Oswaldo, I will be glad to explain. First, the good citizens who are not felons, work, pay taxes and follow laws, pay for extra background checks from the various states in addition to weapons training are issued CWP (concealed weapons permits) We are not the ones

shooting at anything that moves

unless that person is or has already killed people in places like restaurants, US Post offices (where guns are not allowed), on college campuses, ditto, and other places including places of worship. Here is an example of one that occurred in the state of South Carolina and what happened to him.

On communism, here is a sample of The Truth illustrating the evils and excesses of communism. If you would like a graphic, X/R Rated version, read The Bridge at Andau.

Not the only thing to come out of the Supreme Court the other day.

Funny how things go around and come around.

In his initial run for the U.S. Senate in 2004, this fellow Barack Obama, who we seem to be hearing a lot about these days, was one of the very first beneficiaries of the so-called millionaire’s amendment that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Thursday.

Obama’s main Democratic primary foe that year was Blair Hull, a wealthy investor who poured $28 million of his own money into the campaign.

But under that same national campaign finance law, Hull’s immense personal spending on himself released Obama from the $2,100 per donor cap then in effect.

And it allowed him to raise his own campaign money in increments up to $12,000 per donor.

That national campaign finance law was co-written by another now familiar name, John McCain, the senator from Arizona.

Now, McCain is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who will face Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, on Nov. 4 to become president of these United States. Talk about unintended consequences.

Some analysts believe that Obama might well have lost that crucial first step onto the national political stage without the financial boost he received from McCain’s law allowing him to gather….

… sums in excess of that $2,100 cap. He certainly would have been unable to finance statewide television advertising.

But, wait! His luck wasn’t over. In the ensuing general election, Obama faced Republican millionaire investor Jack Ryan. But, would you believe it, an alleged sex scandal involving his ex-wife forced him out of the race. And the Illinois GOP — talk about desperate — turned to that political powerhouse, Alan Keyes, who was destroyed by newcomer Obama.

Scalia’s opinion was classic. He spends 40 pages citing Webster’s in an effort to give the dissenters a vocab and grammar lesson, then he spends 10 pages calling Justice Stevens a douche bag (politely), and 10 pages doing the same to Justice Breyer.

60 pages total of what basically amounts to: “It’s plainly written, right there… can’t you read?”

BTW, please explain what you mean by “Communism is Evil?”

How clueless can you get.

Oswaldo. You join three previous posters on my list of personally irresponsible people. Last chance.

Chief

I thought I’d get back to you now that I have some time. I’ve been doing some traveling. Next week I’ll be in France enjoying a good Bordeaux, and Camembert or Brie cheese on a baguette, with our country’s French friends. I’ll have my laptop with me to continue this discussion.
I’d like to avoid the subject of gun control for the moment if you don’t mind, and get to my question
“Why is communism evil?” I was referring to communism as an economic system, not the dictatorial ideology represented strictly and only by the former Soviet Union or Communist China. In connection with the latter, I can understand (to some extent) Bike Bubba’s reaction:

You mean beyond brutal suppression of human rights, genocides killing about 100 million people, hundreds of aggressive and unprovoked wars, and poverty for all except for selected Communist Party members?

No BB, that’s not what I mean.

Making blanket statements or generalizations like “Communism is evil” really doesn’t mean much; not more than saying “Capitalism is evil.” We saw what illogical nonsense Karl Marx was spewing about capitalism in his “Das Kapital.” Yet he was able with his indefensible gobbledygook to get the wrong people to believe that a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” the working classes, should prevail over the free-market “evils of capitalism.” He should have confined himself to an objective analysis of the respective, objective principles of capitalism and communism.
Communism as it existed in the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites was excessive in its attempt at governmental control and planning of all market mechanisms, especially by force.
Communism and the communist parties in Western Europe, for example Italy and France, are different. They no longer go to such extremes as advocating full state ownership or even control of all economic activity, companies, farms, etc. Their goal might be said to be more like trying to team with the more moderate socialists in their action aimed at protecting the rights of citizens, and workers in particular, and curbing the excesses of “laissez-faire” policies.
Communism has become a “label” in the United States used indiscriminately to assail anything that rubs us the wrong way politically or morally. If you say anything positive about communism or negative about capitalism in this country, you are not “patriotic,” you hate America, etc. You’ll agree that such labeling is simplistic nonsense.
Branding or name-calling is no way to debate any subject. Reflections must be kept in perspective and on a loftier plane.
I’m always trying to be the devil’s advocate in any of the discussions here, so thanks in advance for not hastily concluding anything about my core ideological, religious or philosophical views. For example, don’t call me a “lousy commie rat.” Or something like that; Actually, okay, it’s a free country. You to call me whatever you want, even with a gun if you like (1st and 2nd Amendments).

Kennedy — Reagan’s third and final appointee — often finds himself speaking for the court in announcing its most significant liberal decisions.

