The NRA writes: In an appearance on PBS’s “Charlie Rose: The Week” last Friday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer waxed philosophical on the Second Amendment, arguing—with a straight face—that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect your individual right to own a gun to protect yourself in your own home.
With smug self-assurance, the proud and haughty jurist not only misquoted —slightly—the text of the Second Amendment, but also said that in his opinion, the constitutional provision merely prevents Congress from disbanding state militias, which, he concluded with a flourish, “is not the right of an individual to keep a gun next to his bed.”
The chilling truth behind Breyer’s pronouncement is that the Supreme Court is now apparently deadlocked, 4-4, with half the court agreeing with Breyer, and the other half agreeing that the right to arms is an individual right. The next president will tip the balance with his or her choice to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
it doan matter whut’s at stake. cain’t vote for nobody president who is so ungentlemanly as trump. no matter how bad it gits, we act lack them demos an’ we are jes’ as bad. there’ll be another election in 2020. maybe we see better candidates by then.
I hope your comment was meant as sarcasm, because there is no excuse for voting for the foul-mouthed, angry, power-mad, corrupt, divisive woman (she’s no lady) that the Democrats have put forward as their candidate. Also, another election in 2020 won’t make a difference if Hillary has filled the SCOTUS vacancy with a life-tenured justice hostile to the 2nd Amendment. There might not be a vacancy to fill after 2020, or even if there was, the Court might follow the principle of stare decisis and choose not to overturn a prior ruling hostile to the 2nd Amendment.
mrs. former first lady didn’ talk about nobody’ private parts, an’ we doan haffa worry ’bout some pipsqueek politician inna pissant country rollin’ out videos of our president sayin’ foul things whenever the president visits. them videos ar’ gonna get shoved down out throats everwhere under trump. ya’ think public humilliatin’ of our president is gonna git us respect? fergit trump. vote ‘publican on tha rest of the ballot.
Um I hate to break it to you, but, yes she did on all points. Bimbo eruptions in the White House while her husband was well sleeping with every female with a heartbeat around him. The fowl mouthed tirates at her husband, the secret service and anyone around here. SORRY FOR THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE, “Bitch, cunt, slut hoe and more was used by her. I could go on but you get the point. I am NOT a trumper. Just someone who likes the truth.
gotcha some video on all that? her sayin’ things, not some reporter or grumpy govment drone?
ifn those things yer sayin’ were on video, they would be out by now. ahm jes sayin she ain’t gonna be embarassed by videos that kin be used to twist her arm in some ferrin country.
vote ‘publican down ticket. cruz in 2020.
Hate to break it to you, Hildabeast is a hypocritical BIOTCH. Her tirades are well known, going back when Billy was the Gov.
There are reports of her screaming at a State Trooper that she wanted that “fu–ing flag up in the morning” and other inappropriate behavior.
She’s can’t be trusted and probably the worst person EVER to run for president in my lifetime and I was around for the JFK assassination and remember it vividly
I’D NEVER EVER in a BILLION YEARS vote for HILLARY CLINTON. Not while I’m breathing.
Your bullshit isn’t funny.
‘nuther foul-mouth yankee writes home.
this ain’t about bein’ funny, seenyore.
If there were any question about it, let me just say that this douche George is definitely trolling. Do you not see how he’s intentionally, phoenetically spelling out a hillbilly accent?
This toolbag is trying to make fun of gun owners by playing on the charicature of a dumb redneck because that’s what has been crammed down his throat for what I can only assume is his entire life.
Get fucked, George.
Looked more to me like an ebonics student that never did his homework.
Very well put Mr. Fett.
“George” has been playing this schtick for a few months. I find it rather tedious, and never bother to engage.
It got tedious in the first post.
Is this Walter from Walterfootball.com doing is Mario Marinelli like trolling job?
mah teachers tole me ta write like ah talk. so that’s whut ah do. ain’t got time for all that high falutin grammar an’ spellin and stuff. no need to git inna hissy fit. jes’ doan read this stuff.
ted cruz fer president, nex’ time aroun.
Write any way you want, George. It’s readable to me.
People who I know online who I’ve spoken to on the phone tell me I write like I talk…
Anyways. The Justice in question here:
“… in his opinion, the constitutional provision merely prevents Congress from disbanding state militias, which, he concluded with a flourish, “is not the right of an individual to keep a gun next to his bed.”
No problem. States like Texas will craft legislation pronouncing all citizens who are not prohibited persons members of the “Texas Un-Organized Milita”.
Suck on that, Breyer…
I believe the operating theory is, “….in service to….” a militia. This reasoning might allow guns for home defense since they are likely stored at home, but does nothing for the idea that we should be allowed to carry guns outside, except “….in service….”
Any modern SC would declare a constitutional amendment to eliminate, or even restrict, the courts as being unconstitutional on its face. Then what?
George, you’re not clever. Go away.
change tha channel, son. change the channel.
“mah teachers tole me ta write like ah talk.”
No, your teachers told you that guns are cursed, evil devices, and that all should cower to the omnipotent state. Then at home, your parents, who are likely mediocre liberal hacks with skulls full of tap water, reinforced this notion by regurgitating 30 years worth of mainstream propaganda into your beak, while you sucked it down and chirped for more.
