back in the day, but today I prefer more safety, much nimbler handling, more horsepower and less gas consumption.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3568
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it funny how if a person indicates he believes in man made climate change these people presume that person has an "evironmental killer list?"
If a person believes that Obama was a better candidate than Romney he considers Obama "The Messiah."
If a person believes anti-muslim bigotry is wrong, he is pro bin Laden.
If a person believes we can have reasonable regulation of firearms, he hates the constitution.
If a person believes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were follies, he isn't an American.
I take that back. It's not funny. It's sad.
Even sadder is one who calls someone else an extremist for saying that abortion is the murder of an innocent, helpless human being.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3569
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
That would seem to fall under the "narrowly tailored" part of strict scrutiny.
The opinion says what it says. It never specified which level of scrutiny should be applied, leaving the question open for another day.

The DC Court of Appeals subsequently applied intermediate scrutiny to the gun regulations at issue on remand.

As of now, at least in jurisdictions subject to the authority of DC circuit, that's where things sit.

woof
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3571
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to misunderstand. The Court found an individual right to self defense. That's what was at issue in Heller, and McDonald. That's all that was at issue.
There's also a collective right to bear arms as a member in a militia. The scope and breadth of those rights were not before the Court, so the Court's holding does not apply to them.
That's it.
Read Mr. Charles' article, pages 242-247. Its spells it out quite succinctly.
woof
I do not misunderstand, the court found that the word militia in the second amendment did not limit it to a militia and that is binding. No other case will go before a court claiming that the second amendment is related only to those in a militia. The specific claim of that was shot down and settled. To say all reference to militia was dicta is failing to grasp the content and context of the case.
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3572
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course what that court determined is spelled out in the ruling. To know that the ruling changed the rules one would have to compare that ruling to rulings that came before it. If you would do that, you would see that this Court of Appeals re-defined what a Senate recess is.
The senate opened and closed a session the day the appointments were made. There was even a public outcry over it and it is cited in the case as well. No other president has done that, no other president has claimed the senate was on recess when it opened and closed the same day. The ruling did change a previous ruling and explained where the previous court erred.
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3573
Jan 27, 2013
 
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that the POTUS can only appoint with the advice and consent of the Senate places a duty upon the Senate to offer that advice and consent.
It only places a duty on the POTUS to get the advice and consent of the senate. There is absolutely no duty for the senate to do anything that isn't specifically spelled out to them like with impeachment.

The president has to be in good standing with the senate if he expects them to do anything to help him. The constitution was designed specifically to put the administration in check.

If there was a duty on the senate, you would have seen the SCOTUS getting involved by now as other presidents would have used the duty to force action on appointments through the supreme court already. Blocked appointments are not anything new or unique to this administration.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3575
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
I seriously doubt che cares what I drive.
I've been thinking of getting a horse for short court trips, but I might have to talk the Judge into having the county install a hitchin post..
woof
A well trained quarter horse will stay wherever you drop the reins. Dukester....be sure to strap on a bucket and shovel.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3576
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I had a '76. Solid, comfortable transportation.
LMAO My sister and her husband got a LTD, I forget what year. My mother told everyone they had a LSD. Thanks for the chuckle and memory.
Have a nice 'trip'
Out Here Somewhere

Dublin, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3577
Jan 27, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
You should see what houses are selling for once the banks foreclose. Look in the county you live in.
woof
LOL! Hello, Woofie - do you not understand that a server location is NOT indicative of where one lives?
Out Here Somewhere

Dublin, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3578
Jan 27, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah blah blah blah blah. I work from home pal.
woof
Irrelevant. Not associated with a firm?
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3579
Jan 28, 2013
 
Out Here Somewhere wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant. Not associated with a firm?
my own.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3580
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Out Here Somewhere wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Hello, Woofie - do you not understand that a server location is NOT indicative of where one lives?
Well, you do live in A county, don't you?

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3581
Jan 28, 2013
 
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I do not misunderstand, the court found that the word militia in the second amendment did not limit it to a militia and that is binding. No other case will go before a court claiming that the second amendment is related only to those in a militia. The specific claim of that was shot down and settled. To say all reference to militia was dicta is failing to grasp the content and context of the case.
"A holding consists of those propositions along the chosen decisional path or paths of reasoning that 1) are actually decided, 2) are based upon the facts of the case, and 3) lead to a judgment. If not a holding, a proposition stated in a case counts as dicta."

