Liberals turn on New Mexico governor over gun suspension

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Supreme Court has made it clear that Americans have the right to defend themselves with firearms. Outside the home. What this Governor has done is a clear violation of our constitutional rights and it will go down in flames. I expect a court injunction within the next week or so.

Supreme Court made it clear that black people couldn't be citizens and had no right to sue, could be forced to use different facilities, and a whole lot of things.

And this Supreme Court doesn't give a tinker's damn about any sort of precedent, no matter what Roberts likes to cry. It is also likely that this never makes it to SCOTUS. You don't get to argue before them just because you have what you think is an important case. There is a process designed specifically to have 99.99% of issues addressed before they get that high.

Right-wingers have very big feelings about things they have little understanding of.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

Supreme Court made it clear that black people couldn't be citizens and had no right to sue, could be forced to use different facilities, and a whole lot of things.

And this Supreme Court doesn't give a tinker's damn about any sort of precedent, no matter what Roberts likes to cry. It is also likely that this never makes it to SCOTUS. You don't get to argue before them just because you have what you think is an important case. There is a process designed specifically to have 99.99% of issues addressed before they get that high.

Right-wingers have very big feelings about things they have little understanding of.

So you have no respect for our Supreme Court decisions? Do you think they should be ignored?

And if so, please list which of their decisions should be ignored and which should be followed.

Thanks in advance.

[Silly Green Monkey]

The Supreme Court seems to have no respect for Supreme Court decisions and have happily ignored them....

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

The Supreme Court seems to have no respect for Supreme Court decisions and have happily ignored them....

You mean like how Brown v Bd of Ed totally ignored Plessy v Ferguson?

[Silly Green Monkey]

If you already knew of examples, why did you ask for more?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

If you already knew of examples, why did you ask for more?

So you think we should ignore Brown v Board of Ed? Which other ones?

How do we decide which SCOTUS decisions should be ignored and which should be respected? Flip a coin?

Personally I don't think ANY of their decisions should be ignored.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

So you have no respect for our Supreme Court decisions?

Not particularly. The institution itself is often a stopper on human rights and progress.

Quote:

Do you think they should be ignored?

When said decision sucks.

Quote:

And if so, please list which of their decisions should be ignored and which should be followed.

Does it value things like material wealth, "tradition", "precedent", or "civility" over human rights and dignity? Flush it.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

Not particularly. The institution itself is often a stopper on human rights and progress.



When said decision sucks.



Does it value things like material wealth, "tradition", "precedent", or "civility" over human rights and dignity? Flush it.

I think the folks who hate the Supreme Court decisions enforcing gay marriage, abortion rights, Obamacare, voting rights, interracial marriage, desegregation, would totally agree with you!!!!

"if you dont like a court decision, flush it!!!"

[Donal]

I couldn't careless. I'm not a reactionary centrist, so I'm not particularly sensitive to what the right wants. I have actual standards. If something does not meet those standards, it is not worth saving.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

I couldn't careless. I'm not a reactionary centrist, so I'm not particularly sensitive to what the right wants. I have actual standards. If something does not meet those standards, it is not worth saving.

My point is, if Leftists can decide when and how to ignore court decisions, so can Conservatives. Better we all just respect court rulings even if we disagree with them. Otherwise we have chaos and anarchy.

[Donal]

No, I won't value the institution over human life. If an institution stands in the way of human rights and dignity, the institution needs to go. This idea that if we don't have a few select rich (almost always) white guys putting the rest of us in check is the only thing keeping society from collapsing is childish at best.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

No, I won't value the institution over human life.....

This is what many Conservatives said after the Roe decision. Seems you're giving everyone a great excuse to ignore one of the core pillars of our democracy.

"don't like the court's ruling? Meh, **** them"

[Hercules56]

https://apnews.com/article/guns-open...c8f4d6f1403d12

Action has been suspended by judge.