Then, like the malleable, subservient pawn that you are, you came to a pro-gun website and thought it would be cute to poke fun at gun owners. So that’s what you did, in the most passive-aggressive way your brain, which I’m certain resembles a shart in odor and consistency, could muster.
Due to your deeply-ingrained sense of entitlement, you’re probably expecting a pat on the back and a little trophy just for posting on this website. Maybe if you email your address to TTAG, dey cuwd werk sumfin’ out.
yer not readin’ too good tonite. everthing alright over there?
This guy just went full retard.
an’ may i say, suh. i udderly resemble that remark !
Paid troll.
“Paid Troll”
then sommun owes me a pile of coin. the only money i git is from sellin’ aluminin cans.
Just what I was about to say!
Hillary has thousands of them out there!
What else is she gonna do with the money that the communist George Sorros gives her?
I see the bus from Trollistan has arrived.
Cruz is just as much of an idiot as Trump.
Conservatives should have picked Kasich, who led Clinton by more than 10 points in every head to head poll.
The democrats will rule the Nation for decades, just like the PRI ruled Mexico. The economic damage they wreak will be ten times worse than any firearm rights damage they commit. Their SCOTUS will allow the trial lawyers and entitlees to loot every major US corporation until we become another Venezuela. The next step will be the complete destruction of the middle class, read recent Mexican history to see what’s coming.
This election was the Republic’s Last Chance and stupidity has destroyed it.
If we’re going to pick Kasich, why not go all the way and nominate Clinton?
cruz has more intellect an’ integrity than either candidate. but that doan mean anythin’ now. ya’ kin make like demos if that makes for happy. but that is nuthin’ compared to the rest of the races. vote so’s tha’ repubs keep all their jobs. that’s where all tha’ power is, anyways. blockin’ the president may be all the bullets we got left. nuthin’ wrong with that. we gotta get a better candidate fer 2020, no matter whut. gotta keep control of courts. even in years where we lose the majorities we hafta have enuff votes in congress to keep the four-flushers frum gittin’ judges appointed.
Why bother shilling for Cruz? News flash – he lost the primary.
I have many doubts about Trump, but the fact that the MSM constantly tries to paint him a foul mouthed mysoginist crazy person makes me think he is probably OK.
Handing the election to the Hildabeast really is crazy. You assume that if she gets elected there will be elections in 2020. She may have the SCOTUS declare her emperor for life. Obama will be so jealous.
This post offends me… Grammatically.
Do you get paid the $0.30 per post or has the rate gone up for elections?
Can a moderator please get rid of these “George” posts? I came here for an intelligent discussion, both sides, and find this crap going back and forth. There is a reason to moderate sometimes.
Thanks
Your Yankee elitism is showing. (cough, cough).
No tolerance for people who talk different?
No tolerance for ideas expressed inelegantly?
No tolerance for Texans?
Thank you, Sam, for the kind defense. It was gracious of you, but unnecessary. I have been in the company of bully-boys often. It is easy to deal with those of limited imagination, understanding, literary skills.
As usual, reading comprehension is lacking in many of those responding to my inputs. I say that because they neither took the time to find the meat of the conversation, nor did they grasp the declamations regarding my actual stance vis-a-vis gun possession. There were two, I think, notable exceptions who first understood sarcasm, and then understood the uselessness of treating my original comment as seriously indicative of liberal, nay statist, mindset. That so many so quickly devolved to insult is quiet (?) testimony to a surfeit of intellectual prowess. Not only that, they each self-identified as being insecure about their own pro-gun testimony in that several wanted comments different from their sloganeering to be removed, blocked and banned. One must question whether people so limited in intellect should be allowed to possess firearms. If you cannot read and comprehend, how would one know a gun-free zone exists and should be avoided? Have we really degenerated in our reading skills to where emoticons and international prohibition symbols are a crushing challenge to our abilities to read and understand?
In the end, Sam, I determined it necessary to demonstrate that I can, indeed, operate in a “foreign language” – proper English. It is not my native language; it is not the language I think in.
This missive took quite awhile to construct because I have a wrist injury (not to mention the economic sacrifice of can-collecting time) that makes typing with capital letters is nearly painful. Hence my normal style is all lower case. In addition, I had to think seriously how to complicate sentences beyond my normal comfort zone of expression (and those offended are saying more about themselves than the target of their derision).
So, AMF, Sam. Thanks for the assist.
Ok, Sam, I’m just going to come clean, as I wasn’t entirely honest and straightforward in my previous comment.
I came here to be a dick. All I wanted to do, as somebody already pointed out, was to make fun of gun owners. I’ll admit that at times, I have low self-esteem, and it makes me feel good to put other people down. As they say, misery loves company.
In my last comment, I thought I would blow everyone’s minds when I finally revealed that I do actually have a very impressive vocabulary (seriously). You know, like toss the match over my shoulder and walk away from the explosion in slow-mo. I don’t think it worked though, because everyone already knew I was trolling anyway.
I also tried to redeem myself by making what sounded like some really insightful comments, but now that I’m reading back over them, I now realize I just wanted to prove to everyone how educated I am.