The enitirety of the discussion in Heller regarding the collective right to bear arms as a member of militias is dicta. The court could have (though with less context available for explanation, and certainly with less clarity) arrived at its holding finding an individual right to bear arms for self defense without ever mentioning militias.

The problem for the Court however would have been how to do that and not appear to have been ignoring the text of the Amendment.

woof
WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3582
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DJANGO had a gun, and he was quite proficient with it. It's a must see movie. Not a romanticized view of southern slavery that the southern local school districts try to rewrite in their history books. The character,'Stephen' played by Samuel L. Jackson, is the exact replica of the 'uncle Tom' that conservative whites love to applaud, but blacks hate and despise.

When some of you people post delusions of lynching Obama and other bodily harms, you're no different than the slavers who's mentality is shown in that movie or the southerners that long for a new civil war to kill urban blacks.
All this talk about the 2nd amendment is nothing but fear and racial hatred of people you think want to take what's yours.
Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, talk radio host, Fox news anchors, and many conservative politicians are guilty of stoking racial hostilities and hatred in the last four years of Obama's presidency. There's not one puplic forum where blacks are talking about the destruction of America or a revolt against this government. But there are hundreds of sites where whites express their hatred and fear of a changing demographic and what's needed to destroy it.

More than ever, it is blacks who need to arm themselves against such threats and defend themselves from the plots and plans of the rebellious white underground.
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3583
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
"A holding consists of those propositions along the chosen decisional path or paths of reasoning that 1) are actually decided, 2) are based upon the facts of the case, and 3) lead to a judgment. If not a holding, a proposition stated in a case counts as dicta."
The enitirety of the discussion in Heller regarding the collective right to bear arms as a member of militias is dicta. The court could have (though with less context available for explanation, and certainly with less clarity) arrived at its holding finding an individual right to bear arms for self defense without ever mentioning militias.
The problem for the Court however would have been how to do that and not appear to have been ignoring the text of the Amendment.
woof
While I do not disagree with your definition and understanding of dicta, I do disagree that the court did not address the second amendment's militia in any binding way. Even in the syllabus, it specifically says the second amendment protects a right not connected to only a militia and lists several facts about the wording militia constitution to make it clear. The court does not generally put dicta in the syllabus, it puts fact and the short form of what it considers binding.

To illustrate this, if the city of Lancaster (forgetting the Ohio Constitution) decided to ban all hand guns and assault riffles not owned by people actively serving in the military or national guard, stating the second amendment protect your right to serve in the militia, I could challenge it pointing to the DC heller case and show it has been held that the militia statement in the second amendment does not limit it to military service and does in fact protect an indevidual right unconnected to military service. Heller is binding and after spending the money to do so, I would win.
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3584
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

WiseAmerican wrote:
DJANGO had a gun, and he was quite proficient with it. It's a must see movie. Not a romanticized view of southern slavery that the southern local school districts try to rewrite in their history books. The character,'Stephen' played by Samuel L. Jackson, is the exact replica of the 'uncle Tom' that conservative whites love to applaud, but blacks hate and despise.
When some of you people post delusions of lynching Obama and other bodily harms, you're no different than the slavers who's mentality is shown in that movie or the southerners that long for a new civil war to kill urban blacks.
All this talk about the 2nd amendment is nothing but fear and racial hatred of people you think want to take what's yours.
Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, talk radio host, Fox news anchors, and many conservative politicians are guilty of stoking racial hostilities and hatred in the last four years of Obama's presidency. There's not one puplic forum where blacks are talking about the destruction of America or a revolt against this government. But there are hundreds of sites where whites express their hatred and fear of a changing demographic and what's needed to destroy it.
More than ever, it is blacks who need to arm themselves against such threats and defend themselves from the plots and plans of the rebellious white underground.
You really need to take wise away from your posting name. Almost every post you make seems to prove to the world that Wise is an oxymoron or something completely opposite of what you pretend to be.