The split between Scalia and Kennedy goes back more than a decade. At first, they seemed to have much in common. They were born in 1936, grew up in Catholic families, went to high school in the ’50s and then to Harvard Law School. Both were Republicans and were put on the courts by Reagan. When Kennedy moved to the Washington area in 1988, he and his wife, Mary, bought a house in the same McLean, Va., neighborhood as Scalia.

So if Bill Ayers equals Obama by simple association, then Scalia must equal Kennedy, right. Oh my God, they went to the same school so they must be buddy’s, they live in the same neighborhood so they must think the same. They are even both Catholic (The largest cult in the world, according to McCain) so they MUST think and act the same by Republican rational. Case closed. Scalia is a liberal.

Maybe their goal is to keep firearms under tight control so that it’s not so easy to go around shooting at anything that moves, as in the US?

That’s why you should never be allowed to exercise your 2nd amendment right. Until you mentioned that you think having a gun means that you automatically shoot at anything that moves (project much?), I’ve never in 45 years known of anyone that owns a gun with the mentality to shoot at anything that moves. It’s all in your head.

Oswaldo has had six hours to read and respond. I think that he is not personally responsible for what he writes or asks. Maybe he thinks that some magic social responsibility will fall from the sky and enlighten everyone.

So Proof, is Kennedy good now or bad? He was the deciding vote.

Buzz: As in: “Too much caffeine?”. I have never said that Justice Kennedy was “good” or “bad”! Your world is really a simplistic one, isn’t it?

Buzz: The noise made by a gnat or a gadfly. Hardly worth noticing!

the appeals from Chicago won’t be heard.

Not sure what you’re talking about there, Spark! Chicago won’t have to “appeal” anything, the NRA is filing suit in those cities as we speak!

Over at Powerline, Scott Johnson takes a look at both the recent Kennedy and Boumediene decisions, finding both constitutionally insupportable. His conclusion, that we should re-examine our near-blind obeisance to judicial supremacy, is revolutionary.

Whence comes the Court’s authority to render the judgment in cases such as Kennedy? It is entirely self-created, based on the Court’s ipse dixit. This is not the way it’s supposed to work…

The Court’s handiwork in Boumediene represents a more recent and more consequential appropriation of power whose limits have not yet even begun to be tested, and it flies in the face of the Court’s own previous jurisprudence.

Our acquiescence in the doctrine of judicial supremacy is of long standing, but it is time to revisit it in the spirit of Abraham Lincoln. In Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Allen Guelzo reminds us that Lincoln

“mistrusted the federal judiciary and expected that any emancipation initiatives which came directly from his hand would be struck down in the courts.”

Guelzo’s reminder helps us understand Lincoln’s last Annual Message to Congress (December 6, 1864):

“In presenting the abandonment of armed resistance to the national authority on the part of the insurgents, as the only indispensable condition to ending the war on the part of the government, I retract nothing heretofore said as to slavery. I repeat the declaration made a year ago, that ‘while I remain in my present position I shall not attempt to retract or modify the emancipation proclamation, nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of that proclamation, or by any of the Acts of Congress.’ If the people should, by whatever mode or means, make it an Executive duty to re-enslave such persons, another, and not I, must be their instrument to perform it.”

Translation: If the courts, or any other institution, nullify the Emancipation Proclamation, I will nevertheless continue to enforce it. Where is the spirit of Lincoln today?

Where, indeed! Now that’s revolution, brother!

Oswaldo has had six hours to read and respond.

Chief – write it off as a hit and run.

Much ado about nothing.

The 2nd Amendment is moot.

If you have a gun

if police think you
might have a gun

if you are driving a car

any law enforcement officer
can disarm you, or kill you
because of the threat you present.

Life on the Streets

How do you think Scalia, Alito and Roberts would find
if an DEA agent shot you as you pulled a flashlight from
your glovebox?

Woof, I should probably wait for Pilgrim to spank your illogic, but the police are not empowered to disarm you unless they have probable cause, and they are not empowered to use lethal force unless you present at least disabling force.

Besides, when DC residents start arming themselves, five will get you ten that crime goes down and fewer police will be needed. It’ll be a good thing that our friend Pilgrim will be retired.

Nothing moot whatsoever about this decision.

So Proof, is Kennedy good now or bad? He was the deciding vote.

The 2nd Amendment is moot.

Moot?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

BTW how do y’all discover Natural Laws, other than in the lab? Is that like the law of inertia or something?

Oh, you’re quoting the idiots over at a CBS open thread? And they are lauding this as a ‘natural law’?

Proof wrote:

BTW, WOOF: What happened to your avatar?
(Or are we dealing with an ersatz-WOOF?)

Setting up a new computer, moving hard drives, installing
OS. Using new browser, was not signed in.

Accept only genuine WOOF posts.