A great day for the 2nd amendment
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: A great day for the 2nd amendment

  1. #1

    A great day for the 2nd amendment

    As just announced, Judge Neil Gorsuch was just confirmed to the SCOTUS. WHAT A GREAT DAY FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!

  2.   
  3. How is that?

    Enlighten us...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  4. #3
    Neil Gorsuch is a very staunch believer in precedent. That means he is more likely to uphold precedents already set for infringing upon the 2nd Amendment rights rather than just interpreting the words of the 2nd Amendment in their common meaning - bear arms means to carry them and shall not be infringed means no taxes or government permission imposed upon the right to carry arms. Granted, he is not likely to support creating new infringements - but he is also equally not likely to overturn any of the infringements that already exist.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Neil Gorsuch is a very staunch believer in precedent. That means he is more likely to uphold precedents already set for infringing upon the 2nd Amendment rights rather than just interpreting the words of the 2nd Amendment in their common meaning - bear arms means to carry them and shall not be infringed means no taxes or government permission imposed upon the right to carry arms. Granted, he is not likely to support creating new infringements - but he is also equally not likely to overturn any of the infringements that already exist.
    That's right. Just like the man who appointed him, Gorsuch will maintain the status quo of federal infringements while not doing one damned thing to bring states into more/better/any Second Amendment compliance either.
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    ARIZONA-a short distance from the sun
    Posts
    8,901
    ~ God Hates Religion ~
    But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    ARIZONA-a short distance from the sun
    Posts
    8,901
    While rolling back onerous Obama-era environmental and business regulations, President Donald Trump has also been quietly dropping gun controls which were either put in place or at least prolonged by the Obama administration.


    President Trump Quietly Rolling Back Obama-Era Gun Controls
    ~ God Hates Religion ~
    But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    ARIZONA-a short distance from the sun
    Posts
    8,901
    Supreme Court shoots down gun cases, upholds ban on assault weapons and open-carry

    ~ God Hates Religion ~
    But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

  9. To bad he wasn't able to help in recent cases before the courts. A few more need replaced and, soon!!

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    Supreme Court shoots down gun cases, upholds ban on assault weapons and open-carry

    As of this writing, the court is split with five justices being appointed by Republican presidents, and only four by Dems.

    Monday's turning-down of these two cases is just one among many other proofs that it doesn't matter who is president when it comes to Supreme Court appointments. It's no longer a court that deliberates and/or decides cases based on the language of the Constitution, it's a dictatorial oligarchy that routinely ignores constitutional language in favor of imposing its traitorous collective will upon the powerless-to-do-anything-about-it millions of citizens. Sometimes its' diktats inure to the Republican side of a given issue, and sometimes to the Democratic side, but never to the side that stands firmly on behalf of individual freedom.

    This country has been under the rule of a dictatorial oligarchy since 1803 when Marbury was ruled correct in opposing the exercise of a presidential power of James Madison, literally the author of the document he was ruled to be in violation of. Marbury v. Madison also established the rubric of "judicial review," which I'm sure seemed innocuous enough at the time, but which in-practice, has further entrenched the high court as the dictatorial oligarchy Monday's turning-down of important Second Amendment issues exposes them as actually being.

    Yet and still, every presidential election cycle will bring out the barbs and arrows of one side or the other spreading hysteria about how important it is for Candidate (R) or Candidate (D) to be elected so he can influence the Supreme Court for generations to come. One look at the steady decline of individual freedom in this country over the past 2+ centuries betrays the lie that who's in office when a Justice gets appointed matters one wit to preserving, or especially to restoring, our freedoms.

    Ironically, just this morning I heard a blurb on the news that one of the judicial committees of Congress (not sure if it was House or Senate being talked about) was taking up national reciprocity today. Assuming it passes, which all indications are that it will, anyone think the Supremes will turn down the state(s) that brings the first constitutional challenge to it on the basis of states' rights? Any doubt in anyone's mind that not only will states' rights take another hit, but that in ruling on national reciprocity, the Second Amendment rights of Americans will take a back seat to the authority of government to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause? Monday's non-ruling will not even be a blip on the radar screen of court-watchers once such a ruling comes down, because that ruling would represent a defacto repeal of the Second Amendment.

    But I thought Trump and Gorsuch were here to save the Second Amendment.......

    Pfffft.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  11. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    As of this writing, the court is split with five justices being appointed by Republican presidents, and only four by Dems.

    Monday's turning-down of these two cases is just one among many other proofs that it doesn't matter who is president when it comes to Supreme Court appointments. It's no longer a court that deliberates and/or decides cases based on the language of the Constitution, it's a dictatorial oligarchy that routinely ignores constitutional language in favor of imposing its traitorous collective will upon the powerless-to-do-anything-about-it millions of citizens. Sometimes its' diktats inure to the Republican side of a given issue, and sometimes to the Democratic side, but never to the side that stands firmly on behalf of individual freedom.

    This country has been under the rule of a dictatorial oligarchy since 1803 when Marbury was ruled correct in opposing the exercise of a presidential power of James Madison, literally the author of the document he was ruled to be in violation of. Marbury v. Madison also established the rubric of "judicial review," which I'm sure seemed innocuous enough at the time, but which in-practice, has further entrenched the high court as the dictatorial oligarchy Monday's turning-down of important Second Amendment issues exposes them as actually being.

    Yet and still, every presidential election cycle will bring out the barbs and arrows of one side or the other spreading hysteria about how important it is for Candidate (R) or Candidate (D) to be elected so he can influence the Supreme Court for generations to come. One look at the steady decline of individual freedom in this country over the past 2+ centuries betrays the lie that who's in office when a Justice gets appointed matters one wit to preserving, or especially to restoring, our freedoms.

    Ironically, just this morning I heard a blurb on the news that one of the judicial committees of Congress (not sure if it was House or Senate being talked about) was taking up national reciprocity today. Assuming it passes, which all indications are that it will, anyone think the Supremes will turn down the state(s) that brings the first constitutional challenge to it on the basis of states' rights? Any doubt in anyone's mind that not only will states' rights take another hit, but that in ruling on national reciprocity, the Second Amendment rights of Americans will take a back seat to the authority of government to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause? Monday's non-ruling will not even be a blip on the radar screen of court-watchers once such a ruling comes down, because that ruling would represent a defacto repeal of the Second Amendment.

    But I thought Trump and Gorsuch were here to save the Second Amendment.......

    Pfffft.

    Blues
    SR9 sighting. He seems happy.

    https://goo.gl/images/sGycxX

    The Place to Be

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast