Why don't liberals get it?

I like my judges jurist. We have a legislature, such as it is, for legislation.
I do have a small problem with this statement. In Alabama in the early century the legislature made it illegal for blacks to have full rights with whites. It was struck down by judges because it was unconstitutional. Same when the legislature made it illegal for races to inter-marry. If judges had left it to the legislatures to decide these unconstitutional and bigoted laws would still be on the books.

If your state legislature decided tomorrow to outlaw all firearms and required you to turn yours in to be destroyed I would bet you would be looking to these "activist" judges to countermand that bit of legislation on grounds of it being unfair and unconstitutional.

Why is it some people only label it "activism" when the decision is against them? If they uphold someones right to equality or freedom of reproductive choice it "activism" but if the same judges overturn laws these people disagree with they say the judges are just doing their job.
 
Sheild20

I find so much in your post that I disagree withh I do not know where to start (although I do agree with your assessments of the facts on gun control and the effects it has on crime).

Where are examples of the "made up" statistics you are claiming Clinton's supporters put forth?

Of what "outlandish propagana" are you speaking?

Why is it "propaganda" when Kerry carries a shotgun but not when Cheney does it? What have the neo-cons actually done for you gun rights?

Also, in my experience most anti-gun crusaders do so because of personal tragedy and not for political reasons. Where is the motivation for outlawing guns beyond that? I see no financial gain to be made from it.
 
Bud Helms said:
Activist Judge apparently means different things to different people. Activist for what cause? What agenda? Activist.

What cause? The Constitution. So, a perfect example in today's political climate would be gay marriage. Doesn't say they can't get married in the Constitution, and the impression is given that the church and the government should sleep in separate beds. So why not?

Doesn't seem much different than those "activist" judges Playboypenguin is talking about, overriding the legislature to further equal rights for blacks. It's just that gays are even less popular than blacks were.

Playboypenguin said:
If your state legislature decided tomorrow to outlaw all firearms and required you to turn yours in to be destroyed I would bet you would be looking to these "activist" judges to countermand that bit of legislation on grounds of it being unfair and unconstitutional.

Yeah, that too.
 
find so much in your post that I disagree withh (sic) I do not know where to start (although I do agree with your assessments of the facts on gun control and the effects it has on crime).
Excellent. We have some common ground.

Where are examples of the "made up" statistics you are claiming Clinton's supporters put forth?

Ah, pretty much everything...Forty-seven times more likely...cop-killer bullets...10+ round mags...How did we get that "assault weapons" ban anyway? Oh yeah..., fear-mongering + misrepresentation = "feel-good" legislation. Did it do anything? No. Will we do it all over again? Likely.

"
Why is it "propaganda" when Kerry carries a shotgun but not when Cheney does it?

Kerry may have been photographed with a gun (for purely misleading and political reasons) but at least Cheny has pulled the trigger...and bagged him a lawyer... that gets my vote. :) Kidding, folks, just kidding...:)

What have the neo-cons actually done for you (sic) gun rights?
Neo-cons? Nothing. That's why so many of us refused to return them to power. I am now waiting for a similar show of integrity from "liberal" voters.
What will your response be? You have the means, motive and opportunity...the classic triumvirate. Game on. Ball is in your court. Pressure is on. Sh!t or get off the pot. Want more metaphors? Got 'em! :)
 
Playboypenguin,

Examples of how a legislature violated a group's civil rights and a judge doing what he was elected or appointed to do, is no justification for a perversion of our form of government, by the legislature handing over their share of the Checks and Balances. In your examples, hats off and bravo to the judges and shame on the legislators. Ruling on compliance with existing law and in some cases the constitutionality of a statute is dead center of a judge's duty. You misrepresent my statements in gargantuan style.

Those legislators represented the opinions of the day, right or wrong. 'Sounds to me like the bench ruled on the constitutionality according to the existing law of the land. Why would that be an example of an activist judge?

