Straight Up with Sherri

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Supreme Guns

Okay, I'm Right Wing, but I'm not extreme.
Right now, I am confused. Very confused!

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down a ruling on Tuesday that absolutely puzzles me.

In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people convicted of crimes overseas can own guns in the United States. See WorldNetDaily for the whole story.

Don't misunderstand. I think this is a terrific ruling - in fact one of the best that SCOTUS has handed down in a long time.

But rather who did what???????

Thomas, Scalia, & Kennedy voted against it.
I see Kennedy - okay, but not the other two.

Meanwhile, Breyer, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, & Ginsburg voted for it.
Absolutely amazing! I would expect Breyer & O'Connor - but the other three? These are the ones who seem willing to use "Foreign Precedents and Foreign Law" to determine the Constitutionality of American Laws!

For Thomas & Scalia to put the "will of Congress" above the Constitution demonstrates a side of them I never saw coming. It represents a leftist migration of their attitudes and understanding of the power of Congress within the purview of the Constitution. This Court already misses Rhenquist! He would have put more rationality to the discussions - like herding cats, if you will.

The decision is a great one - as I say, one of the best the Supremes have made in a long time. But the rationale and logic stink! And the who-did-what is terrifying!
The battle for control of the Supreme Court is the civil war in which we are already engaged.

That's my rant of the day. Keep your powder dry!

Right Wing Nut Job


  • What did you like about the decision?

    By Blogger levi from queens, at 12:25 PM  

  • Yeah, I don't get that part either.

    Why is it a GOOD thing to allow people convicted of crimes to own guns here in the US? I don't want criminal in the US owning guns in the US.

    What am I missing?

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 12:28 PM  

  • levi & Sherri,
    In the United States, we have a Constitution that sets the framework of our society. It guarantees that our government will recognize the rights that have been bestowed upon all people by God. Government is just a handy little construct that we people use to do important things like protect our borders and regulate interstate commerce, the two primary charges of the Constitution.
    Laws are to be made by the Legislatures of the United States and the several States. It is through these laws that due process is defined to authorize the government(s) to unnaturally deprive some of the people of their God-given rights. I have no problem with that process.
    When Congess passes a law that gives foreign powers the right to strip Americans, living in America, of their God-given rights for violation of foreign laws, I have a real problem. First, this is a violation of our sovereignty. Second, it is a violation of the people's right to redress. And third, it is a violation of the provisions of due process guaranteed by the Constitution.
    I believe that most gun laws are categorically unconstitutional. I do not believe that any American should ever lose a Constitutional right due to a misdemeanor or a violation of a foreign law. If the crime is serious enough to warant loss of rights, it should be a felony. But if that were the case, most politicians would be felons.

    What is a criminal? Someone who calls the Queen of England a "snot faced bitch"? Someone guilty of mass genocide in Darfur? If these are not American citizens, then we can control their access to America by virtue of our own laws. If they are American citizens, then any crime significant enough to deprive them of Constitutional rights should be important enough to warrant extradition. Not possible? That is the kind of thing the State Department should be working on, then!

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 12:49 PM  

  • RWNJ

    So, then we are not talking about violent criminals.....If that is the case- then I get it...

    If they are unsafe to be having guns, then they shouldn't be here in the first place..right?

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 12:55 PM  

  • I can certainly agree with the argument that the Congress has no right to regulate private gun ownership under the 2nd amendment. Although I have no problems with Congress regulating machine guns or WMD or similar devices based upon the danger to interstate commerce. I do think it would be a wise state law to prohibit persons convicted of serious felonies from having guns. (300 years ago, all felonies were serious)

    By Blogger levi from queens, at 1:04 PM  

  • I can certainly agree with the argument that the Congress has no right to regulate private gun ownership under the 2nd amendment. Although I have no problems with Congress regulating machine guns or WMD or similar devices based upon the danger to interstate commerce. I do think it would be a wise state law to prohibit persons convicted of serious felonies from having guns. (300 years ago, all felonies were serious)

    By Blogger levi from queens, at 1:07 PM  

  • Sherri,
    Blogger ate my reply. So I will do it again!

    In the case of Gary Sherwood Small, what he was convicted of in Japan would not have been a crime in the United States. So, is he a felon? In Japan he is, in the United States, he wouldn't be.

    Had he been convicted of a felony that would also have been a felony in the United States, then the issue would be different. But where? A felony in New York City may be laudable behavior in Concord, Vermont. The Congressional law needs a lot of work. But the whole issue of unconstitutional gun control needs a lot more work. It's a bad system that keeps getting worse!

