Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

There will have to be another amendment to the Constitution if the US government wants to acknowledge it as a human right that can never be taken away from anyone. I understand that doesn't make it right or wrong, but that is the will of the people of the U.S. and it has been part of the U.S. federal government since its foundation.

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it"

Touche! I'd forgotten that. I personally feel that if we don't have enough evidence to keep them there we shouldn't.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

No mention of liberals there. Did they do this in secret?

There sure are a lot of signatures on that form. Don't you think some of them are liberals? Or are they all conservative democrats, lol

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

They had full access to an international tribunal created by the allies where, presumably, they could file writs and motions, including habeas corpus.

I can just as easily say that presumably, even if they had, they wouldn't have even been considered. Maybe I should rephrase - such requests wouldn't have been considered even if they had ever been filed

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

There sure are a lot of signatures on that form. Don't you think some of them are liberals? Or are they all conservative democrats, lol

My point is that the concept of "liberal" as it's described by conservatives does not really exist. Nobody believes what conservatives attribute to "liberals." It's why labeling someone as a "liberal" is such an effective, convenient, albeit dishonest, tactic. It's much akin to schoolyard name-calling.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I can just as easily say that presumably, even if they had, they wouldn't have even been considered. Maybe I should rephrase - such requests wouldn't have been considered even if they had ever been filed

Check my other post. Just because somebody files a writ of habeas corpus doesn't mean they get out. But the court does have to show cause.

For my money, habeas corpus is one of the critical safeguards that any society has against tyranny.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

My point is that the concept of "liberal" as it's described by conservatives does not really exist. Nobody believes what conservatives attribute to "liberals." It's why labeling someone as a "liberal" is such an effective, convenient, albeit dishonest, tactic. It's much akin to schoolyard name-calling.

Are you a liberal and would you consider signing the petition? I'm a conservative and I wouldn't
No matter though, I apologize for coming across as dishonest, I certainly didn't intend it

Originally Posted by Nickelking

It's been a fundamental human right for 750 years (ish?) And remember not all of these folks were dug out of caves in afghanistan.

what happened 750 years ago? magna carta? I'm not so good with history, please help me understand [confused]

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Are you a liberal and would you consider signing the petition? I'm a conservative and I wouldn't
No matter though, I apologize for coming across as dishonest, I certainly didn't intend it

Wasn't suggesting that you personally were being dishonest. Can't say the same for Lee Atwater or Karl Rove. In your case, I was hinting that the term was being used too loosely.

Can't say if I'd be considered a "liberal." Suppose it depends on the issue -- and the definition. On firearm ownership, I don't suppose I could be considered "liberal," although with a Jeffersonian definition, defense of the right to own arms is completely consistent with "liberal" belief. See below.

Pick your definition. If I were using a Jeffersonian definition of "Liberal," I might own to it -- belief in small government, vigorous defense of individual rights. Karl Rove's definition, on the other hand, describes nobody I know -- least of all myself.

Sign the petition? An idle exercise. I prefer to try to elect people who won't let things get to this situation.

j

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it"

Rebellions happen from within, and there isn't an invasion.

And what about the people who got abducted in other countries, like in Germany?
guy gets flown to gitmo, stays there for a couple of years, gets tossed out eventually without an apology, but with a threat to shut his mouth 'or else' and that's it.

You cannot just go around, imprisoning anyone at will without at least probable cause and trying to prove guilt. An even then, there are procedures to follow. The CIA operative involved are now wanted men in Europe because what they did was illegal. Too bad they were already gone.
I can just see Bush saying 'How dare you arrest our men for breaking the law?'

Without check and balances what's to prevent them from detaining anyone who is 'inconvenient'?
It HAS happened before. Either prove someone guilty, or let them go.

Originally Posted by jockeys

what happened 750 years ago? magna carta? I'm not so good with history, please help me understand [confused]

Yep magna carta. (and I checked, it was in 1215.)

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

...For my money, habeas corpus is one of the critical safeguards that any society has against tyranny.

j

Mine as well. When the writ of habeas corpus is no longer accorded any value citizens need to seriously start worrying about who is in authority and what their intentions are. Germany of the 1930's ignored this to their, and the rest of the world's, detriment.

Though to be fair there is an historical precedent here. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in certain states during the civil war. And it was again suspended in WWII for unlawful combatants and in the state of Hawaii after the attack on Pearl. You'll note though that both of these occurred during times when no one would have questioned whether the nation was in a "time of war". Whether that is sufficient justification is up for discussion.

However you have to ask yourself whether it is correct to compromise the things that are cherished the most in our society and to what extent, however temporarily, in the name of fighting for and protecting those very things.

When you start tossing any individual's rights out the window without some very very serious consideration, you cheapen those rights and make them that much more difficult for everyone else to lay claim.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Yep magna carta. (and I checked, it was in 1215.)

thanks! haven't had a single history class in at least a decade; I'm getting old and my memory sucks. (i'm 26)