Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

My husband says if I don't have a FOID card (IL), I will not be able to keep his gun collection.

---

If you are his sole heir, you will have the opportunity to apply for one. Guns are no different than any other personal property when it comes to inheritance. Several people I know have passed on and their spouses automatically became the owner of their firearms. They were given the opportunity of expedited application processes for licenses for the handguns. They were advised to keep the original permits with the firearms in a locked safe with a copy of the death certificate of the original owner and also to provide a copy of the DC with their application.

There are already laws in place for passing guns to family or anyone else a part of an estate.

Gun Control Laws & Inheritance, Federal Firearms Laws, Inheriting Guns

The Gun Debate has gone on for years. Everyone has an answer. The Supreme Court has the final say. If this ban comes before the SC, then they will decide whether it is Constitutional and infringes on anyone's Second Amendment rights. And everyone involved is passionate about their opinions. By doing all of this, it only give fodder to both sides to say bad things about the others arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

There are already laws in place for passing guns to family or anyone else a part of an estate.

Gun Control Laws & Inheritance, Federal Firearms Laws, Inheriting Guns

---

That is how it is right now. But with a gun ban they may strip the right to transfer it. So that means the government owns it and turns it to junk and the kids get nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

There are already laws in place

---

Which should be the entire gun control debate in a nutshell, except for political grandstanding on both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Lets see about the guy who went to a school full of communist teachers, who wanted to take over the government, He stayed and graduated. Bet he wants his kids to go there too! He didn't tranfer after finding he was in a nest of communists, but he blasts his alma mater. Thats real class right?

---

I look forward for the opportunity of some day voting for him. Cruz critique of the Harvard Law school was that there were many proponents of the Marxist inspired 'critical legal studies' (CLS) school of thought.
CLS says that laws are actually no more than a means by which the powerful in society oppress the lower classes, and perpetuates and legitimizes injustices. They say the rich use the law as an instrument for oppression. They say judges should use political considerations to change laws because laws are nothing more than politics anyway. CLS is an American movement that indeed relies heavily on the works of Marx ,Engels ,Max Weber,and Antonio Gramsci among others .
That Harvard law is infested with this type of professor is indisputable . Time Mag identified it as a hot bed of CLS in 2005.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...050592,00.html

While Obama was at Harvard law ,he studied under Roberto Mangabeira Unger ;the leading proponent of the CLS movement. This last election ,Unger turned on Obama and called for his defeat . Why ? Because Obama wasn't radical enough in advancing the cause of 'progressivism'.
This is who's teaching our future crop of Harvard Law School graduates .

Yes Cruz was right . It is absurd to suggest that he should've just abandoned his studies . For what purpose? Had he gone to Yale ,or Georgetown ,or many of the other prestigious schools of law in the country he would've encountered the same atmosphere. You can deny it all you want to ,but lefties dominate academia .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

Cruz is a smarmy impertinent sleaze bag.

excon

---

I just got my 'Proud Wacko Bird' tee shirt in the mail.

Yes I've got one that says; a little bird told me you are stupid, must be the same bird

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I look forward for the opportunity of some day voting for him. Cruz critique of the Harvard Law school was that there were many proponents of the Marxist inspired 'critical legal studies' (CLS) school of thought.
CLS says that laws are actually no more than a means by which the powerful in society oppress the lower classes, and perpetuates and legitimizes injustices. They say the rich use the law as an instrument for oppression. They say judges should use political considerations to change laws because laws are nothing more than politics anyway. CLS is an American movement that indeed relies heavily on the works of Marx ,Engels ,Max Weber,and Antonio Gramsci among others .
That Harvard law is infested with this type of professor is indisputable . Time Mag identified it as a hot bed of CLS in 2005.
Law: Critical Legal Times at Harvard - TIME

While Obama was at Harvard law ,he studied under Roberto Mangabeira Unger ;the leading proponent of the CLS movement. This last election ,Unger turned on Obama and called for his defeat . Why ? Because Obama wasn't radical enough in advancing the cause of 'progressivism'.
This is who's teaching our future crop of Harvard Law School graduates .

Yes Cruz was right . It is absurd to suggest that he should've just abandoned his studies . For what purpose? Had he gone to Yale ,or Georgetown ,or many of the other prestigious schools of law in the country he would've encountered the same atmosphere. You can deny it all you want to ,but lefties dominate academia .

