Paladin - thanks for the info!
-nick
Search found 6 matches
Return to “A reminder why we need the 2nd amendment:”
- Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:44 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: A reminder why we need the 2nd amendment:
- Replies: 35
- Views: 8005
- Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:54 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: A reminder why we need the 2nd amendment:
- Replies: 35
- Views: 8005
I shall respectfully close with this:txinvestigator wrote: If you truly believe that we are again at those times, then I just don't know what to say. Except I feel badly for you.
My family has apporoximately 150 acres with 3 generations living on it. My mom and my uncle and aunt each have newly built homes out there. My grandparents just moved back as their "final move" so that we can help take care of them (granted I'm at school). My younger cousins still live out there...its OUR place. We bbq, have pool parties, ride our horses, bail hay etc.
If someone were to come out there and try and take that land so some yuppie developer could put a resort there, you can bet everything you own that I would be ready to fight, legally and physically, in a new york minute.
The 2A provides protection, even from our own gov't. We can disagree, and you can think I'm some war hungry, trash talking youth, and that's fine. I'm actually finishing and engineering degree and plan to be a constructive member of society. I will however ask that you refrain from pitying me because of how I feel.
respectfully,
Nick
- Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:53 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: A reminder why we need the 2nd amendment:
- Replies: 35
- Views: 8005
I shall respectfully close with this:txinvestigator wrote: If you truly believe that we are again at those times, then I just don't know what to say. Except I feel badly for you.
My family has apporoximately 150 acres with 3 generations living on it. My mom and my uncle and aunt each have newly built homes out there. My grandparents just moved back as their "final move" so that we can help take care of them (granted I'm at school). My younger cousins still live out there...its OUR place. We bbq, have pool parties, ride our horses, bail hay etc.
If someone were to come out there and try and take that land so some yuppie developer could put a resort there, you can bet everything you own that I would be ready to fight, legally and physically, in a new york minute.
The 2A provides protection, even from our own gov't. We can disagree, and you can think I'm some war hungry, trash talking youth, and that's fine. I'm actually finishing and engineering degree and plan to be a constructive member of society. I will however ask that you refrain from pitying me because of how I feel.
respectfully,
Nick
- Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:13 am
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: A reminder why we need the 2nd amendment:
- Replies: 35
- Views: 8005
Surely 200 something yrs ago there too was a voice:txinvestigator wrote: a) move without confronting anyone with a gun
b) die after confronting the govt with a gun.
Sounds like a stupid battle to me. I don't believe for 1 second you would pull a gun, but I DO understand your aversion to this.
As responsible gun owners we should refrain from lunatical comments about "the wrong side of our guns".
would you rather?
a.)go ahead and pay a tax without proper representation
OR
b.)die after confronting the (british) governement.
I'm glad they choose to ingore that voice.
You can say you wouldn't "bet for one second", but I bet you won't be first in line to come and be a test case to call my bluff either.
- Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:12 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: A reminder why we need the 2nd amendment:
- Replies: 35
- Views: 8005
txinvestigator wrote:I am sorry, how does the 2nd ammendment effect this?
I guarantee you or any other enitity that comes to take my house so a resort can get built be on the wrong side of every gun I've got.
Stuff like this gets governments overturned - thats what the framers envisioned. Heck...thats what they did...
- Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:48 am
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: A reminder why we need the 2nd amendment:
- Replies: 35
- Views: 8005
A reminder why we need the 2nd amendment:
From the front page of cnn http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotu ... index.html
High court OKs personal property seizures
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities
Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
High court OKs personal property seizures
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities
Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.