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 1:44 PM  

  • levi,
    Machine guns are legal in the United States. They just require certain, obnoxious and expensive licensing schemes. The definitive ruling on this is United States v Miller (1939) wherein the Supreme Court essentially says that any arms suitable for a soldier are suitable for a citizen. This would include any bearable arm, like a bazooka, or tow-missle. It is one I also cited earlier wherein the Revenoors murdered Miller before SCOTUS heard the case, so only the Internal Revenue attorneys presented their side of the case - no one represented Miller at all. Furthermore, several of the weapons that SCOTUS specifically cited (like the sawed off shotgun) were truly used in the prior war (called Trench Guns) and should never have been excluded, therefore should have resulted in an exoneration of Miller and a subsequent hearing ordered on his murder. But hey, we're talking about the government here, serving its own power - not looking out for the Constitution or the people.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 2:03 PM  

  • The law in question says you can't own a gun if you are found guilty of a felony in "any court". Scalia and Thomas site numerous court opinons that say "any" means "any", including other nations.

    Scalia and Thomas say that if the Congress wants "any" to mean "just USA" then that is what the law should say.

    This case has NOTHING to do with gun ownership and has everything to do with the interpretation of legislative language. This is not a 2nd amendment decision.

    By Blogger Sterling, Massachusetts, at 3:59 PM  

  • This is off topic - but important:

    Everyone, please, please keep on praying. (This is regarding Charlotte.)I know this is off topic, but I need to get this to you all...

    I **have had contact with two doctors today**.

    The first, is one who is the director of the MC Association of Prolife Physicians (I spoke with him directly). I will call him 'Dr. James'. He is a family physician, however has worked with babies in hospital, before. He, or another physician aquaintance of his may be the one whom God is placing in our path to send to Britain to evaluate Charlotte. He is going to speak with two important doctors who he knows personally, when he is able - and we need to pray for him about this!

    One is Dr. Patrick, who is a retired medical professor and missionary, and is currently the president of a college in Canada. Dr. Patrick is affiliated with the CMDA (Christian Medical & Dental Associations). Dr. Patrick is actually traveling right now - today, April 26th through May 9th, so Dr. James really needs prayer that God will open the way for him to directly contact Dr. Patrick, soon, even during his travels....

    Dr. James is also going to contact Dr. C. Everett Koop, MD the former Surgeon General of the US, who is a pediatric surgeon and whom Dr. James personally knows.

    Here is a bit about Dr. Koop:

    "Surgeon General Koop continued to champion children with disabilities, an issue with which he had long been involved as a pediatric surgeon. He organized a workshop on respirator-dependent children in December 1982, which explored ways of caring for these children in their own homes rather than in hospitals, and making Medicaid funds available to pay for long-term home care. One of the last conferences he convened was the "Surgeon General's Conference on Growing Up and Getting Medical Care: Youth with Special Health Care Needs," held in March 1989. In numerous speeches Koop urged policymakers, physicians, health care administrators, educators, and the public to recognize the dignity, rights, needs, and capabilities of children with life-threatening birth defects and other impairments. A growing number of such children were saved by advances in medicine, but were left with disabilities. Throughout his eight years as Surgeon General, Koop was the most outspoken and persistent government advocate for increasing access to medical and health care, educational opportunities, and employment for these children." (from )


    Here is a verse to encourage prayer: "Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. **The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much**." (James 5:16)

    The second doctor I will post about in the next post.

    By Anonymous Juleni, at 4:35 PM  

  • Second :

    Dr. Paul Byrne called me! Thank you for your call, Dr. Byrne!


    Dr. Byrne will also visit Charlotte's website today, and I am forwarding emails to him from Hannah, regarding Charlotte.


    Thirdly, a private contact is getting ahold of two prolife pediatric cardiologists at the University of Michigan, Dr. Beekman and Dr. Ludamerski, but this contact is waiting on some more very specific information from Hannah, that these specialists will need to determine if they should be the ones to go to England.


    By Anonymous Juleni, at 4:36 PM  

  • PoliticaObscura,
    I agree that this is not a Second Amendment issue. It is a sovereignty issue. Congress does not have the authority to surrender our sovereignty to Japan. Congress cannot usurp the Constitution. I am surprised that two constructionist jurists did not recognize that. What I perceive was a lot of unconttrolled bickering and a total collapse of normalcy in the deliberations of SCOTUS. That was my point.
    If you were convicted of sneezing in Elbonia, a felony there, should you lose your rights to vote (in some States), to hold certain public offices, to be licensed for certain professions, to get government loans, or to lose some income tax deductions? This is what it is really about. There is no appeals process, no redress, no due process whatsoever. The Japanese called Mr. Small a felon in their land and for that he is to be stripped of his God given rights in America without any process, due or otherwise. That's very bad.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 4:37 PM  

  • Actually, what the Scalia and Thomas says is very much in keeping with constructionist philosophy. The Congress decides what the laws should be - absent a Constitutional problem.

