US Supreme Court strikes down death penalty for child rapists

[Redleg]

If you guys see weapon control as a infrigement on your civil libertys where does it end ? are there weapons which you can ban without infringing on civil liberties or is any weapon ban a civl liberty infringement ?

Unfortunately for you - the 2nd Amendment made the private ownership of weapons a civil liberty in the United States. So to answer your question the private ownership of weapons is indeed a civil liberty. My position is not that one can not infring upon that civil liberty - only that if one speaks in absolutes about hating all infringements on civil liberty, one can not in the same breath speak of gun control by the government being acceptable. Its an inconsistent statement in itself.

If you have ever read my postion on gun control you will find that I support the position that certain weapons should not be in the hands of the public, but in order to restrict those weapons the 2nd Amendment must be amended through the constitutional process not the courts. Restrictions are indeed needed and have been supported by several interpetations by the Supreme Court, some will not be.

For instance one can own a fully automatic weapon if one files for the required license and permits.

This is where people out side of the United States fail to understand the situation, and often mistakenly can the constitution outdated.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Now, one can certainly make an argument about proportionality. But as has been said, a punishment is either cruel and unusual or not cruel and unusual. Having a sliding scale invalidates the law, since it implies that we can torture people who do really bad things.

But a punishment that may be fit for one crime may not be fit for another - it would be disproportionate. That would be the reason one would not have capital punishment for most crimes.

The thing is though, that is to be decided by legislatures. That's why it's called representative democracy.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Torture is illegal - not unconstitutional.

[Conradus]

Unfortunately for you - the 2nd Amendment made the private ownership of weapons a civil liberty in the United States. So to answer your question the private ownership of weapons is indeed a civil liberty. My position is not that one can not infring upon that civil liberty - only that if one speaks in absolutes about hating all infringements on civil liberty, one can not in the same breath speak of gun control by the government being acceptable. Its an inconsistent statement in itself.

To an American, it isn't inconsistent to anyone who lives in a country where gun ownership isn't a civil liberty.

[LittleGrizzly]

Unfortunately for you - the 2nd Amendment made the private ownership of weapons a civil liberty in the United States. So to answer your question the private ownership of weapons is indeed a civil liberty.

Well i understand why it is a civil liberty in USA but what i was actually looking for was whether you viewed it as a civil liberty, because i personally do not see owning weapons as a civil liberty so do not have a problem with stating that i am for civil libertys and for gun control, similar to the way people or libertarian and against abortion....

Abortion and gun control in one paragraph, i feel that all im missing is some obscure reference to the nazis...

[Redleg]

Unfortunately for you - the 2nd Amendment made the private ownership of weapons a civil liberty in the United States. So to answer your question the private ownership of weapons is indeed a civil liberty.

Well i understand why it is a civil liberty in USA but what i was actually looking for was whether you viewed it as a civil liberty, because i personally do not see owning weapons as a civil liberty so do not have a problem with stating that i am for civil libertys and for gun control, similar to the way people or libertarian and against abortion....

Then you have your answer, you might not see it as a civil liberty because of where you live, but what you have to address in any comment to an American in regards to Civil Liberties is the Bill of RIghts, the first 10 amendments to the constitution. Just like the Supreme Court often reviews the death penalty statues of the states - Amendment 8 addresses what types of punishment can be given by the states.

Crazed Rabbit is correct that the state legislatures must decided what punishment can be allocated to a specific crime. What the Supreme Court is allowed to do is rule on wether that law is constitutional or not based upon a review. They can not make law from the bench, but they can send something back to the states and congress to be redone to fall within the constitution.

This is what the Supreme Court has actually done from what I can determine with this ruling - now some would say they are making law from the bench - I don't see it that way, they have determined a state law is unconstitutional.

To an American, it isn't inconsistent to anyone who lives in a country where gun ownership isn't a civil liberty.

When the individual was speaking in absolutes - then he is being inconsistent regardless of where he comes from.

Have fun with that one.....

[Conradus]

When the individual was speaking in absolutes - then he is being inconsistent regardless of where he comes from.

Have fun with that one.....

Well I'm trying...

But that's accepting that civil liberties are universal and that gun ownership is one of those universal civil liberties. And considering that most civilized nations do not think of it as such, I'm hardly convinced it is one.

[Redleg]

Well I'm trying...

Keep trying....

But that's accepting that civil liberties are universal and that gun ownership is one of those universal civil liberties. And considering that most civilized nations do not think of it as such, I'm hardly convinced it is one.

Good try but that does not address the absolute statement that the individual made. He stated all civil liberties, which normally means all, regardless of where he comes from.

Now if he had said any infringement on civil liberties, I would give him the benefit of doubt that his definition could very well be different then an American prespective.

However has stated he stated all infringements on civil liberties by governments. So I find the defense of his position very weak because of his absolute position.