|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: First side effect of the gay marriage ruling | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, he looks like the gay one! To me he looks like a constitutional scholar at a right-wing think-tank.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So for the same argument to apply to (for example) concealed-carry licenses, you would first need (for example) a ruling that any state must issue a concealed-carry license to anyone who wants one Or maybe you just need to live in a red state where the government officials are pissed off about gay marriage and are already inclined to let everybody carry guns. I can easily see state legislators in my state insisting that there is a right to concealed carry and that they ought to recognize every other states' permits at least as long as NC permits are recognized. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
marc9k writes: Yes, you're a gun owner who loves gun control, a Christian who hates Christians, it figures you'd claim conservatism too. You're a good kind of phony, most everyone sees right through you. And so you post yet more falsehoods. I don't love gun control but also understand reality. I am in favor of reasonable regulation. I am a Christian but not a member of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and I do not hate Christians, even the members of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and the bigots. I do pity them and also fear them. I don't claim to be a Conservative; I am a Conservative and have been since Ike's second run for President. I even helped found and was the first Adult leader for a TAR group back when Nixon ran for his second term. Like Senator Goldwater though I lost all respect for the Republican Party when the Christian Right gained influence and when the country elected the joke called Reagan. And as I said, I would be happy to teach you a little about Conservatism and US Conservatives. The point of the topic though is that for the first time in history the US has finally recognized that Gays have basic human rights and that that has nothing to do with guns. Edited by jar, : applin spallin Edited by jar, : more appalin spallinAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well of course a state legislature could vote to recognize out-of-state permits, they just couldn't be compelled to do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
marc9000 writes: Yes, you're a gun owner who loves gun control, a Christian who hates Christians, it figures you'd claim conservatism too. You're a good kind of phony, most everyone sees right through you. I see jar as similar to Socrates, and his posts as often one of Plato's dialogues. Do you know what appears to be your role?Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I guess that you didn't notice the "concealed" in "concealed carry". Your citation doesn't address that. Really? Is that really the argument you want to go with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So for the same argument to apply to (for example) concealed-carry licenses, you would first need (for example) a ruling that any state must issue a concealed-carry license to anyone who wants one. What about the Moore v Madigan case that I linked to in Message 20, is that at all relevant?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Not so much. Illinois requires gun training before it issues a license. Apparently they're allowed to do that: it's not hard to argue that the state has a legitimate interest in doing so. So they can't be obligated to honor licenses from other states that don't require training; just as a state which doesn't allow first cousins to marry doesn't have to recognize such marriages. Obergefell is different: because all states have to allow gay marriage, there couldn't possibly be a rationale for not recognizing gay marriages contracted out of state except sheer cussedness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
If showing an obvious fallacy in your argument is not enough, what is ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If showing an obvious fallacy in your argument is not enough, what is ? You didn't show an obvious fallacy. You claimed that because the DC v Heller case didn't explicitly state "concealed" when it said that people have the right to carry arms, then that means that they were not talking about concealed carry. They were just talking about carrying, and whether or not it is concealed is a subset of that so your point was irrelevant. It'd be like you arguing that we don't have free speech online because the first amendment doesn't mention the internet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
There was a part in the opinion that I didn't really notice much before (bold added for emphasis):
quote: I was under the impression that they were saying that there was no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize another State's marriage at all. If they're only saying that there's no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize another State's marriage on the ground of its same-sex character, well, that's different. And that pretty much convinces me that the argument I was making is wrong. Thanks for your time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Oh, but I did.
quote: It means that they were not restricting themselves to concealed carry. Unfortunately for you that is all I need. So long as a state can follow the ruling without permitting concealed carry for all, the ruling does not establish concealed carry as a fundamental right.
quote: In other words my point was entirely correct and proved you wrong. And you just try to declare it irrelevant. Are you turning into Faith ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
They were just talking about carrying, and whether or not it is concealed is a subset of that so your point was irrelevant. If you read the case closely you'll see that Illinois did not allow carrying guns at all in most places outside of the home. That is what was considered unconstitutional. Illinois fixed this by creating a scheme for concealed carry where such scheme involves such regulating within the state. There is no way to read this case as supporting a unfettered right to concealed carry. Why are you insisting that people read these cases for you? It as if you feel justified in going along with silly interpretations of the cases unless someone else points out the error. I'm sure my wording here is overly harsh, but you are not one of the posters from whom I expect such behavior. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It means that they were not restricting themselves to concealed carry. What do you mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
To put it in your words:
They were just talking about carrying, and whether or not it is concealed is a subset of that
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024