    If the Congress wants to say that anyone convicted of bank fraud in any country cannot be the president of a bank in the US, then, that might be unwise, but it is THE USA deciding for THE USA what the laws about being a bank president should be in THE USA.

    It has nothing to do compromising our sovereignty because we are 100% in control of the law at any time. The Congress could just a easily say that an independent committee will be created to decide whether conviction in a foreign country should count against someone being a bank president in the US, but Congress did NOT say that.

    You might have a legitimate issue with Congress, but I don't think you have one with Scalia and Thomas.

    By Blogger Sterling, Massachusetts, at 4:47 PM  

  • Juleni


    Thank you for ALL YOU ARE DOING! And thank you for keeping us posted!!!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 5:00 PM  

  • You can't really try and paint him as a nice, law abiding and upstanding citizen who happened to be the victim of an unjust system when he is guilty of illegally smuggling weapons into another country.
    But I'm sure to you it makes perfect sense to give a weapons smuggler legal access to even more weapons.

    "Gary Small was convicted in a Japanese court in 1994 after customs officials became suspicious when he tried to ship a 19-gallon water heater from the United States to Okinawa. Searching the tank, officers found two rifles, eight semiautomatic pistols, and 410 rounds of ammunition. Japan has strict gun ownership and smuggling laws, and Small was sentenced to a five-year term. He was paroled in 1996."

    By Anonymous Vanessa, at 5:19 PM  

  • PolitcaObserva,
    But I do have a problem with Scalia and Thomas. It deals with their total disregard of the Fifth Amendment in the unalienable Bill of Rights. Specifically:
    nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The law in question that was ruled unconstitutional expressly says there shall be no due process. Having been convicted in a court, not under the purview of the United States Constitution (a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment - which is alienable through further Amendment), due process is not afforded to the American citizen. Neither Congress, nor the Supreme Court has the authority to override this provision (the 5th).
    How would you feel if the International Court convicted you, in absencia, of war crimes? Or if the courts of Robert Mugabe chose to convict you of sedition, just because they don't like you? This gets really slippery. I do have a problem with Scalia & Thomas. Constructionism requires adherence to the Constitution. That is not negotiable! And the Constitution does not give Congress, the Supreme Court, Japan, South Africa, or anyone else, the Power to override the Bill of Rights.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 5:34 PM  

  • PoliticaObscura,
    If the Congress wants to say that anyone convicted of bank fraud in any country cannot be the president of a bank in the US
    Actually, Congress could do that if the bank is engaged in Interstate Commerce (by Section VIII, Clause 3). But if it is a state charted bank with no Federal affiliation then they can't. There is no Constitutional recognition of the God-given right to be a bank president. So this becomes a regulation, not a rights issue. As long as the regulation does not violate the Bill of Rights, it is within the scope of Congress to consider it. Your example is great because it is one of the few cases wherein the Congress actually complies with the letter of the Constitution.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 5:44 PM  

  • Vanessa,
    I was not trying to paint Gary Small as a nice guy.
    he tried to ship a 19-gallon water heater from the United States to Okinawa. Searching the tank, officers found two rifles, eight semiautomatic pistols, and 410 rounds of ammunition.
    Okay, so if it was smuggling weapons, extradite him to the United States, grant him the due process, and go for the conviction. Which I'm not sure they could get based on the information. No problem! Putting guns (they're not weapons - weapon is how you use something, not what it is!) in a water vessel is not a crime.

    His crime was being in Japan with them. Again, no problem. The Japanese can deal with it according to their laws. But he still was never convicted of breaking an American law and was categorically denied the due process guaranteed him by the Constitution. Therefore his 5th Amendment God-given rights were violated and no crime was committed, according to our Constitution. There is no justification for depriving him of his rights, just because the Japanese don't like him.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 5:53 PM  

  • RWNJ


    Isn't it cute. I find a glimpse of light in the fact that a judge gives life and death decisions to a family, rather than doctors or a hospital, and I am accused of thinking the judge is "cool" and "kind"- etc.

    You point out that a man was not given due process, and you are accused of painting him out to be a nice guy...LOL!

    But is WE who have an agenda?????