Now, truth told, I definitely have some opinions and prejudices when it comes to the conduct of our government, but I'm not so convinced of my own arguments that I can't hear another side on any one of the issues today. That said, I definitely recognize disrespect for the Constitution when it stands tall enough.

Why would a judge whom has no respect for your and my property have any reason to respect any other of our rights? Judges these days don't rule only on issues of equal rights. They rule on the right of unions to intimidate, void plebescites and referenda conducted legally at the state level and actually have the temerity to refer to laws in other countries as a basis for their opinions, which in turn justifies their decisions. Is that activist enough for you?

There are decisions from federal district courts and from the SCOTUS that I disagree with deeply, yet I still recognize the constitutional basis of the ruling and respect it.

So every time you hear someone refer to activist judges, it may not mean what you think. I think I smell some stereotyping at work here. Really. Kind of surprising, coming from a self-admitted progressive, open-minded liberal.

Jual Carlos:
... the impression is given that the church and the government should sleep in separate beds. ...
I don't take the Gay Marriage Ban bait. I just don't feel threatened by that possibility. However, the separation of Church and State argument doesn't fly in any case. That is a misrepresentation of the actual words:
AMENDMENT I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
I don't see the words separation of church and state in that partial quote or even words with that meaning. The key words, IMHO, are "make no law". The words separation of church and state represent a political doctrine derived from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the congregation of a Baptist church at the time (Danbury?):
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom states, in part
... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
I have a store of these quotes and partial quotes. I don't know where I originally found them, but I believe them to be accurate. That last one was written by Jefferson and supported by James Madison, who was an adamant champion of that figurative wall between church and state. Madison's fear, apparently was a civil government ruling on religious grounds. That principle which the colonies feared the most and eventually rebelled against.

So,
What cause? The Constitution.
Then I get an example of what the Constitution doesn't prohibit. I don't care a whit about two guys getting married. It's not a Constitutional issue in my book. Go ahead and do it. The Constitution protects your and my right to act stupid, burn the flag, anything you want to do that doesn't directly cause harm or disrupt the general peace.

Throughout US judicial history, high court decisions often have the effect of law. But what we see today is a whole new onslaught of denials, impositions, causation and interpretations. Clearly not based on Constitutionality, but on the judge's favor of one side over the other. Activism. No matter which side is favored, it's wrong.
 
I saw a t-shirt at a gun show last weekend, pretty much says it all. The shirt said..."politicians prefer unarmed peasants, buy a gun, piss off a liberal".:D For the leftist/socialist/democrat its all about control, gun control is just a means to an end. Strict control or banning guns is the easiest way to achieve that control in their mind. THEY want to tell you what you do and do not need, THEY want to control your life because THEY are the enlightened ones, follow me, I know whats best for you.:barf: :barf: Their goal is a society of sheep absent of free thought.:barf: Gun ownership gives the common man power over his own destiny and that REALLY aggravates the leftist democrats, its the main obstacle to their goal of control.
 
So every time you hear someone refer to activist judges, it may not mean what you think. I think I smell some stereotyping at work here. Really. Kind of surprising, coming from a self-admitted progressive, open-minded liberal.

Bud,
(I love that name, I always picture myself saying it the way Rudy Huxtable did when referring to her friend in the Cosby Show)

The term "activist judges" was coined by this administration to denounce judges that ruled against such things as denying rights to certain groups of the population, that ruled against removing the reproductive rights from a woman, etc.

Villifying these judges solidified their standing with the christian right. It also helped that these same judges tended to also have records of ruling against big business and corporations.

Labels re-enforce stereotypes. I am not stereotyping by refusing to use this label. I am in fact trying to prevent a false stereotype from being perpetuated by misinformation.

The fact comes down to this, it as a judges job is to decide how the law factors into a situation. The reason we have a constitution is to prevent a mob rule mentality. Just because 51% of the people in an area agree to something doesn't make it right or constitutional.

My point still stands that people demand the court intercede when something unfair or unconstitutional effects them personally but in instances were the same criteria that helped them before makes them unable to force their own prejudices on the rest of the population they want to label the judges as "activists".

