Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: "Right To Bear Arms"  (Read 55576 times)

R Deutch

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #280 on: December 27, 2011, 03:54:22 AM »

[...] I mean, for $15,000 you can actually marry a person and make him/her an American citizen!


$5,000 should be enough I've heard.


Depends on the kind of people you contact for this kind of thing - some will do it for $5K, but they say immigration people usually ask for 10 grand (for a green card, assuming you are already here with no papers).

Question or Answer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #281 on: January 02, 2012, 10:45:07 PM »

$5,000 should be enough I've heard.


Depends on the kind of people you contact for this kind of thing - some will do it for $5K, but they say immigration people usually ask for 10 grand (for a green card, assuming you are already here with no papers).


R., I tend to believe it's much tougher to arrange to get a green card in the US, as opposed to some visa to enter the country that we've heard people buy to get in here. Because of the corruption charges that can be brought more readily against the perps of such actions in this country, people go thru an attorney to handle the matter. So you do pay a fee, but it's the atty's fee, hence legal.

That does not mean, of course, that any atty will do - one would have to locate the right one to handle his particular, specific concerns :)

Question or Answer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #282 on: January 03, 2012, 12:09:59 AM »

Unfortunately, despite protests of this type, the courts have upheld the right to bear arms.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates. The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an "avalanche" of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation.The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html


probe, in June of last year, Mayor Daley said the city would rewrite its gun ban ordinance because a Supreme Court ruling today has made the current law "unenforceable." Daley said a new ordinance would be drafted soon and would protect the residents of Chicago as well as 2nd Amendment rights.

"I'm disappointed by the decision, but it's not surprising," Daley said at a news conference. "We're still reviewing the entire decision, but it means that Chicago's current handgun ban is unenforceable, so we're working to rewrite our ordinance in a reasonable and responsible way to protect 2nd Amendment rights and protect Chicagoans from gun violence." The mayor made the announcement hours after the Supreme Court said Americans nationwide have a constitutional right to have a handgun at home for self-defense, even in cities which until now have outlawed handguns.


Qircom, I think we need to take the 2 Amendment and the actual Supreme Court decisions on the issue seriously enough - people should be able to carry guns for self-defense. We just need to have background checks for history of mental illness and a ban on being able to buy guns if someone is ever involuntarily committed.  We should also have mandatory, and very stiff, penalties for commission of a crime with a firearm as a deterrent.

GiuGiaku

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #283 on: January 23, 2012, 10:25:19 PM »
Quote

opinion, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis raises some interesting ethical issues: German bioethicist Edgar Dahl, for instance, raises and dismisses 5 objections to the future use of embryo screening to choose the sexual orientation of children. He does not mention any evidence for, or controversy about, a "gay gene," but concludes that if a "safe and reliable genetic test" for sexual orientation were to become available, "parents should clearly be allowed" to use it, as long as they are permitted to select for homosexual as well as heterosexual children. Dahl has previously argued that PGD should be allowed for sex selection for social reasons.]

Should parents be allowed to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to choose the sexual orientation of their children? Extending the application of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to screen embryos for non-medical traits such as gender, height and intelligence, raises serious moral, legal, and social issues. The most challenging ethical issues are posed by the prospect of using PGD to screen embryos for non-medical traits such as gender, height and intelligence. The possibility of using PGD to select the sexual orientation of offspring: if a safe and reliable genetic test were ever to become available, should parents be allowed to use PGD to choose the sexual orientation of their children?

1. The first objection that can be raised might be as follows: PGD is a medical procedure designed to detect genetic disorders. Since homosexuality is not a disease, PGD should not be employed to ensure the birth of heterosexual children. This is a familiar objection in debates over PGD. However, as familiar as it may be, it is certainly not a persuasive one. We have already become accustomed to a medical system in which physicians often provide services that have no direct medical benefit but that do have great personal value for the individuals seeking it. Given the acceptance of breast enlargement, hair replacement, ultrasound assisted liposuction and other forms of cosmetic surgery, one cannot, without calling that system into question, condemn a practice merely because it uses a medical procedure for lifestyle or child-rearing choices.

2. A second objection could claim that a state permitting the use of PGD to ensure a heterosexual orientation in one's children would be open to the charge of discrimination against its homosexual citizens. But this claim is simply untenable. Granting its citizens a right to use PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children is not the same as placing them under a duty to use PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children. Only a state coercing its citizens into using PGD to prevent homosexual offspring would be open to the charge of discrimination.