I have no problem with people of other races. I do have a problem with the government taking my guns. I don't care if Obama is hanged or not, but I do see policies of his that I will not stand for if they are ever implemented. Not everything you cannot understand is about racism. Please stop pulling the race card every time people think you are an idiot. Idiocy and stupidity has nothing to do with race. It has more to do with you being brainwashed or just mentally incapable of deliberate thought about complicated issues.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3585
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WiseAmerican wrote:
DJANGO had a gun, and he was quite proficient with it. It's a must see movie.
WA, it's fiction. Every character in it is a fictional character. And from what I've read and heard; heck just from what you've written, it further promotes the racial division in this country and separates us further.
Slavery is over and not one person alive today was responsible for it.
I'm not saying there is no racism anywhere, but for the most part, we're over it. Now if the government and special interest groups would stop promoting it by using the 'race card' on every issue instead of just treating us all as one, we'd have more of a chance.
No nation can stand as divided as we are right now. And there is blame to place on both sides and credit to give on both sides.
For a long time I had no idea you were black. Do I treat you differently now?
From preschool kids came to play with me on the farm. I had no idea they were black until my sister told me years later. I went and asked my mother. I saw no difference.
It's really frustrating to be white and because of it be catagorized as a 'racist.'
How would you feel if tomorrow night a channel came on TV that was called "White Entertaiment TV" or we had the "White Entertainment Awards?"
Isn't that racist again whites and Hispanics and Asians and every other race?
If it's good for the goose........
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3586
Jan 28, 2013
 
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>While I do not disagree with your definition and understanding of dicta, I do disagree that the court did not address the second amendment's militia in any binding way. Even in the syllabus, it specifically says the second amendment protects a right not connected to only a militia and lists several facts about the wording militia constitution to make it clear. The court does not generally put dicta in the syllabus, it puts fact and the short form of what it considers binding.
To illustrate this, if the city of Lancaster (forgetting the Ohio Constitution) decided to ban all hand guns and assault riffles not owned by people actively serving in the military or national guard, stating the second amendment protect your right to serve in the militia, I could challenge it pointing to the DC heller case and show it has been held that the militia statement in the second amendment does not limit it to military service and does in fact protect an indevidual right unconnected to military service. Heller is binding and after spending the money to do so, I would win.
And what you would be pointing to as binding authority to support your argument is Heller's holding that there is an individual right to own firearms for self defense...nothing to do with the collective right for militia members.

I think you've got it, but your perspective is still a bit skewed. Heller was an individual rights case, not a collective right/militia case.

As an aside, your hypothetical ban on assault weapons would, under the dicta in Heller, likely be upheld.

Take a look at what happened in Heller on remand...I posted a link previously.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3587
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
And what you would be pointing to as binding authority to support your argument is Heller's holding that there is an individual right to own firearms for self defense...nothing to do with the collective right for militia members.
I think you've got it, but your perspective is still a bit skewed. Heller was an individual rights case, not a collective right/militia case.
As an aside, your hypothetical ban on assault weapons would, under the dicta in Heller, likely be upheld.
Take a look at what happened in Heller on remand...I posted a link previously.
woof
Because SCOTUS has denied certiorari to follow-up cases, one cannot say that those cases are endorsed by SCOTUS or would be upheld under scrutiny of SCOTUS.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3588
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
And what you would be pointing to as binding authority to support your argument is Heller's holding that there is an individual right to own firearms for self defense...nothing to do with the collective right for militia members.
I think you've got it, but your perspective is still a bit skewed. Heller was an individual rights case, not a collective right/militia case.
As an aside, your hypothetical ban on assault weapons would, under the dicta in Heller, likely be upheld.
Take a look at what happened in Heller on remand...I posted a link previously.
woof
It would seem that you would argue that the lights were on simply because outside light peaked through a crack in the curtains. The binding authority is where the court specifically said the second amendment is not limited to a militia. They put that in their holding- read the damn syllabus.
" The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm _unconnected_with_service_in_a _militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
that does not say there is a right outside the second amendment, it says the second amendment is not limited to a militia.
"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but_does not_limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22." It is clear and obvious that the court said the second amendment does not only protect the right in connection with a militia and that the militia statement does not limit it.
I do not know how to make this any clearer. All you have to do is read what they freaking wrote. The court ruled that the second amendment is not limited to anything connected to a militia.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••