---

Eight years ago you could not get an undergraduate degree by exclusively studying CLS for 4 years.

It is likely that CLS was a unit component of philosophy or some other related discipline which would represent a Unit choice. CLS would represent a Unit of study worth so many unit points toward a degree.

There would be many other Unit components to choose from. For example: Corporate Law; Criminal law; Law and Social Change, etc.

No one really studies under anyone, except for post graduate students. Undergraduates would have a variety of teachers and tutors for a variety of courses.

I believe the key word was "proponents" of CLS.

http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/20...washington.jpg

Food For Thought
If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents' permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but the government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote who runs the government... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new terrorist Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher's "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested “homes”... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can't find work... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

Hello smoothy:

Washington is right. That's why we HAVE a Second Amendment.

But, like many in the tin foil hat crowd, you believe the government is going to take away ALL your guns.

There ain't nothing I can say about that.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Eight years ago you could not get an undergraduate degree by exclusively studying CLS for 4 years.

It is likely that CLS was a unit component of philosophy or some other related discipline which would represent a Unit choice. CLS would represent a Unit of study worth so many unit points toward a degree.

There would be many other Unit components to choose from. For example: Corporate Law; Criminal law; Law and Social Change, etc.

No one really studies under anyone, except for post graduate students. Undergraduates would have a variety of teachers and tutors for a variety of courses.

---

What speech said.. even if CLS was but one course for credit ,a significant number of professors at Harvard have it as their ideological foundation. Harvard Law is an advanced degree,not undergraduate . One of the few things that have been discovered about our President's past was which people influenced the direction he took . Unger is right up there with Bill Ayers ,and Obama's early mentor Frank Marshall Davis .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello smoothy:

Washington is right. That's why we HAVE a Second Amendment.

But, like many in the tin foil hat crowd, you believe the government is gonna take away ALL your guns.

There ain't nothing I can say about that.

excon

---

Ex... pull those earplugs OUT of your ears... and open your eyes... because it's the lunatics in YOUR party that's trying to do exactly that...

Barara Fienstien flat out said it... wrote a bill to do it... and is ramming it through the Senate...

That's VERY real... not imaginary..

Hello smoothy:

Quote:

---

Barara Fienstien flat out said it... wrote a bill to do it... and is ramming it through the Senate...

---

Got a link?

No, you don't, because it's just not so. The Feinstien bill lists 157 brands specifically to be banned, and EXCLUDES 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific name..

Now, to ME, being able to buy 2,258 kinds of long guns ISN'T a ban. It isn't even close, no matter how you spin it.

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello smoothy:

Got a link?

No, you don't, because it's just not so. The Feinstien bill lists 157 brands specifically to be banned, and EXCLUDES 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific name ..

Now, to ME, being able to buy 2,258 kinds of long guns ISN'T a ban. It isn't even close, no matter how you spin it.

excon

---

Boy you lefties really are gullible... you believe absolutely everything a Democrat tells you to believe.

Ever hear the phrase "you can't see the forrest for the trees"? Understand what it means?

Hello smoothy:

Quote:

---

.. you believe absolutely everything a Democrat tells you to believe. Ever hear the phrase "you can't see the forrest for the trees"?

---

What I pay attention to is the BILLS they introduce, NOT the noise. There are MORE than enough gun lovers in the Democratic party to STOP any perceived gun ban.. Plus, the only PERCEIVED gun ban resides in the heads of right wingers.

I KNOW that because the only person you said WANTS to ban guns, DOESN'T want to ban them.

The forest and the trees ARE the Constitution. The Second Amendment is NOT in danger of being repealed... I know you don't believe it. I can't help that.

Excon

What you don't pay attention to (or ignore) is the DETAILS in those bills. As I mentioned before, one of them will make it a FELONY to go on vacation for more than 7 days while letting a friend house sit with your guns there unless you do a background check and transfer via Federal Firearm License holder . It also makes it a FELONY for many other so-called "transfers" without the FFL transfer and background check such as loaning your best friend a gun to use at the shooting range for a couple of hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello smoothy:

What I pay attention to is the BILLS they introduce, NOT the noise. There are MORE than enough gun lovers in the Democratic party to STOP any perceived gun ban.. Plus, the only PERCEIVED gun ban resides in the heads of right wingers.