If people were to remove a judges right to hand down a decision then what purpose would they be serving other than being a rubber stamp for whatever group happened to currently be in power?

What situations are you referring to that you disagree with? I am open to hearing circumstances where a judge has used different criteria for deciding one case from another or where they "created" a law and did not just inforce what was already the law of the land.
 
Excellent. We have some common ground.
One good thing about these boards is that no matter how many things we all disagree on we can usually find some common groung. Pro-gun people seem to be able to overcome a lot of differences and band together sometimes when it counts. I just wish we could do it more often and leave other factors out of gun ownership. Just because I want to agree with someone on gun rights does not mean I have to also agree with them on religion, abortion, etc. Unfortunately, alot of politicians try to tie all these issues together. It is amazing how diverse a group can all share one thing in common. Even revolver guys and pistol guys can at the very least agree that is fun to make them go bang. :)

Kerry may have been photographed with a gun (for purely misleading and political reasons)
That's odd. Many stories I have read on Kerry, even from before he ever ran for president, mention family hunting trips, trap and skeet shooting, and other pro-gun topics.

Want more metaphors? Got 'em!
No thanks, I think you are already tipping the post beyond the acceptable level of metaphors to topics ratio. :)

Game on. Ball is in your court. Pressure is on. Sh!t or get off the pot.
I am doing what I can...
I personally have been trying to single handidly convert every fence sitting liberal in northern Oregon and southern Washington to the pro-gun camp. I can only afford to take so mant people to the range though. :)

So far I have managed to convince 7 or 8 friends that guns are not evil and even convinced 4 to buy their own HD firearms. I even bought gift certificates for $150 each for 3 of my friends for x-mas so I can take them to the Gun Broker after x-mas and they can use it as a down payment to lay-away their first ever gun purchase. If that isn't dedication I don't know what is...(and it made for pretty easy shopping and made my dealer happy too) :)

The hardest part, believe it or not, is actually broaching the issue with a friend. Telling even someone you know and trust that you own, carry, and shoot firearms is almost like coming out of the closet again each time. You never know how people are going to react and if they are going to judge you harshly because of it.
 
My original response about watch out for the conservatives

stills stands. Don't put your eggs in one basket. My understanding of the majority of gun laws is they were not created to keep guns away from criminals... this is what 'they' always tell you...but to keep guns out of the hands of certain groups of citizens... blacks, hispanics, poor.... red neck woodsman.

I find it humorous that folks are so afraid of the liberal left they will support the conservative right with open arms or more to the point, bent over...

Our recent past shows what happens with this.... who cares if they violate the constitution and peoples basic human rights (show me where in the declaration of independence it says these rights only apply to citizens)... as long as it doesn't touch me and I'm safe and can get food and gas it's okay.

I still say the liberal vs conservative, republican vs democrat, left vs right is a big smoke screen they want us all to stay behind. Divide and conquer.
 
personally have been trying to single handidly convert every fence sitting liberal in northern Oregon and southern Washington to the pro-gun camp. I can only afford to take so mant people to the range though.

You're my new hero.

Fact is, the majority of Americans who are anti-gun never really spent much time thinking about the subject. So they accept the rhetoric at face value and go along with the pre-packaged opinion they've been handed.
PBP here has the right idea IMO. Plus, he's beating me at my own game (I've only bagged 3 so far) so it looks like I've got to step up my efforts. :D
 
Also, in my experience most anti-gun crusaders do so because of personal tragedy and not for political reasons.
Nope - it's for neither reason.
Sooner or later - usually sooner - (many of) the *crusaders* find out how easy it is to cash in on their personal tragedy and make money off of it &/or dodge some sort of prosecution.
Sugarman from VPC is one example.
The girl from Columbine that bought the shotgun is another.
Sarah Brady, Lucile Ball, Rosi O' Donnell, - the list is huge.