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 6:01 PM  

  • "Putting guns in a water vessel is not a crime."
    Except that is nowhere near an accurate representation of what he did. He didn't just put them there, he put them there with the knowledge and intent to commit an illegal act in a foreign country.
    He had already sent two water heaters the same year, which is why the third was X-rayed and found to contain the weapons. When he showed up to lay claim to the heater, he was asked whether it belonged to him and he confirmed.

    It's also hard to claim that the Japenese legal system is incapable of justly judging US citizens when it's already established through extradition treaties that Japan can and will be given custody of a US citizen to be judged and sentenced according to Japenese law when probable cause is shown and the crime is subject to the treaty constraints.
    If there was any merit to the notion that the Japanese system would not have comparable standards and fairness, the treaty simply would not exist.

    Also, any US citizen, convincted as a sex offender in a foreign country and who serves part of his sentence in a US prison will fall under the same requirement concerning sex offender registration and notification as if the convinction had taken place in a US court.
    Given your belief that a decision of a foreign court should have no bearing what so ever on a citizen's rights this should also be something you condemn by principle.

    By Anonymous Vanessa, at 9:34 PM  

  • Vanessa,
    Given your belief that a decision of a foreign court should have no bearing what so ever on a citizen's rights this should also be something you condemn by principle.

    The foreign government, any government, has no bearing whatsoever on an American citizen's rights. Why do you have a problem with that? Do you want the regime in Kazakhstan to be lord over you? Or would you prefer the Republic of Sudan? How about Cuba - emigrate there if you believe they should be your masters. But they are not mine, and the Constitution says they're not. My point is that simple.
    Is it illegal to import arms, in whatever vessel you choose, into Okinawa? Then the Japanese should prosecute, by their standards to their pleasure. But that does not impart any corresponding loss of liberty in America. They just totally lack the jurisdiction and power or authority to do so. The Constitution says so, I don't.
    How about exporting arms out of the United States? If that is an American crime, then that would apply to Mr. Small - knock your socks off. Use the American Court system and prosecute to your heart's content, with all the consequences authorized by the Constitution. Is it a violation of a treaty with Japan to move unlicensed arms? If so, let the Yankee Gringos prosecute Mr. Small for the treaty violation! Was a crime perpetrated against another American citizen in Japan? That would be an American crime. Extradite and try the case in the U.S. of A. You could probably even do it at the Military Base on Okinawa (I believe, but I'm not positive).

    It's a rare day that I ever agree with Ruthie Baby Ginsburg. But this time I must. The Constitution is crystal clear. Not very often the activist judges even read it. That was my point. Surprise at who did what. The Japanese are not our Gods and Congress doesn't have the power to say they are.
    I am not saying that the Japanese system is incapable of judging people in Japan who violate Japanese laws. I am saying they have no authority to impose penalties in America for crimes perpetrated in Japan.

    If there was any merit to the notion that the Japanese system would not have comparable standards and fairness, the treaty simply would not exist. Vanessa, normally you don't say abjectly stupid things, but this really is! We have treaties all over the world with tyrannical governments that have no semblence of justice whatsoever!

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 12:00 AM  

  • Straight up, please show me with Ruth Ginsburg sited the 2nd amendment in here opinion on this...she didn't.

    What she did was re-interpreted the word "any" in legislation.

    Again, this is NOT a 2nd amendment case. Ginsburg did not cite the 2nd amendment, she simply replace congress's opinion with her own...she legislated from the bench... and I'm surprised you support it.

    By Blogger Sterling, Massachusetts, at 7:16 AM  

  • "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

    That means any citizen residing on native soil will be handed over to the juristiction of any foreign court if an extradition treaty is there, the crime falls under it and probable cause is shown. Your claim that citizenship and the constitution will somehow protect you when you're on US soil when you commit crimes abroad is utterly ludicrous.

    His claim that he didn't receive a fair trial was examined by two courts and dismissed so it's a point of fact that he did receive comparable due process in his specific case. He didn't jay walk or drive through a red light, he smuggled weapons. The supreme court's ruling was about semantics, nothing more than that.

    Lastly, the fact that you condemn the notion that foreign convicted child molestors and rapists can be required to submit to registration and notification and think that they should be under no restriction whatsoever in the US only underscores the extend of irrationality you're willing to go through to make sure nothing takes away from your right to own guns no matter what.

    By Anonymous Vanessa, at 7:51 AM  

  • PoliticaObscura,
    The ruling is not about the Second Amendment! The ruling is about Constituitional due process denial. The word any as used by Congress cannot extend to foreign courts. That is not within the authority of Congress to modify the Constitution. That is what Ruth said. It is not a re-interpretation, it is a limitation!