3. A third objection might assert that, even though it would not be discrimination on the part of the state, it would certainly be discrimination on the part of the prospective parents if they were to use PGD to prevent the birth of homosexual children. This argument is similarly misguided, though. Preferring a heterosexual over a homosexual child does not in itself in any way betray a negative judgment about the value of gay and lesbian individuals. Admittedly, some parents would certainly seek PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children because they are bigots anxiously adhering to the old clichés that homosexuality is a `disease', a `perversion' or a `sin'. Still, most parents using PGD to select the sexual orientation of their offspring would probably do so simply because they wish to see their children getting married, building a family and having children of their own. And the desire to have children who share the same sexual orientation as oneself is certainly not a morally objectionable interest.

4. A fourth objection may be that using PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children will impede the cause of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement as it is likely to lead to a gradual decline of the homosexual population. More precisely, it could be argued that a decrease in the number of gay and lesbian persons will inevitably cause a decrease in the public support for gay and lesbian people. This is, of course, a factual claim for which empirical data must be marshalled. Given the burdens and expenses of the procedure, it is very unlikely that PGD will ever considerably reduce the number of homosexual individuals. More importantly, reducing the number of gays and lesbians does not necessarily imply a reduced concern for the cause of homosexual people, as is evidenced by the case of disabled persons. Although the number of people born with disabilities has decreased, the support for people with disabilities has increased. Hence, it is far from being obvious that using PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual offspring would inevitably worsen the situation of homosexual people.

5. A fifth objection might point to the fact that PGD generally implies discarding embryos. Thus, it could be argued that the desire to choose the sexual orientation of one's children does not justify the deliberate creation and destruction of human embryos. Whether or not this objection is viable entirely depends on the moral status accorded to embryos. Since this is not the place to review all the arguments for and against the `sanctity of human life', I restrict myself to saying that I doubt that there are sound reasons for granting embryos individual rights. The purpose of individual rights is the moral and legal protection of fundamental interests. Since embryos are too rudimentary in development to have interests there is simply no basis to grant them rights. If at all, embryos might be seen as having some `symbolic value' preventing them from being destroyed for any purpose whatsoever. Since the desire to have children of a particular sexual orientation is a morally legitimate reason, creating and destroying embryos of the undesired sexual orientation would certainly be justified.


As a Mother, I totally understand these objections, and so far as I am concerned, I wouldn't endorse PGD.

And yet, if one takes the stance of the devil's advocate, and reminding people that doctors do not hesitate to apply euthanasia in way too many cases - that is kill people who are alive (well, still alive) - would it be "that" condemnable to kill an embryo (which is not yet a "fetus") - something that for all practical purposes we'd consider "not living"? FYI, here are for you the guidelines medical personal follow when applying euthanasia in the US, as they were presented to me by the medical professionals when my husband was dying:

  • It is active euthanasia that's illegal in most of the United States.
  • Patients retain the rights to refuse medical treatment and to receive appropriate management of pain (which includes a dose that might be incidentally lethal) at their request (passive euthanasia), even if the patients' choices hasten their deaths
  • Additionally, futile or disproportionately burdensome treatments, such as life-support machines, may be withdrawn under specified circumstances and, under federal law and most state laws only with the informed consent of the patient or, in the event of the incompetence of the patient, with the informed consent of the legal surrogate.

G i m m e

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #284 on: January 24, 2012, 09:50:36 PM »

[...] raises and dismisses 5 objections to the future use of embryo screening to choose the sexual orientation of children. He does not mention any evidence for, or controversy about, a "gay gene," but concludes that if a "safe and reliable genetic test" for sexual orientation were to become available, "parents should clearly be allowed" to use it, as long as they are permitted to select for homosexual as well as heterosexual children. [...]

Should parents be allowed to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to choose the sexual orientation of their children? [...] The possibility of using PGD to select the sexual orientation of offspring: if a safe and reliable genetic test were ever to become available, should parents be allowed to use PGD to choose the sexual orientation of their children?

[...]


So basically, if this will work and we the people would opt for not bringing to life gay people, I would not have to worry any more that my son may come home from work one day and tell me, "Dad, I'm quitting my job, my boss asked me to suck his d i c k and I told him No!" 


Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #285 on: January 25, 2012, 08:48:05 AM »
how about preselecting for anyone who like mitt romney?