I KNOW that because the only person you said WANTS to ban guns, DOESN'T want to ban them.

The forest and the trees ARE the Constitution. The Second Amendment is NOT in danger of being repealed... I know you don't believe it. I can't help that.

excon

---

THEN YOU BETTER GET YOUR LEFTY FRIENDS TO STOP TRYING... like find them somethig productrive to do... like poking mountain lions with a stick or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello smoothy:

Got a link?

No, you don't, because it's just not so. The Feinstien bill lists 157 brands specifically to be banned, and EXCLUDES 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific name ..

Now, to ME, being able to buy 2,258 kinds of long guns ISN'T a ban. It isn't even close, no matter how you spin it.

excon

---

Greenies are forever.

It's a ban... we need to ban idiots Like Boxer.. Fientstein and Pelosi and Ried from ever opening their lips... they have no more right to talk than I have to buy any damn gun I want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

What speech said .. even if CLS was but one course for credit ,a significant number of professors at Harvard have it as their ideological foundation. Harvard Law is an advanced degree,not undergraduate . One of the few things that have been discovered about our President's past was which people influenced the direction he took . Unger is right up there with Bill Ayers ,and Obama's early mentor Frank Marshall Davis .

---

I knew I had posted this somewhere before. In response to Cruz' remarks the Harvard Crimson offered an op-ed to future critics, don't enroll.

Your righties have evey right to throw intellectual rocks, and we have every right to throw them back and add our own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Your righties have evey right to throw intellectual rocks, and we have every right to throw them back and add our own.

---

In other words you're OK with blatant intolerance toward conservatives in higher education and the free exercise of their first amendment rights.

The real question is where is a conservative to go to get a law degree ? Law schools are hotbeds of neo-progressivism . In fact most 4 year colleges in this country are . Took me years to cleanse the indoctrination from my head .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Your righties have evey right to throw intellectual rocks, and we have every right to throw them back and add our own.

---

Doesn't work if its Obama or Biden... neither of them are half as smart as they think they are.

Haven't you learned smoothy a leader doesn't have to be the brightest in the room after all he has the best of the best of the best to select one of to run each program. How's that working out for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

haven't you learned smoothy a leader doesn't have to be the brightest in the room afterall he has the best of the best of the best to select one of to run each program. How's that working out for you?

---

Fact is Obama picks people dumber than he is because his ego is so huge and so fragile.. he can't stand being second guessed or having smarter people around...

What you described is how it USED to be... and how it SHOULD be... unfortunately the last 4 years is wasn't and the next 4 its unlikely to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

What you described is how it USED to be.....and how it SHOULD be....unfortunately the last 4 years is wasn't and the next 4 its unlikely to be.

---

Could it be the best of the best of the best are no longer available?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Could it be the best of the best of the best are no longer available?

---

Oh they are still around... they just don't view Obama as the Messiah as is required to work for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Your righties have evey right to throw intellectual rocks, and we have every right to throw them back and add our own.

---

Try this rock then. If you read the bill it talks about "potential" and that goes a lot further then just the ones listed.

Im not sure why since it is suppose to be plain english its not understood unless you have blinders on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdad

Try this rock then. If you read the bill it talks about "potential" and that goes a lot further then just the ones listed.

Im not sure why since it is suppose to be plain english its not understood unless you have blinders on.

---

Lefties can't grasp the fact that the ENTIRE bill of rights... enumerates the rights of private individuals... NOT states.. not the Federal government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Lefties can't grasp the fact that the ENTIRE bill of rights...enumerates the rights of private individuals...NOT states..not the Federal government.

---

This is patently false.

What is not understood is that the First Amendment is ostensibly natural rights while the Second Amendment deals with civil rights.

Your history show this to be the case. When it comes to natural rights rights most limitations are very difficult to impose because these rights are seen to have a degree of universality about them.

Civil rights are those rights that come about through a civic process. As such they are amenable to the civil process of limitations and restrictions. SCOTUS has already acknowledged several times that restrictions and limitations are within the parameters of the Second Amendment.

