Conquer Club

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/ ... id=topnews

... Should be interesting to see the fallout if this thing gets a favorable ruling.

... How about another "Million-Man March", with guns.

... (scratch that. bad idea)

...

I'm pretty pissed off about their rulings today. The supreme court is a bunch of jerkholes. They didn't even make sense,.... rule in favor of oil-companies, and against the death penalty for people who rape children? How in the crap did they interpret the Constitution as giving child-rapers the right to live?
I'm not favoring the death penalty here, but rather state's rights! And having read the Constitution myself, I will say that they are just making stuff up now.
Not to forget their other ruling... Now that everyone has forgotten about the Exxon Valdiz, the supreme court strikes down the pay-outs. The Supreme court is a bunch of A-holes. I won't be suprised if they rule in favor of the ban.

I am waaayyyy in favor of your march! It sounds like a great idea!

From what I've heard, I think that the Supreme Court is gonna rule against banning handguns. I can understand banning assault rifles and the like, but if you ban handguns, you've completely destroyed the second amendment.

Juan, can you explain to me the ruling in favor of the oil companies?

cmckinney wrote:From what I've heard, I think that the Supreme Court is gonna rule against banning handguns. I can understand banning assault rifles and the like, but if you ban handguns, you've completely destroyed the second amendment.

Juan, can you explain to me the ruling in favor of the oil companies?

When the Valdiz spilled oil in Alaska, the resulting lawsuit gave Billions to the citizens of Alaska. The supreme court's ruling today awarded them only a few thousand each. Really you would say that the ruling only favored one company... But it closed the door for any future lawsuits...... due to any other oil spills....
Now that enough time has gone by and no one cares.

Nobunaga wrote:http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/supreme_court_gun_ban_ruling_p.html?hpid=topnews

... Should be interesting to see the fallout if this thing gets a favorable ruling.

... How about another "Million-Man March", with guns.

... (scratch that. bad idea)

...

DID YOU MENTION THE DATE JUNE 26, 2008?

DaGip wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/supreme_court_gun_ban_ruling_p.html?hpid=topnews

... Should be interesting to see the fallout if this thing gets a favorable ruling.

... How about another "Million-Man March", with guns.

... (scratch that. bad idea)

...

DID YOU MENTION THE DATE JUNE 26, 2008?

Ah yes, that. I'll be watching Gip.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

cmckinney wrote:From what I've heard, I think that the Supreme Court is gonna rule against banning handguns. I can understand banning assault rifles and the like, but if you ban handguns, you've completely destroyed the second amendment.

Juan, can you explain to me the ruling in favor of the oil companies?

When the Valdiz spilled oil in Alaska, the resulting lawsuit gave Billions to the citizens of Alaska. The supreme court's ruling today awarded them only a few thousand each. Really you would say that the ruling only favored one company... But it closed the door for any future lawsuits...... due to any other oil spills....
Now that enough time has gone by and no one cares.

Are you saying that each and every person of Alaska deserve more than a few thousand dollars for an oil spill that happened many years ago?

cmckinney wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

cmckinney wrote:From what I've heard, I think that the Supreme Court is gonna rule against banning handguns. I can understand banning assault rifles and the like, but if you ban handguns, you've completely destroyed the second amendment.

Juan, can you explain to me the ruling in favor of the oil companies?

When the Valdiz spilled oil in Alaska, the resulting lawsuit gave Billions to the citizens of Alaska. The supreme court's ruling today awarded them only a few thousand each. Really you would say that the ruling only favored one company... But it closed the door for any future lawsuits...... due to any other oil spills....
Now that enough time has gone by and no one cares.

Are you saying that each and every person of Alaska deserve more than a few thousand dollars for an oil spill that happened many years ago?

I don't know much about the case, but it might have just been to the governments of Alaska or the citizens of the affected coastal regions.