I don’t even know what I’m trying to say. All I know is, I watch CNN quite a bit, so I’m pretty knowledgable when it comes to gun control, and I really do think that some people shouldn’t be able to buy bazookas at Walmart. Also, anyone who thinks I should just “shut up and go away” shouldn’t be able to buy guns. It’s the safe thing to do.
[This comment is a sock puppet. -Matt in FL]
?????
Looks like I need another beer to wrap my head around this. BRB.
whut in tha wide, wide world of sports is a’goin’ on, here?
looks like ah sent sumpthin’ ah didn’ even send.
doan that knock yer hat in tha creek?
Sock puppet commented noted.
Hey,
It’s Friday night. Let’s just have another beer and talk about the college games for tomorrow.
Wonder if “george from fort worth” is a Bloomberg paid troll, or a Soros paid troll?
if ya’ cain’t read, doan write.
No matter the reason, (here comes the important part) “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
And fake hic talk won’t save us either. Trump/PENCE 2016. Or a freakin’ revolution.
I don’t know why we are all still dancing around the elephant in the room. This country is almost evenly split, with diametrically opposed philosophies on the way government should work. It is far past time for these two opposing philosophies to equitably split the country and go their separate ways. This compact of the States is no longer working. The present government is becoming destructive to my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and because of this, it is time to abolish it and institute another government that suits us better. It is time to SECEDE!
Why should we continue to coexist in a governmental relationship that is so obviously toxic? It is time, far past time for SECESSION!
And where, exactly, would you draw those lines? There are red states and there are blue states, but there are also quite a few that can’t seem to make up their mind. Like Florida, for example, which is red based on electoral college voting, but really shakes out more purple.
Also, plenty of red states are bordered by or surrounded by blue states, and vice-versa. That raises the stakes a bit, no?
Secession didn’t work out well the last time. Now it is illegal entirely. Secession leaves the part you want to separate from alive and angry; pursuing whatever means to bring the secessionists to heel. The only alternative is actually a revolt with the purpose not of equal nations on the same continent, but with only one left standing. Those who want to end the suffocation of California and the Northern cabals must completely subjugate them, not co-exist. For they will never stop their war on liberty. And they are more than willing to physically crush those who disagree. Think very deeply about the cost and possible outcomes of attempting to rule the rulers. If you look at Haiti, you get an idea of what your world will look like.
I sometimes see\hear people disparage Scalia and the Heller decision as having been useless. While it didn’t go far enough, it went about as far as it could, and the alternative is a reality where Breyer’s rules apply.
Apparently there are still many who need reminding (or need to learn) that elites control the law. And the elites most are judges.
No other reason for an article re-exposing judicial malfeasance.
Black robed tyrants……
Blood for the Blood God,
Skulls for the Skull Throne,
Wood for the Wood Chipper.
Tea for the tiller man,
Steak for the son.
Wine for the woman that made the rain come.
(Make it rain?)
For all their supposed evils, at least the Jihadis have figured that one out. “Rule of Law”, is absolutely no further than a simple sleight of hand obfuscation away from “Unconstrained Rule by Tyrant”, as long as the Tyrant and his court stooges gets to change and “interpret” law as they see fit. Can’t do that with Sharia. Can’t do it with the 10 commandments Union US Constitution/Bill of Rights, either. But, unfortunately, those who’d prefer that version of valid law to the barren dessert one, don’t seem to have nearly the time nor inclination to stand up for it, that the Muzzies do; being too busy grabbing ankles and hating those Dear Leader tells them to hate and all…..
There is zero chance the Rebulic survives without bloodshed.
I know it’s been stated numerous times, but we have avoided bloodshed for 151 years, and the issues are more critical today, and more in implacable than back then.
Rebulic? Wth?
Auto correct is a liberal conspiracy!
You got his meaning so STFU and start cleaning your firearm, Militiaman. (just funnin’ ya’ll)
But can it survive with bloodshed? When violence and politics come together it doesn’t bode well for republics if history is a guide.
I saw my first “Camacho ’16” bumper sticker today. I think I will get one myself.
“apparently deadlocked, 4-4, with half the court agreeing with Breyer, and the other half agreeing that the right to arms is an individual right” I would say the second half can actually read.
Could a crowd fund raiser send the 4 broads on a permanent vacation to Tahiti? With cement shoes.
People should read the Federalist Papers to get a greater understanding of how our Founding Fathers formulated the Second Amendment! They wrote about the importance of a well-armed and regulated militia for the security of a free state and the right of the people in a militia to bear arms. There is not one word about an individual right or the dangers of gun regulations. It wasn’t until the militants took over the NRA in the 1970’s, under Wayne LaPierre, that this unfettered idea of an individual’s right to hold. That the time when they dismissed the most important part of the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” and promoted the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”! In other words they edited it to suit their militant view. Now the words from Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger has to be the best statement ever to describe the revisionist history and fraud perpetrated by the NRA, “One of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by any special interest group (NRA)that I have ever seen in my lifetime… and I’m a gun guy”
Before I get chastised by gun zealots keep in mind that for before the 5-4 (along partisan lines) decision in Heller for more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state Militia: it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobbies’ distortion of the constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy towards guns and crime.”