Once upon a time being a *crusader for a cause* cost a lot of money.
Anymore it's simply a means to easy money.

Before you disagree - check out the website of Join Together.
http://www.jointogether.org/

It's a basic "How to get .gov funding" for your particular cause.
 
Playboy,

Do you pay attention to these liberal windbags when they talk or what? Don't you remember the televised Clinton/liberal/dem gathering on the hill with the "assault rifle" and the statements about why a sportsman would need one? Don't you remember the commercials, articles, posters, questions from doctors about guns in the home, etc etc etc.? Don't you pay attention to Kerry's actions (votes) and his words?

The genius Kerry...

[Kerry] was in Wisconsin the other day, pretending to be a regular guy, and was asked what kind of hunting he preferred. 'I'd have to say deer,' said the senator. 'I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach ... That's hunting.' (???)
****
Senator John Kerry, a hunter who supported the recently expired assault weapons ban, frequently tells audiences he has never met anyone who wanted to use an AK-47 to shoot a deer. But it is not clear what Mr. Kerry does with the Chinese assault rifle he told Outdoor Life magazine he kept in his personal collection. {I also remember this idiot in a debate mentioning a sheriff having to go up against an AK-47, forgetting to mention that they were ALREADY illegal}

Presidential candidate John Kerry promised over the weekend that he would "take on the terrorists" who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 by forcing them to obey America's gun control laws. Kerry said laws like the Assault Weapons Ban, which expires today, were valuable "not just to fight ordinary crime but to take on terrorists." (???)


And hero BJ..


Clinton was basking in the media spotlight in Maryland, watching Gov. Parris Glendening (D) sign into law a confusing "gun control" package that, in part, mandates gun locks but totally ignores the criminal misuse of firearms. The following day found the President in Denver continuing his campaign to politicize last year's tragedy at Columbine High as he promoted an anti-gun ballot initiative campaign spearheaded by a local anti-gun organization.

****
In 1994, President Clinton told Rolling Stone magazine that he wanted to outlaw handguns.
****

"And while Clinton continues to object to the charge that he uses tragedies for political advantage, he was quoted in the Rocky Mountain News on Wednesday as stating, "Our cause has been aided by the deaths of all these children in all these schools, and in other settings.""
*****

At the same time he was previewing his Crime Bill, Clinton announced he was issuing two executive orders to the secretary of the Department of the Treasury. One states that as soon as a new factoring system is established for outlawing the importation of what the President described as "pistols generally characterized by their bulky, military-style appearance and large magazine capacity," the BATF is to begin implementing it.

For example Bill Clinton said:
"I would close the gun show loophole, because the Brady bill has worked superbly. It’s given us a 35 percent drop in gun crime and a 31 year low in the homicide rate, and kept a half a million people — felons, fugitives, stalkers, from getting handguns." (April 12, 2000, NBC’s Tom Brokaw discusses gun control with the president)
*****

In April of 1999, Bill and Hillary Clinton held a press conference on gun control legislation. Hillary Clinton stated: "And since the crime bill was enacted, 19 of the deadliest assault weapons are harder to find on our streets. We will never know how many tragedies we've avoided because of these efforts."
*{Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998. }


In October of 1996, Bill Clinton met with the widow of Police Officer Jerome Harrison Seaberry. Later that day at a political rally, Clinton said: “I still think we ought to ban those bullets that are built only for one purpose, to pierce the bullet-proof vests that our police officers wear. I don't see why we need those things out there. … Today, I met with the first -- the family of the first one of the police officers hired under our Crime Bill, killed in the line of duty. I met here in Louisiana, in Lake Charles I met with that officer's widow and two beautiful, beautiful young sons. And I thought to myself, you know, if people like these folks here are going to put their lives on the line for us, the least we can do is tell them if they put on a bullet-proof vest, it will protect them from being killed. That's the least we can do for them.”