[Donal]

a handful of unelected, unaccountable elites determining who gets to be considered a full fledged human doesn't sound like a pillar of Democracy. A court currently stacked by a bunch of acolytes of the unpopular party that has won the popular vote for president 1 time in the last 8 elections whose Senate delegation currently represents 40 million fewer people than the opposition party.

And don't threaten me with what your friends might do when they already do it.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

a handful of unelected, unaccountable elites determining who gets to be considered a ful lfledged human doesn't sound like a pillar of Democracy.

It's the system that our founders created and it's one of the best systems out there. Pretty much all Supreme Court judges around the world are unelected. That way they don't have to please voters and donors. But rejecting supreme Court rulings is for another thread so let's get away from that.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

It's the system that our founders created

They also created the 3/5 Compromise and the Electoral College. Let's have a higher standard than "A bunch of dead, slave owning elitists thought of this a quarter millennium ago". Especially when the current incarnation is wildly different from what they envisioned.

Quote:

and it's one of the best systems out there.

Except for a bunch of others

Quote:

Pretty much all Supreme Court judges around the world are unelected.

But they aren't lifetime political appointments.

Quote:

That way they don't have to please voters and donors.

Aww that's so cute you believe that. Actually, no, it is pathetic at this point.

Quote:

But rejecting supreme Court rulings is for another thread so let's get away from that.

Not while you hold it up as some sacred god which must be revered.

[Hercules56]

Moving on.

Judge has suspended the order. I wonder if the governor will appeal I bet you she does not. She simply has no support on this one.

Suspending constitutional rights during a self-declared emergency is a major No-No.

[Donal]

Ya, you should try to change the subject. Go find another hole to dig.

It's a good thing our system doesn't let a little things like thousands of dead Americans stand in the way of the right to sell guns.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

It's the system that our founders created and it's one of the best systems out there. Pretty much all Supreme Court judges around the world are unelected. That way they don't have to please voters and donors. But rejecting supreme Court rulings is for another thread so let's get away from that.

No it's not. This is just homogenous bias. The US system has been unsuccessfully copied countless times.

BTW,

Judicial Review is not in the Constitution.

Neither is lifetime appointments

Or the number of Justices.

The corruption in the Supreme Court in the US is almost as bad as it is in many Banana Republics. One only need to look at the ethics of Alito and Thomas. Both of who should be in prison as opposed to being on the high court.

What has become more clear than ever is that we need a hell of a lot better ethics laws governing our leaders.

[Hercules56]

Back to the OP.

This stupid order by the governor has been suspended by judge. I bet she does not appeal.

Common Sense gun laws are a good thing but outright bans on the right to defend yourself in public is bull ****.

[MarkCorrigan]

Why is it only your psychotic country that has this kind of thing?

No other first world country and most second world countries don't consider carrying a concealed firearm to be necessary to protect yourself in public. Even Canada, which has a huge amount of gun ownership, bans it in all but a handful of circumstances.

Only the USA is insane enough to think that it should be a right to concealed carry a gun. Your country is nuts.

[Donal]

A judge made their ruling. Now let them enforce it

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Why is it only your psychotic country that has this kind of thing?

No other first world country and most second world countries don't consider carrying a concealed firearm to be necessary to protect yourself in public. Even Canada, which has a huge amount of gun ownership, bans it in all but a handful of circumstances.

Only the USA is insane enough to think that it should be a right to concealed carry a gun. Your country is nuts.

In Denmark, a young women was fined for using bear spray to defend against a rapist. That the rest of the "first world" finds self-defense to be verboten is what is truly nuts.

[Donal]

It Alabama, a woman was sentenced to 20 years for shooting her rapist while he was also trying to kill her brother.

A woman in Tennessee has to serve 51 years before even eligible for parole for killing the 43-year-old man who purchased her for sex when she was 16. She thought he was going to kill her and shot him first.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

A judge made their ruling. Now let them enforce it

George Wallace said the same thing.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Trausti

In Denmark, a young women was fined for using bear spray to defend against a rapist. That the rest of the "first world" finds self-defense to be verboten is what is truly nuts.