Habibe

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #286 on: January 26, 2012, 01:37:52 AM »

As a Mother, I totally understand these objections, and so far as I am concerned, I wouldn't endorse PGD.

And yet, if one takes if one takes the stance of the devil's advocate [...]


Mother, does one take the stance very often?

breach of contract

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #287 on: January 27, 2012, 07:59:28 PM »


As a Mother, I totally understand these objections, and so far as I am concerned, I wouldn't endorse PGD.

And yet, if one takes the stance of the devil's advocate, and reminding people that doctors do not hesitate to apply euthanasia in way too many cases - that is kill people who are alive (well, still alive) - would it be "that" condemnable to kill an embryo (which is not yet a "fetus") - something that for all practical purposes we'd consider "not living"? FYI, here are for you the guidelines medical personal follow when applying euthanasia in the US, as they were presented to me by the medical professionals when my husband was dying:

  • It is active euthanasia that's illegal in most of the United States.
  • Patients retain the rights to refuse medical treatment and to receive appropriate management of pain (which includes a dose that might be incidentally lethal) at their request (passive euthanasia), even if the patients' choices hasten their deaths
  • Additionally, futile or disproportionately burdensome treatments, such as life-support machines, may be withdrawn under specified circumstances and, under federal law and most state laws only with the informed consent of the patient or, in the event of the incompetence of the patient, with the informed consent of the legal surrogate.


What is this?? It just doesn't make sense to compare in whatsof u c k i n gever way the two of them.

If you browse back some pages on this thread there's a poster who tries to draw an asinine parallel between the "interpretations" of the Second and First Amendments, only to go to great lengths to somehow defend his view as to the appropriateness of the comparison. Here it is:


The thing with Second Amendment is that it is being interpreted in such a way as to justify the right to bear arms. Pretty much the same way the First Amendment was used to protect the right of a publisher to sell, say, a book on how to become a hit man. Per chance, do you remember the movie Deliberate Intent? It is based on the book by First Amendment scholar and law professor Ron Smolla, detailing the 1997 Paladin Enterprises, Inc. vs. Rice case. It concerns Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors, a book that gave step by step instructions on how to murder, and the killing of 3 people in 1993 by someone who followed those instructions.

There was an unusual agreement between the author and the publisher. The author, who usually assumes liability for their work, was not only free of liability but also had their identity protected. This stemmed from the publisher wanting Hit Man, which was originally conceived as a novel, to be written as a users manual. The two sides of this case, whether this went beyond the rights of free speech, or was protected by the First Amendment, and how Smolla's mind was changed from one view to another, is the central focus of the film. It also details the murder of the 3 people, and how Hit Man played a part in it. Some people think the case murdered the First Amendment along with the victims, others think it went way beyond its boundaries.


http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=30378fe733a1343036be63a3829d5b20&topic=3006869.msg3055769#msg3055769

beepster

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #288 on: February 04, 2012, 03:51:27 PM »

As a Mother, I totally understand these objections, and so far as I am concerned, I wouldn't endorse PGD.

And yet, if one takes if one takes the stance of the devil's advocate [...]


Mother, does one take the stance very often?


LOL Habibe, you're so funny! ;)

Country Day

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #289 on: February 10, 2012, 06:48:11 PM »

[...]

The fundamental theme of our historical period, domination, readily implies that of liberation as the objective to be achieved (given the fact that themes of any era are always interacting dialectically with their opposites) It is by means of critical thinking that individuals will be able to understand the world in totality, not in fragments, achieving a clearer perception of the whole. To this end, a dialectical method of thought, exemplified in the analysis of a "coded" situation is presented. The "decoding" on the part of students/learners will guarantee moving from the part to the whole and then returning to the parts, so that the Subject recognizes oneself in the coded concrete situation and recognizes the latter as a situation in which he finds himself, as well as with the other people; accomplished as it should, this makes possible for the abstract to be "transported" to the concrete realm, by the critical perception of the subject himself. The task of the teacher becomes the "representing" of the universe of themes to the people from whom it was initially received -- presented to them as a "problem."


I'm familiar with the method - the thing is that placing the workers in these coding/decoding situations for them to actually appreciate the deep * & ^ % they're in won't work - unless it's being done all the time, or at least for a very long time, say 10 years or so.


Are you really telling me that 10 years is a *long* time period to accomplish such a task?! Like that of the REHUMANIZATION OF THE PEOPLE???