Some of you are making the argument that because criminals don’t follow the gun law, then we should not make laws to regulate guns? So by that illogical murders don’t follow the law, then we should not make laws to make murder illegal. Without a law forbidding some act, police can not arrest that person even when they catch them in the act. Many criminals won’t use a weapon to committee a crime, like rob a liquor store because they know that if they are caught, they will be locked up for about 30 years to life. And because of this murders during robberies have dropped significantly. So yes criminals do follow the law.
Do you even get tired of being completely wrong?
You clearly haven’t actually read the Federalist Papers, and you’re completely mistaken about federal courts, who were hands-off the 2a for 200 years before the Heller decision. Individual right was implied and accepted.
If we actually prosecuted criminals for weapons violations, they WOULD be in jail for a long time. The current administration has broken all records for fewest federal firearm violations prosecuted. Why don’t you ask them why?
Current administration is actively reducing sentenced jail time on felons at a massive rate.
Think about that for a second. They don’t get accused of releasing felons, but they are setting up of a soon in the future surge felons being released onto the streets. Think about what that is going to do to the crime rate under the next president.
Obama knows exactly what he’s doing.
Three run-on paragraphs of complete nonsense and misinformation which ends with “So yes criminals do follow the law”.
Haha, thanks for the chuckle.
Grow up.
Can’t anyone on here have an mature conversation?
I am curious why they have to condemn someone in order to increase their sales?
If you can’t answer that then pass and let the adults have a conversation. Also you should do a marketing a sales course.. Trump is a genius in promoting and sales, but you can go to Carnegie and do a course , it will help you understand why their sales have increased. Its called Fear!! Sell fear!!!
And Also I’m back from my lovely trip from Australia, I’d love to tell you but you tyrant enablers wouldn’t want to hear it.
Thanks for the laugh!
I needed a smile today.
…..and a rambling reply that begins with some ad-hominem and immediately devolves into non-sequiturs. You’re on fire tonight.
Have you read Heller? If not, you should. All 9 agreed that there was an individual right to keep and bear arms–else there would be no way to form militias, but that the minority believed the right was only in connection with service in the militia–a stance that is a purely grammatical argument unsupported by the history of the US or the debates leading to the enactment of the amendments to the Constitution.
Are you one of those people who seem to think that the NRA represents the gun industry, and therefore benefits when gun sales increase? The truth is that the NRA represents its members, gun owners, not the industry, which is represented by the NSSF, and doesn’t get money from the industry except in connection with its litigation activities.
Are you aware that the NRA has a relatively small lobbying budget, minuscule in comparison to that of the Health and Drug industries?
I’m sensing this is pro-gun trolling. The grammatical mistakes are too well thought out.
Tell you what, go read that book I recommended, The Origin of the Second Amendment, and we can talk. Until then, it’s hard to have an “adult” conversation with someone who merely copies and pastes Shannon Watts talking points.
“Its called Fear!! Sell fear!!!”
I’m not a bit afraid of you or your chickenshit cronies, I buy guns because I LIKE them, and because I can!
And asking for a mature conversation when all you present are lies, is not very mature. Whole site is about the *truth*.
America has a history, long before the Constitution, in a hostile land, of private gun ownership, for personal security, hunting and defense of the community. To promulgate otherwise is lie.
The Supreme Court has more than 200year history of overstepping it’s bounds and acting in an Unconstitutional manner. Some has been overturned since. Some has not. The “progressive” judges since 1900 have tremendously damaged out Republic.
Stare Decisis is the dumbest thing our early judges adopted from English Common Law; it makes literally no sense that we ran with it. Here we are, just created a whole new societal paradigm from cutting edge philosophers like Locke and Rousseau like nothing the world has ever seen, but hey, here’s an idea; let’s saddle all legal discussions in this new uncharted territory with hundreds of years of conflicting precedent handed down from a wholly different time, era, people, and system. Precedent which never had any sort of popular buy-in from the citizens in this new society (as was the case with and entire purpose for the Constitution)
Even though interpretations of the 2nd and Commerce Clause and lots of others would still be able to change slightly with each review throughout the course of history, revoking stare decisis at the SCOTUS level would essentially force them to frame their arguments in the original text of the constitution and its contemporaries, like they were supposed to do all along. It would be possible if not likely for divergent interpretations to return to the original upon future review, as opposed to countering eons of poorly-wrought bullshit in direct contravention to the constitution. Continued drift along an ideological path –like the gradual push to claim the RKBA is not an individual right– would require ever larger leaps of logic in a given case, and would find harder and harder buy-in from new jurists. For some low-level trust law case in a state court, binding precedent is a useful shortcut for having to maintain bullet-proof laws for every damn thing that comes up, but for issues concerning the core fabric of our government, it is insane policy, since it inherently subverts the whole concept of a fixed written constitution as a governing document.
The Constitution, itself, provided for the adoption of English common law. In any event, stare decisis, if properly practiced, was intended to act as a restraint on judges creating new law, and provide consistency and predictability to the law. It is the neglect of stare decisis over the last 150 years which has contributed to the current situation where it now only takes a majority vote of the justices on the Supreme Court to amend our Constitution.