That's why its good that New Mexico lets citizens defend themselves. Otherwise they would have to wait for police who will arrive long after the crime is committed.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

George Wallace said the same thing.

So did Andrew Jackson. Now, you must bow to the almighty historic precedent. Or do you have America?

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

That's why its good that New Mexico lets citizens defend themselves. Otherwise they would have to wait for police who will arrive long after the crime is committed.

Ya, its great their attackers have free guns to take.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

Ya, its great their attackers have free guns to take.

So you prefer the public be defenseless victims. Great.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

So did Andrew Jackson. Now, you must bow to the almighty historic precedent. Or do you have America?

Do you beat your wife?

[Hercules56]

If concealed carry is such a terrible thing, why do very Liberal states like NY have such programs with tens of thousands of folks walking around in public with concealed firearms? Can't be that evil if even NY does it.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

So you prefer the public be defenseless victims. Great.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

And the gun is right there for your attacker to take from you and use. Because that's what actually happens, despite what a bunch of John Wayne wannabes claim. In fact, when you bring a gun into your home, it is far more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

Hilariously, most of the reported uses of guns in self defense are because an argument escalated and the other person also had a gun.

[Hercules56]

Liberal Connecticut. Lets almost anyone who applies to get a concealed carry permit. Can't be that evil.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

And the gun is right there for your attacker to take from you and use. Because that's what actually happens, despite what a bunch of John Wayne wannabes claim. In fact, when you bring a gun into your home, it is far more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

Hilariously, most of the reported uses of guns in self defense are because an argument escalated and the other person also had a gun.

Nobody is telling you to carry a gun. If it makes you feel uncomfortable or frightened then don't do it. Wait for the police to come protect you.

But other people are willing to do the background check and training so that they can protect themselves in public with a concealed firearm. If liberal states like New York and Connecticut allow such a thing then it cannot be as evil as you say.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

If concealed carry is such a terrible thing, why do very Liberal states like NY have such programs with tens of thousands of folks walking around in public with concealed firearms? Can't be that evil if even NY does it.

Strangely, I think that's dumb, too. It's almost like I'm not rooting a "side" but rather letting facts and empathy guide my decisions.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Do you beat your wife?

If I were the typical wife beater, my response would be, "Not since she bought a gun. Because I shot her with it."

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

Strangely, I think that's dumb, too. It's almost like I'm not rooting a "side" but rather letting facts and empathy guide my decisions.

I have faith that if the politicians in NY and CT truly believed that concealed carry permits were a bad and dangerous thing, they would have worked hard to make it virtually impossible to obtain one, pre-Bruen. But they didn't.

Honestly I trust their judgment on this issue more than I trust yours.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Nobody is telling you to carry a gun. If it makes you feel uncomfortable or frightened then don't do it. Wait for the police to come protect you.

Its not my gun I'm worried about. It's the wife beater with a desire to use his that bothers me.

Quote:

But other people are willing to do the background check and training so that they can protect themselves in public with a concealed firearm.

And how often does that actually happen vs someone who isn't a threat or a criminal being killed?

Quote:

If liberal states like New York and Connecticut allow such a thing then it cannot be as evil as you say.

Why not? Are you saying "liberal" is a monolith? Has it occurred to you that states like NY and CT are more conservative than people realize?

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I have faith that if the politicians in NY and CT truly believed that concealed carry permits were a bad and dangerous thing, they would have worked hard to make it virtually impossible to obtain one, pre-Bruen. But they didn't.

Honestly I trust their judgment on this issue more than I trust yours.

Hey, one of us knows the difference between a mayor and a governor.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

Hey, one of us knows the difference between a mayor and a governor.

Whatever....

This stupid NM order is going down in flames, the Constitution will prevail.

#SoSorry