The DC gun ban was unconstitutional to begin with, but then again, DC has their own constitution that looks nothing like the one the rest of the nation so patriotically upholds.

jay_a2j wrote:The DC gun ban was unconstitutional to begin with, but then again, DC has their own constitution that looks nothing like the one the rest of the nation so patriotically upholds.

They can't even vote, save for their reps.

cmckinney wrote:Are you saying that each and every person of Alaska deserve more than a few thousand dollars for an oil spill that happened many years ago?

Yes I am. They were never paid to begin with! The case was just tied up until now.
While everyone in the nation was upset, the billions were awarded..... but now that it is forgotten,....they take that money away.

If someone dumped a few thousand gallons of oil in my community, I'd demand a hell of a lot more than a few thousand bucks. It's someones home.

meh, I'm torn (like usual on some of these politics) It does make a bit of sense how guns are needed for protection, though I'm against killing in full. Being a threat, no, but still the chances of people dying are higher. Also, anyone who thinks everyone should have a gun and should know how to use it deserves to be hit on the head. (Very hard too)

Fircoal wrote:meh, I'm torn (like usual on some of these politics) It does make a bit of sense how guns are needed for protection, though I'm against killing in full. Being a threat, no, but still the chances of people dying are higher. Also, anyone who thinks everyone should have a gun and should know how to use it deserves to be hit on the head. (Very hard too)

Sorry, reminded me of a couple quotes from Teddy Roosevelt.

A vote is like a rifle; it's usefulness depends on the character of the user.

and

Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.

Ban them, judges! Ban them! And watch as the populace rises up with its pearl-handled penis extensions and deposes the government! All those fat militiamen in camouflage running around the woods? Your day has come!It is laid down in the *whispers* constitution!
It might have been written 200 years ago but hell, the bible is 3,000 years old and that law still holds! Wel, more the stuff about fags than all that 'don't cut your hair' stuff, but still. Yeeeee-hawwwww!

The Second Amendment is generally interpreted two ways: either the first part about a "well regulated militia" or "shall not be infringed" is exclusive (one or the other, not both, say the promient voices on either side of the debate). I believe the regulation should end at the licences of gun dealers on the national level, leaving other forms of regulation to the states.

And if it is in the Bill of Rights, I do not think it should be tampered with. Oh, btw HC, you're a real piece of work.

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns (AP News on Yahoo).

I'm happy.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

cmckinney wrote:Are you saying that each and every person of Alaska deserve more than a few thousand dollars for an oil spill that happened many years ago?

Yes I am. They were never paid to begin with! The case was just tied up until now.
While everyone in the nation was upset, the billions were awarded..... but now that it is forgotten,....they take that money away.

If someone dumped a few thousand gallons of oil in my community, I'd demand a hell of a lot more than a few thousand bucks. It's someones home.

Their giving them $15,000 each. I'm not sure how much more you could possibly want...not to mention Exxon spent about $4 billion cleaning it all up.

Article wrote:In writing the majority opinion, Justice David Souter said the original $US2.5 billion award was out of line with US maritime law, and that damages against Exxon should be limited to the amount of actual harm caused.

tzor wrote:Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns (AP News on Yahoo).

I'm happy.

Quite honestly, it should never have gotten that far. But overall, I'm happy too.

I would have been a lot happier with Americans totin' guns a few months ago before I encountered some of the CC posters....Now I'm not so sure.

Nobunaga wrote:... Should be interesting to see the fallout if this thing gets a favorable ruling.

Favorable?

Think there might be some confusion here. This SC decision was aimed at Washington DC, who until today, has had a ban on guns (32 years to be exact). Apparently now, you can have a gun in DC.

There's progress for you.

yes but if it stood and they kept the ban other states would have followed so it is a great day for us gun owners

apey wrote:yes but if it stood and they kept the ban other states would have followed so it is a great day for us gun owners

It's a greater day for gun manufacturers and gun sellers.

Oh just get rid of that amendment and move on, for Christs sake.
An embarrassment to the western world.

someone should shoot suggs

and then after they get rid of the second we can work on the first