All militaries and militias have used firearms for the last few hundred years. Why does there need to be a constitutional amendment to guarantee the military’s right to a gun? Wouldn’t that be a given? Not to mention the militia is made up of all abled body men 17 to 45. And don’t get me started on the term “well regulated”.
Reading this was the first time I have felt a positive emotion towards Wayne lapierre
Why “Hello there” Shameless Tw, Tw, Tw. TWAAAATS, did you get those hardened silicone mammaries replaced yet and just when is Bloom-BOIG gonna buy you a new nose? Buck up beeatch it’ll ALL be over soon, start peeking out the window on the morning of Nov 9th and don’t act so surprised when you see us marching down the streets rounding up everyone who tried to deny and strip US of OUR God-given, Constitutionally=protected rights,
OMG?!?!
Did you ever even read the Federalist papers?
The sky is blue.
You are the type that would argue; what that really says is red.
I am almost stunned.
I won’t chastise you, I’ll simply tell you you’re wrong. The correction lies in a book called The Origin of the Second Amendment, which is a collection writings from the time the 2A was being written. The words of the actual Founders themselves utterly contradict your stale, anti-gun talking point. Ad no surprise, you’re argument isn’t fresh or new, it’s virtually verbatim from the numerous other times anti-gun zealots peddle this nonsense.
I can’t find any book by the name…do you have a link to Amazon or something for it?
There are all kinds of books with “second amendment” in the title, but i don’t see anything for that specific title…
He might have meant this:
https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Second-Amendment-Independent-Political/dp/1566639719/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1476338527&sr=8-1&keywords=The+origin+of+the+second+amendment
You almost approach making an intelligent point here in your discussion of laws against murder, robbery and so on. The laws which apply to these crimes attempt to prevent them by providing for a severe punishment in the event one is caught perpetrating such a crime. This is a disincentive.
Gun control and the like attempts to stop or reduce crime by limiting access to firearms. The simple reason it will not work is that an individual willing to risk the punishment that accompanies a robbery or murder is not going to be deterred by the much less severe punishment that comes with violating gun laws.
Or as Cesare Beccaria put it back in 1764:
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty–so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator–and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.
The first clause refers to “the militia” – the second refers to “the people”.
If the founders had intended this right to be secured only for the militia, why did they explicitly state “the people” in the second clause?
Do you believe the founders simply were stupid and fucked up the wording?
Hello, concernedamerican,
I hope one day you learn what commas are for. Until then, I don’t give a intercourse about what you post.
TTAG, please block this bugger, ASAP!
So the Founders were kidding when they said the following, Progtard?
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.
— George Mason
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.
— Richard Henry Lee
Is not under government control or restriction:
The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out.
— Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers #28
“The Millita back then, was the whole citizenry, every able bodied man capable of handling a firearm!
My GGGgrandfather fought in the war of 1812 under those exact circumstances!
And when my 8th Ggrandfather came to these shores in the 1630’s, it was a necessity.
Such continued before and after it was codified in the Constitution!
lol
you are OUT of your mind.
Nine affirming individual rights and one establishing the right of the state to arm a militia? Sure thing buddy.
So if the “…right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms…” in the 2A is not an individual right, then the “…right of THE PEOPLE to freely assemble…” in the 1A is satisfied by a meeting of the State Legislature, and is also not an individual right.
You’re catching on.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
– – Through The Looking Glass
AmericansAgainstGunRightsFacism: To which of the Federalist Papers do you refer? Federalist No. 29 is a response to fears that the national government could turn the state militia against the people. Federalist No. 46 argues that under the (then) proposed Constitution, the states would have the upper hand over the federal government because of the states’ ability (at that time) to call upon millions of armed men, versus a federal government only being able to call on an army of 20,000 to 30,000 men. You also forget that the Federalist Papers were in support of the bare bone Constitution; you have to look at the Anti-Federalist Papers to get an idea of the arguments that led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights. For instance, in Federal Farmer XVIII, in arguing against a clause in the Constitution allowing the federal government to raise armies and take control of state militias, it notes that the organized militia will never be sufficient to protect liberty because the existence of such forces “will ever produce inattention to the general militia; and the consequences has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenceless[.]” The author also states that “[t]he mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle[.]” It argues, on the contrary, that “to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms[,]”
AmericansAgainstGunRightsFacism.
So the first ten amendments were put in place specifically to defend against infringement of individual rights of the people by the Federal government, except for the second amendment. Got it.
That makes perfect sense. A very large faction of anti-federalists were not going to vote to ratify the constitution, unless those ten amendments were added to the constitution, (otherwise known as the Bill of Rights) because they were concerned that without placing in plain language limiting the federal government’s abliity to infringe on individual rights, history has shown that the government will take those rights away. Except the second amendment. According to you, that was the only “collective” right that did not apply to the people, but only to the states right to arm the people. Right.
But states don’t have rights, only people have rights.
It is not surprising that progressives can look at this obvious declaration of individual rights and read a collective right instead. Progressives of the ruling class are elitists that see the “masses” as a herd to be managed, to be controlled, for their own good, of course. Of course they will read a collective right about the 2nd amendment. Mao( held in high esteem by progressives) said it very clearly, “political power comes from the barrel of a gun”. He should know. He had the tens of millions of murdered Chinese to prove it.
