Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide

I just refuted this.

Nope

 

You refuted the 2nd Amendment? Holy Crap! Can you also do away with Income Tax as well?

 

Please don't pretend to be stupid.

I refuted your claim that you have a right to carry. You don't and I proved that.

 

You did no such thing. The 2nd Amendment absolutely affirms that I and all Americans have a Right to Bear Arms. This applies to the individual private citizen as confirmed by the Supreme Court.

If a state, city, etc... tries to deny my license and right, I can now call upon the Gay Marriage decision saying that we can honor licenses across state lines for gun licenses as well. Arms are protected in the Constitution. You may want to read it sometime?

 

"little difference"....so you're admitting there is SOME difference.

 

McDonald v. Chicago

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Decision

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.[21] Writing a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas reached the same conclusion regarding the incorporation issue on different grounds: Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[22] The plurality decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.[23] Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago#Decision

 

Sure.

One is a Right to Bear Arms.
One is a Right to Gay Relationships.

Gay Rights have now risen to the level of the Right to Bear Arms constitutionally. The difference is that the Right to Bear Arms has been established for over 200 years. Gay Relationships/Marriages are very recent. Both are licensed events. These licenses must now both be honored across state lines.

 

Is there more of a relationship between a State gun license and a marriage license.....

than between a State gun license and a State hunting/fishing license?

 

You have the right to bear arms, just not a right to carry them.

Please stop. You do realize we both know you don't actually believe this.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing in this case has any relevance to firearms.

 

Hunting and Fishing may not be constitutionally protected like the Right to Bear Arms and Gay Marriage.

 

ROLF!!! Bear arms is carrying them.

bear arms
phrase of bear

1. carry firearms.
2. wear or display a coat of arms.

Wow... what do you think "bear arms" means?

This case provides that rights and licenses carry across state lines.

It's fun watching you bury yourself. I am entertained.

 

But clearly, this is not the case. If you carry a concealed firearm into several states, you can be arrested and punished.

The argument that, by some process of magical osmosis, a decision legalizing same sex marriage somehow overrides states' various firearm regulations, fails for two reasons. First, because marriage is not firearms. These are entirely different topics.

But (using reason), we see that the SCOTUS did NOT overrule various state marriage regulations at all, except for lifting the bans on same sex marriage. Just as states can vary considerably in their regulations for no carry, open carry, concealed carry, etc. states can vary in cost of marriage license, waiting periods, degree of consanguinity, minimum age requirements, etc. That hasn't changed at all.

(And incidentally, I think it's been found that if you are in Illinois or Massachusetts and you are carrying unloaded firearms to the range for target practice, or to some competitive shooting event, this counts as bearing those arms - even in the trunk of your car. When you get to the range or the competition, certainly you can carry them.)

 

I understand your primal instinct to defend yourself from the oppressed, but "liberal run" places will actually put you in jail for defending yourself.

Why go through the trouble of using the precedent of gay marriage licenses honored nationwide to have gun licenses honored nationwide. If you are tempted to brandish a weapon in a state where stand your ground isn't recognized over losing your wallet and/or I phone to a bunch of thugs, it could cost you your freedom in such a liberal sanctuary of peace.

 

Lol, bury myself? I just showed you using Supreme Court precedent you don't have a right to concealed carry.

You're funny.

 

Yes, most Americans know who they are. Then there are those alienated from America who are unable to recognize who Americans are.

Whoever "the media" may be, "the police" and the "non-white community" are not mutually exclusive one would hope.

Do a series of unarmed Black males being shot to death by White police officers raise concerns? One would certainly hope so. One might wish that it leads to long-festering systemic problems, as in Ferguson, MO being corrected.

In any urban centre where the poorest are concentrated, the crime rate is high, regardless of whether you like refer to your "liberal" or your "conservative" city. (By the way, the Detroit Police Department's 2014 end-of-year crime statistics showed reductions in nearly every category of violent and property crime, including sexual assault, burglary, larceny and stolen vehicles.) Generally, abusive police behaviour does not lead to lower crime rates.

San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, and Boston are among many of your "liberal cities" that maintain relatively low crime rates, and good police/community relations. Obviously, ideological disposition is not a significant determinant. They're relatively wealthy cities.

If you have such privileged information, you should bring the specifics to the attention of your elected representatives. If you are making it up and have no evidence, you probably should keep it to yourself.

Yes, I cite polls that survey the opinions of Americans on a variety of issues.

If you are at odds with most Americans, that's fine, but it does not mean that you should be out of touch with the majority of Americans whose philosophies and attitudes might differ from yours - whether in regard to ending gender discrimination in marriage law, maintaining the Affordable Care act, removing an offensive flag from public display, or creating a path to citizenship for the undocumented who prove themselves worthy.

That's the way it is for Americans these days.

 

Looks like somebody's thesaurus broke since I called him out on his $5 words.

P.S. This thread is about the homosexual marriage decision of the Supreme 5, or is it the 5 Supremacists?

 

Which gets us back to why any American would NOT celebrate civil rights being extended to more people, at no harm to anyone else.

Maybe I should start a poll in the poll room: Of all those who are married, how many have found their marriage in trouble because some OTHER people are now getting married? How many unmarried people have decided not to marry because some other people are marrying? How many people find that their daily lives are negatively impacted by other peoples' marriages somewhere else? How many people are truly agonizing over a decision that doesn't affect them in any way they can demonstrate?