* Officer Seaberry was killed in a car crash. No guns or bullets were involved. (68)
* As of 1998, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed because an armor-piercing bullet defeated a bulletproof vest.
***

President Clinton, though, does not support defensive gun ownership. His claims at his press conference that his proposals would not interfere with "reasonable hunting and sports shooting" made no mention of the much more important right to possess guns to save lives.
*****

Bill and Hillary Clinton held a press conference on gun control legislation. Bill Clinton stated:
"And we smile about that, but there are some people who would be on this platform today who lost their seats in 1994 because they voted for the Brady Bill and they voted for the assault weapons ban, and they did it in areas where people could be frightened."
"Do we know for absolutely certain that if we had every reasonable law and the ones I'm going to propose here that none of these school violence things would have happened? No. But we do know one thing for certain; we know there would have been fewer of them, and there would have been fewer kids killed in the last several years in America. We know that for certain. We know that."
* In about 5 years since enactment of the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban in 1993, there have been 9 "school massacres."
*****

"We all know a cop -- he or she may be a family member, a friend, a neighbor, fellow member of a fraternal association or your church. Even if you don’t know an officer, the next time you happen to come into contact with one, ask him or her to give you three top answers to this simple question: "What do you think we should do to curb crime?" To be sure, more gun laws restricting the use of firearms by law-abiding citizens will not be one of the top answers, guaranteed.
Bill Clinton would have you believe otherwise.
The election of the Clinton-Gore ticket helped cement the relationship between anti-gun groups and certain national law enforcement organizations.
Clinton-Gore rewarded the political newlyweds with Justice Department grants and grip-and-grin autographed copies of photos of the Commander-in-Chief posing for staged photo-ops with law enforcement.

The press, gun control advocacy groups and politicians consistently cloaked their latest gun control theme in symbols suggesting that law enforcement sanctions such measures. The fact of the matter is that few, if any, of the gun control schemes proposed during the pre-election frenzy to stir voter emotions emotions actually make life easier for law enforcement, or make our communities safer for anyone except criminals.

Cops, Gun Control And The Legal Repercussions
Most of us will agree that, for years now, there has been an anti-gun, anti-cop movement taking place in this country, which has grown considerably worse under the Clinton Administration. Oftentimes, the media is responsible for painting a biased, prejudiced picture when it comes to both firearms and police-related issues -- vilifying and blaming the object, rather than the person using the object, and/or reporting only part of the story.
...
http://www.leaa.org/Cops Versus Gun Control/cvgcwhytheyoppos.html
 
Last edited:
I like my judges jurist. We have a legislature, such as it is, for legislation.

I think a judge is there for more reason than just to read the result of the legislature to the jury. I think that a judge is there to judge. That means judge the law and its application. It certainly doesn't mean, without a wavier, judge guilt. That's the jury's job, should be unanimous and based, within each juror, upon facts presented and any other factor that juror sees fit to use, stated or otherwise.

When a judge judges a law, he should be independent enough to determine whether the heavily lobbied legislature, "such as it is", went overboard in reaction to his constituents' hysteria and, if need be, "interpret" said law by giving that legislature the legal finger. If that judge is truly a kook, there's always an appeal. Consider that the result would be to LIMIT the power of government, and most of us like that when it applies to limiting the government's power to control the things we like to do.

The legislative branch has considerable independence. They can write and attempt to pass any law they want, constitutional or not. The executive, from the president to the police officer, can do things like veto and exercise considerable "discretion".

That is what I call independence, and that is what helps keep tyrrany at bay.

Now let's get straight to the reality of the situation. Lobbyists and special interests have the ears of the legislature. Very often, this is not good for the average citizen. The executive can conjure up anything it wants, such as indicting ham sandwiches, to put that citizen under the scrutiny of the law.

The judge is the hedge against abuse of discretion and mob rule for the individual accused citizen. I want that judge to use his judgment. More particularly, if a citizen commits an act that is in violation of a law, but his act lacks any discernable vicitim, I want judges who will dismiss those cases and dare a prosecutor to waste another hundred thousand bucks on the next attempt.