In the end, you will argue till you are blue in face, or until your have murderered all those that will not accept your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. That is what progessives do. Just ask Bill Ayers, honored current Ivy league professsor, unrepentant terrorist (“I did not do enough”) of the Weather Underground that was prepared to murder 25 million Americans that would not be “re-educated” after their hoped for successful Marxist revolution.
Which is why the 2nd amendment exists. So go ahead and keep arguing for your desire to have absolutely power over the people, I’ll just go ahead and keep my individual right to keep and bear arms.
“Before I get chastised by gun zealots keep in mind that for before the 5-4 (along partisan lines) decision in Heller for more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state Militia: it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes.” Of course, the courts also ruled for over one hundred years (Dred Scott and Plessey) that Blacks were chattel and not entitled to the same protections under law as whites. I hate to break this to you, but precedent isn’t always right.
More to the point, that was a complete lie, no SCOTUS ever ruled that 2A only applied to militias, regardless of how many times progs tried to push that idiocy off on them.
“It wasn’t until the militants took over the NRA in the 1970’s, under Wayne LaPierre, that this unfettered idea of an individual’s right to hold.”
If you think that Wayne LaPierre and the current bureaucracy running NRA are pro-gun, you are mistaken. When Neal Knox was bumped for Charlton Heston, the NRA died and has going downhill ever since. In intelligence terms, NRA has been penetrated and is really controlled opposition.
Look at recent history in Illinois. NRA put no money into the state for the past forty years. Grassroots people recruited Otis McDonald to sue the city of Chicago and introduced him to attorney Alan Gura, not NRA. Alan Gottlieb and 2nd Amendment Foundation bankrolled the McDonald case and took him to the Supreme Court, not NRA. When McDonald got to SCOTUS in 2010, then NRA barged into the case, hiring former Solicitor General Paul Clement to steal ten minutes from Gura’s thirty minute oral argument time in front of the Supreme Court.
When the U.S. Federal Appeals Court in Chicago totally overturned Illinois’ fifty year ban on concealed weapons outside the home, NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde was the person who placed Duty to Inform in Rep. Brandon Phelps “NRA backed” carry bill, not Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and not “Chicago Machine” Democrats.
If Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA-ILA pay Vandermyde to set up their own members to be killed by police, and undermine historic lawsuits like McDonald v. Chicago, then you know NRA is a corrupt and traitorous organization that actively promotes the criminal police state.
Slightly different lyrics but the same tune from you every time. Seriously don’t you think bloomberg and soros deserve more effort for what they pay you for?
“a well-armed and regulated militia”
That’s redundant. “Well regulated” means well equipped, which would include well armed.
The supreme court is not the end-all of what is and is not allowed.
Unfortunately if it gets to that point, change will be paid for in blood.
Could you, perhaps, cite two examples of when a president or the legislature defied orders of the SC? If you can find two, can you find any more? Marbury v. Madison established SC supremacy over the other two branches of government. Settled law.
How many divisions does the Supreme Court command?
The military wing of the Supreme Court is the Federal Marshall Service.
If ignoring SC rulings is normalized, there is no law in the realm.
Prior to the supreme court, the supreme court was the Court of King George the 3rd.
We didn’t like it very much so we kinda asked them to leave.
It can happen again.
Andrew ‘Flippin’ Jackson, who basically said, ‘the Chief Justice has ruled. Now let him enforce it.’
Exactly this. The SCOTUS can make rulings, but have no power to enforce of fund them.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/07/republicans-should-stop-enforcing-unconstitutional-supreme-court-decisions/
Perhaps you should take a bit more time to understand Jackson. He literally introduced the “spoils” system to government. He replaced professional bureaucrats with crony politicians, donors, friends. He call it “democracy”. You might also take a look at the SC order he defied: resettlement of an entire nation of Native Americans (Red Indians, as the English called them). He defied no unconstitutional decision by the SC, he defied an SC order restricting his legal ability to act as a despot. In the end, was Jackson right to kidnap thousands and put them on a death march? I don’t know, and that is not the point. The point is that Jackson decided the Executive could do whatever he wanted by Executive Decree. Hello? Obama? Clinton? Trump? Do you really want to use Jackson’s defiance as a precedent?
That’s one (I asked for two). Note, Jackson did the very thing everyone here is so upset with Obama over…Executive Orders/Actions. Jackson’s action was to uproot an entire indigenous nation, and move it a thousand miles into lands they had no experience with, as to how to create shelters and live off nature (forest people dumped in dry prairie. We can all be proud of that moral Executive Action/Order. Right?
Jackson’s example puts all usurpers in the same category. He did not take the moral high ground and defy an unconstitutional rendering by the SC.Your chosen precedent is hugely flawed, inviting any president (Clintor or Trump) to simply become a monarch.
What to do with an out of control SC is a tough problem. 240 years into it, and we still do not have a solution. Well, a viable solution.
I have done no research, but I *suspect* that a group of 20-30 could deliver to POTUS the opportunity to appoint 9 SCOTUS justices in a single night. The necessity would be unfortunate due to residual fear within the court to make important decisions, but could be recovered within a few generations.