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 10:39 AM  

  • Vanessa,
    His claim that he didn't receive a fair trial was examined by two courts and dismissed so it's a point of fact that he did receive comparable due process in his specific case. He didn't jay walk or drive through a red light, he smuggled weapons. The supreme court's ruling was about semantics, nothing more than that.

    The ruling of the Supreme Court was about Constitutional due process, not semantics. Your statement of comparable due process is what 63% of the jurists hearing the case said is unacceptable.
    You say he smuggled weapons, the Japanese say he smuggled weapons, the United States Supreme Court says there is a basis in our Constitution to reject that claim.

    Your final paragraph (Lastly) is absurd. We can choose to regulate those people ostensibly convicted (or accused) of child molestation or rape as we see fit. We just cannot deny them due process, however noble our intentions are. There are ways to provide for taking away my rights, and guns, if I own any. These ways are under the provisions of due process; just as sex-offender registration requirements are. Make certain that those provisions are respected. That's all the Supreme Court said.

    Do you have some problem with citizens owning guns? It seems to me that you have some kind of overreaction to this issue.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 10:57 AM  

  • John Doe travels abroad, gets convicted for a sexual offense by a foreign court and is sentenced to say a hypothetical 3 years. An agreement is established where he will serve his full or part of his sentence not in a foreign prison, but in a US one.
    Before his release, depending on review, he will be required to submit to registration and notification as a sex offender, but while establishing that his demeanor on foreign soil may constitute a real threat on US soil, it is suddenly no longer relevant should he choose to go out and buy a gun.

    I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So either you argue that he should not be restricted at all and if he's a child molestor he should happily be allowed to get a job that involves children and own as many guns as he likes, or you argue that while his conviction on foreign soil may or may not have been up to US standards, it should never the less serve as a warning sign concerning his behaviour and it's prudent to be cautious and potentially deny him the right to choose a job that involves child care or restrict legal access to guns.

    And I have no problem with you owning a gun, since I'm comfortable with the knowledge that sooner or later abuses are going to mount up to a point that there will no longer be a solid base of support for legal gun ownership as it currently stands. When that happens the extremists who fail to see reason and think their right to own a gun can come at any cost will take up outrageous stands, further compelling everyone that gun ownership is not a good thing and should be heavily restricted.

    My actual problem lies with the reason used in this particular case and which you happen to support since it can easily be abused and extended to go beyond this case.
    I don't think a foreign court should get to dictate what a US citizen can and can not do, I completely agree with you on that part. But the notion that you can just dismiss any and all foreign courts is absurd.
    Should his conviction in a Japenese court be held to the same standard as if it had been a US court? No.
    Should it have resulted into an investigation as to whether or not it is relevant and potentially a cause to deny him the right to own a gun? Yes.
    But that's not what happened in the supreme court. "Any court" was ruled to mean "any - domestic - court" and hence his prior conviction was deemed totally irrelevant.

    By Anonymous Vanessa, at 12:36 PM  

  • Vanessa,
    Agreement means that John Doe has chosen to permit his serving, and thus his due process to be transferred to an American jurisprudence system. In that case, he is guaranteed due process under the Bill of Rights! Depending on review which you cite, is part of that due process. The fact that he posed a sexual threat on foreign soil and agrees to an American review of that threat does not automatically suspend due process regarding any of his other rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

    You say, "it is suddenly no longer relevant should he choose to go out and buy a gun." That is absolutely correct. Should there be a potential threat posed by John Doe's possession of a gun, it would be necessary that the government start procedings to strip him of that right, according to the Sixth Amendment.

    I have said that his status as a child molester is subject to a unique review by the U.S. Courts. And he may be regulated, but not punished for it, subject to our Domestic regulations. I do not believe that he should be unencumbered in his dealings with children. But he is not a subject of the state! We don't do that in this country. If you want to be a subject, Vanessa, move to a monarchy, like England! In America, the government is subservient to the people!

    Unless there is due process that shows cause why not, John Doe is guaranteed the God-given right to own as many guns as he would like. The Supreme Court has upheld this fact numerous times. He can also write as many blogs as he likes, he can say as many prayers as he likes, and he can complain that you and I are complete idiots as many times as he likes. The government is prohibited from interfering with any of these rights without due process. And due process is not a boilerplate rule established by Congress. The Courts have said that over and over.

    Another problem you manifest is a correlation to a potential sexual threat and gun ownership! I find this perplexing! Where do you get that linkage? I would more rationally argue that people who have been convicted of gun-related felonies should be restrictted from ownership. If one can demonstrate a particular threat specific to an individual convicted child molester that would warrant in that case the suspension of Second Amendment rights, there is due process available to do that, also.

    The Second Amendment cannot be repealed, nor any of the other nine of the Bill of Rights. These ten recognize God-given rights, they do not bestow them from an omnipotent government. Abuses of guns are nearly always by governments, not by the people. Disarming the people always results in higher crime and genocide by the government - always. Guns are used by private citizens 2.5 million times per year in America to prevent crime. The few states that have had restrictive gun laws are losing them, little by little. 65 million Americans own guns. It's the anti-gun and gun-grabbing minions of global elitists like George Soros and Federalists like Frank Lautenberg that represent a small, but freakish gang.

    I don't think a foreign court should get to dictate what a US citizen can and can not do, I completely agree with you on that part. But the notion that you can just dismiss any and all foreign courts is absurd. So, where do you draw the line? Which foreign courts are our masters, Gods, and rulers, and which do we just ignore? The Supreme Court ruled that any is limited to those courts under the control and supervision of the United States Constitution. I do dismiss foreign courts - each and every one of them, without exception! Why is that absurd?

    You claim, "Should it have resulted into an investigation as to whether or not it is relevant and potentially a cause to deny him the right to own a gun? Yes." I agree. If there is a reason that his gun rights should be suspended, then a United States Court must present its case in accordance with the Fifth & Sixth Amendments in the Bill of Rights. He is guaranteed due process for such a hearing. The Japanese conviction was not deemed totally irrelevant, it was deemed insufficient to deny Mr. Small his Constitutional due process.

    I still say that if the United States believes that there is a reason Gary Small should be prosecuted for a gun-related felony, convicted, and have his Constitutional rights infringed, then bring the case against him. But just because the Japanese brought a case against him cannot automatically cause him to lose any of his rights.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 1:45 PM  

  • I'm not going to spend a whole lot more time on a reply since we're basically doing a back and forth at this point and it takes away from both of our free time :).

    Unless I'm actually too tired, your first two paragraphs actually seems to agree with my point (which probably means I'm getting them all wrong :) ).
    For the fictional John Doe to be transferred from a foreign to a domestic prison his offense has to actually constitute a crime under US law but that's it. If for instance a procedural error occured that would have gotten him off the hook in the US, but didn't in the foreign country, it won't have any influence. No US court ever gets involved.
    In any case, at this point you've established that what he was convicted for by a foreign court would also be a crime domestically, and on one side he'll suffer the consequences of being a sexual offender as judged by a foreign conviction, but on the other hand he can buy a gun because whatever foreign conviction he might have had is irrelevant. The ruling - in my view - created a lack of consistency here which is my whole problem.

    The reason why I used an example of sexual offenses is just because a foreign court conviction on that count has bearing on the person back in the US, whereas a foreign court conviction on any count has no bearing on a person back in the US when he wishes to purchase a gun.
    I'm not argueing about a correlation between sexual offense and gun ownership, only that foreign courts matter in one instance but not the other.
    A foreign court conviction might also have bearing on the length or severity of a sentence by a US court on any future offense because a judge is allowed, but not required to take those into account which is also inconsistent with the ruling that foreign courts don't matter.

    "So, where do you draw the line?" (related to foreign courts)
    An obvious choice would be countries with which there are extradition treaties. You trust that country enough to go to the extent of arresting citizens on domestic soil and handing them over to be held up to another country's laws and standards so seeing potential merit in the decisions of their courts is a far less extreme.

    If "any" had meant "any domestic court or any foreign court upon review" I'd have no problem whatsoever but the foreign is just completely dismissed which I do have a problem with.

    And like I said in my last comment, less restrictive gun laws only ensure that something tragic will happen sooner rather than later and that will cause a swing over back to the other extreme.

    By Anonymous Vanessa, at 6:30 PM  

  • And that comment turned out to be a whole lot longer than I had planned.
    In any case you can read it and respond if you like but it feels like we're both just basically repeating both our arguements over and over :).

    By Anonymous Vanessa, at 6:32 PM  

  • Vanessa,
    I don't think we were going over the same arguments at all. The only place I probably disagree is your last comment - but that is a well fought bone of contention. If teachers were armed, as the founding fathers intended, we could reduce problems with school shootings, for instance. More Guns = Less Crime. Tragedies occur when you disarm the people: 6 million in Germany 1933-1945, 6 million in Russia (same time), 65 million by Mao in China, massive genocide in Rwanda, Sudan, and South Africa, Pol Pot murdered 2 million in Cambodia. This can only happen when you have gun control. By the way, it's putrid how MarchForHumanity left out Mao Zedong and Josef Stalin's genocide - the greatest in the history of the world! In the United States, our genocide has been very limited - because the government has been unsuccessful in its numerous attempts to disarm us - Thank God!

