Sotomeyer Racist Against Ninjas

[SmarterthanYou]

There is no real rational basis, this weapon is no more deadly than using a broom handle to hit somebody, or grabbing a bicycle lock.

its about as rational as banning the carry of swords and open carried handguns while letting people open carry rifles, shotguns and concealed handguns.

 

[Bonestorm]

once the supreme court found it to be an individual right, something that the supreme court had NEVER ruled on before, left the whole realm open to each circuit which is why we ended up with a split already on whether the 2nd is applicable against the states or not.

This, my friend, is what the Supreme Court said in Heller:

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

That's quite a strong directive that makes it quite plain that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. It leaves open no room for a circuit court judge to just disregard it, unless, of course, you want a judge to be an activist judge.

 

[Bonestorm]

Learning to compete against others in a different use than the attempt to injure somebody with the weapon, yes. Just like learning to play baseball makes what is otherwise a far more deadly weapon "useful".

This is solely cosmetic, there are better weapons, more deadly ones, that are not being banned solely because these are flashy. It makes no sense to ban these, but not a staff, to ban these but not ban carrying a simple stick.

There is no real rational basis, this weapon is no more deadly than using a broom handle to hit somebody, or grabbing a bicycle lock. In fact people who own nunchucks usually are people who are learning in a class environment and who also learn things like control and discipline, in most cases it is beneficial rather than a danger to society.

And I'm not arguing about her ruling. I'm arguing against silly irrational laws whichever the source.

And I think it is funny how much you personally attempt to attack me by using inane phrases like, "People like you". When you generalize that way you are almost always off target when dealing with an individual.

So, although you claim that there is "no real rational basis" for the nunchuck ban, you aren't arguing about her ruling which found that there was a rational basis for the nunchuck ban? Again, odd.

A judge's job, when conducting rational basis review, is not to second guess the legislature. Sotomayor did her job.

Lastly, your contention that unless we ban all things that may be used as weapons we shouldn't ban weapons is really silly.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

This, my friend, is what the Supreme Court said in Heller:



That's quite a strong directive that makes it quite plain that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. It leaves open no room for a circuit court judge to just disregard it, unless, of course, you want a judge to be an activist judge.

no, what this says is that scalia is flat out saying that the incorporation doctrine was full of shit, should never have been implemented, and in cases since then has painstakingly been overturned, but since Heller didn't bring up incorporation and we, the supreme court, are only dealing with one basic issue (like we always do), will not be incorporating the 2nd at this time. This is scalia telling the world that incorporation is on the table.

 

[Bonestorm]

no, what this says is that scalia is flat out saying that the incorporation doctrine was full of shit, should never have been implemented, and in cases since then has painstakingly been overturned, but since Heller didn't bring up incorporation and we, the supreme court, are only dealing with one basic issue (like we always do), will not be incorporating the 2nd at this time. This is scalia telling the world that incorporation is on the table.

Well, that's one way to read it I suppose.

Another way to read it is that in saying that the Court "reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government" he meant that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

 

[Damocles]

So, although you claim that there is "no real rational basis" for the nunchuck ban, you aren't arguing about her ruling which found that there was a rational basis for the nunchuck ban? Again, odd.

A judge's job, when conducting rational basis review, is not to second guess the legislature. Sotomayor did her job.

Lastly, your contention that unless we ban all things that may be used as weapons we shouldn't ban weapons is really silly.

Whatever the reason for her ruling you are arguing that this is "rational" when I have clearly demonstrated it is actually not.

What I am saying is I think the law is a foolish and stupid law with no rational basis. I don't care about Sotomayor's ruling, what I am looking for is some rational basis for banning this particular weapon, what made it more deadly than the other martial arts weapons I listed? What made it more deadly than a bat?

IMO this law shouldn't have made it to a vote in the legislature, and this is feel good legislation that makes it look like you are doing something while actually you're just making your chair smell like farts. You can tell the voters you were great and banned those uber-dangerous nunchucks and they might even fall for it, even while some of them are getting their butts kicked with a bicycle chain.

 

[Bonestorm]

Whatever the reason for her ruling you are arguing that this is "rational" when I have clearly demonstrated it is actually not.

What I am saying is I think the law is a foolish and stupid law with no rational basis. I don't care about Sotomayor's ruling, what I am looking for is some rational basis for banning this particular weapon, what made it more deadly than the other martial arts weapons I listed? What made it more deadly than a bat?

IMO this law shouldn't have made it to a vote in the legislature, and this is feel good legislation that makes it look like you are doing something while actually you're just making your chair smell like farts. You can tell the voters you were great and banned those uber-dangerous nunchucks and they might even fall for it, even while some of them are getting their butts kicked with a bicycle chain.

You haven't "clearly demonstrated" anything. You're basically arguing that in order for nunchucks to be banned they must be "more dangerous" than other things that may or may not be banned. That's not rational.

And rational basis review has a more precise legal meaning that the standard for rationality you are adopting here. Suffice it to say that if the legislature deems nunchucks dangerous it can ban them and it will pass the rational basis test.

 

[Damocles]

You haven't "clearly demonstrated" anything. You're basically arguing that in order for nunchucks to be banned they must be "more dangerous" than other things that may or may not be banned. That's not rational.

And rational basis review has a more precise legal meaning that the standard for rationality you are adopting here. Suffice it to say that if the legislature deems nunchucks dangerous it can ban them and it will pass the rational basis test.

It's irrational to ban things solely for their cosmetic effect. If they were dangerous enough to ban, there are about a billion things more dangerous that need to be banned first. The random banning of weapons because they just "look" dangerous is not rational, it is emotional.

You have not demonstrated remotely how this could be an effective, and therefore rational, law. It's filler, waste of time legislation that has no real basis in reality and will not make anybody remotely safer.

And one more time. I don't care about Sotomayor's ruling, I care about actual rationality. Long ago I saw that Sotomayor would be the next SCOTUS Justice. I find arguing about her rulings worthless therefore.

I am arguing against irrational laws that make people feel good because they ban "dangerous" looking weapons while leaving many more dangerous but less flashy weapons in the hands of those who can use them to "good" effect. It isn't effective, it isn't based on effect, it doesn't make sense to ban a less effective weapon and leave more dangerous ones on the street, nothing here demonstrates a rational basis to ban this particular weapon.