Cannot help to wonder if this moment in history mirrors what Patriots felt about the Crown. Half our country stands with Hillary and they have no intention of leaving us with our liberties.
Those boys would be amazed that this BS has gone on for this long. In many ways today is worse than 1770s.
We need strict term limits on all elected and/or appointed positions.
Absolutely.
Term limits already exist: elections and impeachments, constitutional amendment limiting presidents to two terms. Truth is, people who support “term limits” generally want limits on politicians they don’t like, but want to keep the ones they like in office forever.
Mandatory (automated) term limits are a lazy way to execute our political responsibilities. Maybe the founders were just dumber than we thought, failing to put limits into the original constitution. Unaware of the crass nature of politicians and the electorate.
Who cares what SCOTUS says? You people need to get used to the idea that you aren’t going to protect yourselves or your liberty through voting or court cases. That time has passed and you need to accept the new reality.
Buy ammo. Come to terms with the fact you will probably have to use it soon. This is going to get far worse before it gets better.
“Buy ammo. Come to terms with the fact you will probably have to use it soon. This is going to get far worse before it gets better.”
Not a new idea. Been said many times along the way. There have been ample opportunities to reach for rebellion in the years before not. Since1865, nothing. Tomorrow? Nothing.
You are an eyewitness to how empires die. Almost always with a whimper.
So we still got plenty of NeverTrumpers on here, huh? You still gonna feel like you made the “moral choice” when Hillary appoints Barack “Indecent Exposure” Obama to the Supreme Court?
This would be a good time to buy all the salt waffles and clipazines you’ve been lusting after. If Hillary wins, the ensuing panic will make that stuff dry up faster than she does looking at a man.
Dunno ’bout salt waffles, just ordered a couple 20-rd mags for my DPMS GII. Already have enough 5.56/.300 Blk mags to supply the neighborhood. Probably should order pistol mags, but I think I have enough of those which would be restricted.
As Andrew Jackson might have said, Justice Breyer can make his decision…
Lifetime tenure for SCOTUS justices is mandated by the Constitution. The Founders believed that life tenure would elevate justices above politics. Unfortunately, today’s justices aren’t above politics, they’re below it.
As a lawyer, I once had great respect for SCOTUS. Now, I think the injustices should be periodically whipped until they learn humility.
Question Ralph: Isn’t there an option for impeachment of members of SCOTUS by Congress and POTUS? Thought I heard or read something about it so as to be a sort of “term limit”.
in the world we live into today, i’m not sure anyone can get impeached anymore.
Hell, I’m not even sure they can be indicted!
Hillary, Learner, Last 2 AG’s. Seems like the justice system doesn’t just have a finger on the scale, it has a big ol fist.
I agree. If the head of the FBI can specifically attest to a dozen felony offenses by a single person, then say he won’t recommend indictment, counting on anyone but ourselves in the future is living in Fantasyland.
Wasn’t he one of those who voted 9-0 on the individual right question?
But if this douchebag gets a chance to overturn Heller he’d rule against the idea that The People actually means us?
I say impeach him and after a proper conviction, hang him from the neck until deceased.
Yes, but with the caveat that the right exists only in connection with service in the militia. If you are not in a militia, there is no right to keep or bear arms (thus, in his view, giving meaning to the first clause of the Amendment). I’d have to go back and read his dissent–I do not know if he considered the unorganized militia. Personally, I think he put the cart before the horse; back in the day, you had to have arms to serve in (and be “regulated” i.e. trained) unless you had a gun. So having guns is a prerequisite to militia duty, not militia duty being a prerequisite to possessing arms.
“So having guns is a prerequisite to militia duty,”
Absolutely! So *ANYONE* can buy a gun, and should, in order to be prepared to flesh out the militia. Excellent!
no siree. ahm a full texican, an’ never got over it when mah folks tole me texas give up its independence (twicet) to become part of a silly nation run by a bunch of pompus asses. Ah also resent having to have any part of elections that pit the rich an’ famous agin the rest of us.
mah only regret about being texican is that a long time ago, some polyticians decided it were necessary ta prevent regelar folks from having their own guns at home, or anywheres else. ah wuz afraid (a-feered?) of illegals gittin’ guns when texas finely apporved concealed carry, but that turned out right nice.
an’ jes’ fer the record, ah believe any cityzen (not any resident) should be able to own all the firearms and weapons they kin afford. as jes doan have no regard fer a president that would be so easily dishonored in world affairs as trump. protect the majorities in congress, an’ clinton an’ her biddies caint’ do nuthin.
moron.
I sure hope everyone on this thread is voting Trump. Yep, he’s a jerk. In fact, I kind of hate him. His poisonous rhetoric during the primary was self-destructive. His idiotic, frat boy behavior is threatening to hand the country to Clinton.
But his policy papers are nearly universally excellent, he’s assembled a great team and, most importantly, he’s not Hillary Clinton and may not appoint anti-gun justices. I live in New York. If the rest of you want the SAFE Act rolled out nationwide, want to see PLCAA overturned, want to see a flurry of executive action on guns, then stay home on election day or vote Clinton.
Every gun owner. Every single one needs to get to the polls this year with three friends and vote Trump.
And if you’re not registered, then register. Now. If it’s not too late.