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 8:02 PM  

  • It felt like we were only going around in circles to me in any case :). I said foreign courts shouldn't just be dismissed on principle, you disagreed and we went back and forth.

    A tragedy is a child that finds a gun left laying around by an unresponsible person and who ends up shooting himself.
    Or shoots a friend over some childish arguement.
    Or a spouse who kills their partner over a stupid arguement in a fit of rage.
    And so on.

    Those are deaths that simply wouldn't happen if they didn't have a gun laying around waiting to be used. It's the actual gun that causes the death in this case, either because of not realizing the danger or because of clouded judgement. No gun, no deaths.

    A school shooting isn't a moment of temporary "insanity", it's a conscious and deliberate act. Gun control wouldn't do a thing in this instance, he already made up his mind to kill and the gun is merely a means to an end here.

    If you were so concerned about the safety then you would be argueing for a continual police presence or a security guard allowed to either carry or keep a gun at the school instead of a teacher.

    But then again, if the teacher is allowed, then so are you so we're back at the ultimate point which is that you or anyone else should have the right to put a bullet through someone's head if you deem it justified.

    I tried to look but didn't see anything directly relevant that wasn't pro- or contra- propaganda so I'll just ask you instead, "keeping" and "bearing" arms is obviously your right, but where exactly does it give you the right to *use* them indiscriminately?

    By Anonymous Vanessa, at 7:49 AM  

  • Vanessa,
    Or a spouse who kills their partner over a stupid arguement in a fit of rage.
    Or commonly, a spouse under a restraining order threatens the other. Then the other is "prevented" from self-defense by draconian, often unconstitutional, gun laws. The first murders the latter (usually not with a gun). However, if the victim had been allowed to bear a gun (as God deigned and the Constitution guarantees), they would probably both be alive, or the criminal wounded, sometimes dead. Guns are used 5 to 6 times more often in defense in America than in crime. Brandishing is usually the only action necessary. Rarely does anyone get shot.
    Guns don't kill people any more than hammers build houses. Or hammers kill people! When kids get access to guns and kill, one of two things went wrong - access was too easy for those too young or the kids were not properly trained. Either is a severe breach of parental or owner responsibility and should be prosecuted.

    No gun, no deaths. Actually, no gun = more deaths! But that may be difficult to understand without concentrating or reading. If you listen to lying, misleading wackos like the Brady Campaign (That's Handgun Control, Inc. by a sanitized name), VPC (a George Soros international pro-communist disarmament organization), etc., you would think that guns cause problems. In reality, guns solve many more problems than they cause.

    Continual police protection causes more problems. The founding fathers did not envision any police at all. The design was to have a sheriff or marshall (who was unarmed) that would muster a posse of armed citizens to handle crime or military problems. The Constitution prohibits police forces. But, heck, governments ignore the Constitution anyway. Notwithstanding, the police are servants, not masters (unless you accept a fascist viewpoint). As such, since when do the servants go around armed and tell us we can't be? Who is the master? Both Aristotle and Plato wrote a lot about this exact issue.

    To keep and bear arms means the right to use them. The Supreme Court validated that very early on and repeatedly and consistently since!

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 12:00 PM  

  • "No gun, no deaths" actually referred to the first part and wasn't a general statement. In some cases it's mere possesion that leads to death and in others it's the deliberate act of an individual that causes death. No guns prevents the first, not the second since they'll always find a way regardless.

    "To keep and bear arms means the right to use them."
    And there lies our ultimate disagreement. :)
    If you said "I want the right to keep and bear guns" and meant it, I'd have less of a problem (beyond the first part of my last comment anyway).
    But what you actually mean is "I want the right to keep and bear guns and use it whenever or on whomever as I see justified".

    Keep and bear shows a sense of responsability and restraint. Keep, bear and use shows a desire for power over another that is not yours to have.
    If you weren't so eager to want to use them beyond posession, I'd be much more inclined to think you (general you as part of whole, not specifically you as an individual) could be trusted with them.

    And this has nothing to do anymore with the original topic since my problem lies with the dismissal of foreign courts and not that it results in legal gun ownership. I'd have been just as "irrational" as you put it if it had merely resulted in him being allowed to vote whereas otherwise he wouldn't :).

    In the end it's just a difference of opinion anyway. It will never be up to me, or for you for that matter to directly decide on issues one way or the other. You can have your view, I can have my view but we both have to live with reality as it is in the end and make the best of it.

    If you're right there's nothing to worry about, if I'm right then it's just a matter of time and things will sort themselves out on their own.