It is incorrect to say that all rights are interpreted as only pertaining to the individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Again, anyone arguing that Cruz is arguing the absolute right to own any weapon is wrong. He has on more than occasion acknowledged restrictions so all this talk about absolutism is just political bluster...or in the case of Democrats a political fundraiser.

Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate Defeat the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 - Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate

---

That wasn't my criticism of Cruz. I understand that he is not arguing for an absolute right.

My argument here is that Heller is of little value when arguing against bans and limitations for the future. I would argue this is because Heller is limited in its scope.

To suggest Heller is somehow a link to first Amendment rights in terms of 'scope' is to fail to understand the difference between natural rights and civil rights

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

This is patently false.

What is not understood is that the First Amendment is ostensibly natural rights while the Second Amendment deals with civil rights.

Your history show this to be the case. When it comes to natural rights rights most limitations are very difficult to impose because these rights are seen to have a degree of universality about them.

Civil rights are those rights that come about through a civic process. As such they are amenable to the civil process of limitations and restrictions. SCOTUS has already acknowledged several times that restrictions and limitations are within the parameters of the Second Amendment.

It is incorrect to say that all rights are interpreted as only pertaining to the individual.

---

Rights are for individuals ;powers are for states and individuals . Not even in the 10th amendment is the word rights used in connection to the states powers .
The 9th amendment also clearly uses rights for the people.. not the state .
The fact that the founders deemed it important enough to add the 2nd amendment to the "Bill of Rights " makes it clear that any reference to the right to bear arms is an individual right .

That view is also in Heller where they did refer to the 1689 English Bill of Rights "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the King .
However , like the British Bill of Rights ;the right to bear arms is not absolute . But neither is any of the other rights .

Strange Tom not a King in sight and yet you cling to the quaint intrepretation of events

The road to serfdom is paved with liberal progressive intentions

Serf ;now there is a quaint notion, has there ever been a serf in North America, probably not since the spanish grande, no wait, all those on minimum wages are serfs, you could get all those job creators to pay the cash out as dividends, that way they share it with their rich mates and your 401(k) accounts, better still they could pay higher wages

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

rights are for individuals ;powers are for states and individuals . not even in the 10th amendment is the word rights used in connection to the states powers .
The 9th amendment also clearly uses rights for the people .. not the state .
The fact that the founders deemed it important enough to add the 2nd amendment to the "Bill of Rights " makes it clear that any reference to the right to bear arms is an individual right .

That view is also in Heller where they did refer to the 1689 English Bill of Rights "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the King .
However , like the British Bill of Rights ;the right to bear arms is not absolute . But neither is any of the other rights .

---

Yes, I know all of this.

The criticism I am making is the blurring of the distinction when it comes to natural rights and civil rights. Rights are of course for individuals. In the case of civil rights these rights are granted by the state. Natural rights are different because exist outside of state control.This is only almost true because (as you point out) no rights are absolute despite natural rights claiming a element of universality.

The right to arms is a civil right it is not a natural right. There is no natural right to bear arms except perhaps for the 1689 Bill. But as you point out Heller has established it as an individual right to bear arms. Again, I am not disputing the individuality of the decision. This has little or nothing do with my argument on Heller.

If I made it sound like states have rights then this was not my intention. Courts historically courts have trod very carefully when it comes to rights such as freedom of speech and religion. Historically, rights granted to the individual by the state tend to be the most regulated and subject to constant revision. This explains why the right to bear arms has so many federal and state regulations attached to it. If it were a natural right then this would not be tolerated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

What speech said .. even if CLS was but one course for credit ,a significant number of professors at Harvard have it as their ideological foundation. Harvard Law is an advanced degree,not undergraduate . One of the few things that have been discovered about our President's past was which people influenced the direction he took . Unger is right up there with Bill Ayers ,and Obama's early mentor Frank Marshall Davis .

---

Yes, Speech makes a good point when he talks about it in terms of proponents.

Interestingly enough many of our universities still offer law as an undergraduate and postgraduate qualification. I also believe this is under the process of change at the moment.

I googled Harvard Law School. Apparently there are some 400 plus courses being offered with an teaching staff of about 245. According to your calculations and/or the posted articles calculations, what percentage of teaching staff would be proponents of CLS? Fifty percent, sixty percent, or seventy percent? Perhaps even higher?