How about we use an example dear to our hearts. You walk into a post office carrying concealed. You mail your package and start to leave. But somebody's kid bumps against you and notices something odd. Being a kid, he pokes at it and yells out "mommy, he's got a gun". Unfortunately for you, you are behind Officer Friendly who just happens to not think individual citizens should be armed. This member of the executive uses his considerable discretion and arrests you, turning you over to the Federal Marshall's Office. The local federal prosecutor uses his discretion to charge you with carrying a weapon on federal property and maybe pads the list of charges a little to encourage you to plead.

At this point, even though we've seen opinion that the law forbidding that act which, by the way, had no victim, does not preclude your carrying concealed in a post office, it's only an opinion. You are going to soon be paying a lot of money to decide whether or not that opinion is correct.

Unless, of course, you happen to run into an "activist judge" who takes a look at the totality of the circumstances, mutters under his breath "WTF?", and then, more loudly, proclaims "case dismissed".

That is how I like my judges.
 
Kerry is your typical elitist, leftist democrat. Its fine and dandy for HIM to go hunting, shooting, he can own whatever guns he wants. But when it comes the AVERAGE CITIZEN, all of a sudden its a big NO-NO. People like Kerry want to hold all of the power over the citizenry, they want to package what you hear in the media to suit their agenda, its low key INDOCRINATION. Case in point, Diane Feinstein, who was instrumental in getting the 1994 AWB passed, has a CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT! Its ok for her, but its not ok for the average citizen, who in most cases has a more legitimate self protection interest. This is what really pisses me off about the left wing democrats. Look at Bloomberg, he can waltz around with his armed body guards all day, but if joe citizen wants a gun to protect himself, its SOL! Bloomberg says "call the police". NYC is a dreamland for liberals, this is how they want the whole country to be. In NYC, you almost have to ask permission to take a dump. lol (Bangs head on desk)

BTW, if Kerry is dumb enough to run again in 2008, I hope the GOP plays an ad 24/7 showing what Kerry said about being educated and succeeding, or if you're not, you get stuck in Iraq. Way to go Kerry! Just go ahead and call our fighting men and women a bunch of buffoons who are there because they are "dumb". Members of the military have more intellect than Kerry will ever have.
 
Kind of funny you posted this!

Everyday I walk into my apartment complex I pass the sign that says "this property is protected by security cameras"!:rolleyes: I guess I should be happy to be so well protected! I dont have to worry about carrying or anything. I'm protected by a camera!:rolleyes:
 
Oh!

By the way, there was a hit and run literally 10 feet from the front door of the building the other night and no plates or people were identified! I hope they do a better job of protecting me if I'm getting robbed or something! Maybe they were sleeping!:rolleyes:
 
A look at the history of the 20th century alone will show that Leftist, atheistic governments were responsible for the murders of 100 million of their own citizens after they were disarmed. The high rollers were Stalin, Mao and Hitler(National Socialist). All of the right-wing regimes were pikers by comparison.
 
Go get a copy of the Dec. 2006 issue of Harper's and read the article on why progressives should support the RKBA.

The thrust is protection from government tyranny. As far as the usual social conservative rants - yawn!

Many liberals don't support gun rights as they see them as iconic of the unpleasant authoritian values of the right - as expressed here daily. The Harper's article expresses that such folk are prime reasons for the RKBA.
 
Why don't liberals get it?
Why don't people get it that the term "liberal" has no meaning anymore?

There are plenty on the so called "right" who are VERY anti gun/anti male/anti 2nd amendment, and there are LOADS of people on the LEFT who are PRO 2nd amendment.

This thread is based on a false premise. A true premise would be "Why don't government loyalists GET IT?" Phony and vague labels like "liberal" and "conservative" have just GOT to go. MAN do they need to go. This world breaks down very simply into those who are government loyalists and those who are not. The people who insist on labeling themselves "liberal" or "conservative" :barf: are those who don't get it and probably never will.
 
Back
Top