    And now I'm really done cluttering up Sherri's blog since I think I'm probably enough of a nuisance as it is :).

    By Anonymous Vanessa, at 1:07 PM  

  • Vanessa
    You are not a nuisance!

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 4:01 PM  

  • Vanessa

    You grie my last nerve at times, and I find you annoying- BUT! I LOVE YOU BEING HERE!


    Please don't take the first sentence wrong. I have a 6 year old daughter that does the same- and I love her to death! No- I am not comparing you to a 6 year old- I am saying that surrounding myself with an AMEN crowd provides NO HOPE OF GRWOTH FOR ANYONE!

    In fact- I think your ideology is just different. The core of our basic instinct on who best whould govern and how... But I bet I would like you. Ideology is only ONE part of who someone is. I love your tenacity- VERY admirable!

    Please never worry about the BANDWIDTH! As irritated as I may get at times- YOu are important and have always been respectful and thoughtful. I LOVE THIS! One my greatest pleasures in life is being able to disagree and NOT harbor hard feelings- I have a friend that I agree with on many things- our "core" if you will, is much the same. BUT HE DRIVES ME NUTS! We agree on a lot- but what grates me is that he seems to impose himself in my life in the wrong role. He thinks he is my DAD! (No- it is not RWNJ-LOL!) Every ocnverstaion goes back to his mission in life- to rear me in "HIS WAY" and on "HIS PATH."

    I have another friend that I adore hanging out with. We DISAGREE ON EVERYTHING! GOD, POLITICS, RAISING KIDS, OUR FRIENDS (she HATES one of my dearest friends- and has no bones in telling me.) etc... She can even get quite loud about her opinions- especially when she has hit the sauce.

    Now MY comment has turned out to be much longer than I intended- LOL!

    I hope you get my point. If we would ever SCREAM at each other (cyberly)- I hope you know that I would always want you to know that you are welcome to return. I have few rules. No foul language- no personal attacks-- that kind of stuff.

    I hope you know that I consider you to be an asset to my cyber life- regardless of how much we disagree.

    I am sure I have failed to ever express this effectively before- so please forgive me for that....

    You are welcome to fill up as much bandwidth as you desire! In fact- you can email me a guest editorial or one to RWNJ if you like--


    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 4:39 PM  

  • I'm squarely in the moderate left with my views on the world and share a pro-life view only in as far as it serves as a counterpoint and balance against unrestricted pro-choice. So I don't think I'm really the intented audience of her blog. :)
    But then again that's the reason I read up, because I wouldn't know about it otherwise most likely, or wouldn't look into it on my own.

    By Anonymous Vanessa, at 4:40 PM  

  • Did I mention that I have a severe typing disablilty that appears as an inept ability to spell???

    SHEESHK! Forgive me for the typos --- PLEASE??

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 4:41 PM  

  • So I don't think I'm really the intented audience of her blog. :)

    LOL! No- you are not the "intended" audience- but it would be so boring without you!

    Look- as far as pro-life goes- this is the best way I can explain it- ( I may come up with a better way one day- but here is my best shot today.)

    I say- Killing is wrong. PERIOD.

    I submit there are exceptions. There are exceptions to everything. Killing is wrong- but hey- if a guy crawls through my window at 2:00 am- he is not there to deliver the mail! So in self defense, etc- there are exceptions. I admit it. My whole contention is that we start with NO KILLING- and work from there on the exceptions. Instead- our system is headed in the other direction. Let's just allow abortion on demand- and work on exceptions from that end.

    If I truly wanted to SHOVE MY RELIGION down people's throats- we would have church truency officers.

    I have no desire to FORCE anyone to BE A CHRISTIAN! Even God does not want this. I do however want the basic MORALS of Christianity to prevail in out laws. KILLING, STEALING, ADULTRY, etc...

    I don't scream and kick and holler and whine if someone wants to have a Muslim appreciation day at our schools. Not at all. I think it would be great for my children to learn to embrace people of difference. NOT TOLERATE- BUT ACTUALLY EMBRACE THEM! But I certainly don't want the mayor of my town (or any other town) inviting kids to skip school for a LUDACRIS CONCERT!

    I am sure you disagree with this- but I just hate how some people think because I am a Christian and disagree with abortion that I am FORCING RELIGION! THIS is a MEDIA and POLITICAL PLOY! Religious ZEALOTS do want to FORCE ALL TO OBSERVE THE HOLY DAY or FORCE ALL WOMEN TO COVER THEIR FACE- OR FORCE ALL TO DO WHATEVER....

    DOes that make any sense?

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 4:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home