It is too late.
It’s over.
The polls are rigged just like the debate moderators and media coverage.
They poll more Democrats than Republicans to be sure, usually by a 5-8% margin.
Don’t be fooled or dissuaded.
In the end we all get only one vote: make it for Trump.
And that would be because there ARE more Democrats than Republicans.
I’m going to go vote for Trump (the only person in politics today who is more disgusting than he is, is Hitlary Klinton), but that doesn’t mean I think he will actually win this.
Unfortunately hillarys all but won. It’s over.
With people like you around in 1776, we’d still be part of the UK!
Yeah? Well I don’t care anymore.
That’s pretty much our feelings about you. Now go do something else more worthwhile of your time.
The polls are rigged just like the debate moderators and media coverage.
They poll more Democrats than Republicans to be sure, usually by a 5-8% margin.
Don’t be fooled or dissuaded.
In the end we all get only one vote: make it for Trump.
And that would be because there ARE more Democrats than Republicans.
I’m going to go vote for Trump (the only person in politics today who is more disgusting than he is, is Hitlary Klinton), but that doesn’t mean I think he will actually win this.
Vote for Trump, regardless. A really close result denies Clinton any sort of “mandate”, especially if she wins only a plurality.
Well buckle up, fellas. Once Hillary takes the White House it’ll be sayonara to your gun rights.
And if any of you actually think Trump stands a chance in hell of winning at this point, you’re delusional. Oh, and kiss the GOP Senate goodbye too. They’ll PROBABLY hold the House for the next 2 years, but I wouldn’t expect it to last much longer than that.
Yup. It’s over.
The polls are rigged just like the debate moderators and media coverage.
They poll more Democrats than Republicans to be sure, usually by a 5-8% margin.
Don’t be fooled or dissuaded.
In the end we all get only one vote: make it for Trump.
If you’re going to post the same fallacious crap over and over again, I’ll post the same response over and over again.
And that would be because there ARE more Democrats than Republicans.
I’m going to go vote for Trump (the only person in politics today who is more disgusting than he is, is Hitlary Klinton), but that doesn’t mean I think he will actually win this.
There is absolutely NO reason to replace Scalia.
There’s no reason there HAS to be nine justices.
Given the recent gridlock in Washington, and the willingness for feuding entities to “up” their game, what are the odds another judge gets added?
One sitting justice will die, sooner or later, and at this dismal point in our history that’s more likely to be the game changer than this election’s result.
I’m cool with that. There is no *requirement* to confirm a justice.
If the dems get control of the upper house Nov 8, then we have a problem…
Which is why it’s so irresponsible for Trump to go to war with down ballot candidates.
If he wants to make an argument about the Supreme Court, as part of a case for his candidacy fine. But keeping the Senate is critical for that and it’s even more important if he loses. If the Supreme Court were something he honestly cared about, then he’d make keeping the Senate a non-negotiable priority for his supporters. But he doesn’t care. He only cares about who’s stroking his ego and who’s showing their loyalty. So he may end up handing over all three branches of government to the Democrats. Brilliant.
Would those be the same candidates that stabbed him in the back at the first opportunity? If they can’t support the party nominee, why should we trust them to support us?
We need to absolutely destroy the system by which “they” have decided that Trump has no chance, then that he must be ignored, then that he should resign for Jeb Bush to take over as originally intended, this is BULLSHIT! Absolutely nobody but Trump would even attempt to disassemble the corrupt and ridiculous Republican Party which pays absolutely no attention to the wishes of anyone besides their own designated elites. We are being controlled by people who consider us defectives with no value.
Sounds to me like he just declared himself prejudiced regarding any and all firearms cases that come before the SC. That means said cases cannot and will not have a fair hearing if he sits for them. So, if he has any integrity he should recuse himself when and if the Court hears another firearms case.
Of course he won’t, and there’s no higher court that could compel him to do so.
Sigh.
Well the same GOPe douchecanoes who told us McCain and Romney had it bagged, are the same ones telling us Trump is toast. I expect the jackass party propaganda organs to say that, and discount them accordingly.
Vote. Drag your neighbors to the polls. If cankles wins I expect to hear nothing from any ‘NeverTrumpers’ about helping her over the line. Being a Dimocrat shill means never having to say you’re sorry.
Cankers has already won. There’s nothing really we can do anymore. It’s over. It’s all over. We’ve lost everything. 🙁
The polls are rigged just like the debate moderators and media coverage.
They poll more Democrats than Republicans to be sure, usually by a 5-8% margin.
Don’t be fooled or dissuaded.
In the end we all get only one vote: make it for Trump.
The fourth time you’ve posted this horseshit, and the fourth time I am replying as follows:
And that would be because there ARE more Democrats than Republicans.
I’m going to go vote for Trump (the only person in politics today who is more disgusting than he is, is Hitlary Klinton), but that doesn’t mean I think he will actually win this.
Whiney b*ch. Good thing your ancestors weren’t at valley forge or we’d all have British accents right now. You might as well sell all your guns to someone who understands freedom isn’t free. You have to fight for it now and then. You go ahead and give up. The rest of us are preparing to do the impossible, again.
Hell yahh!!
Better get used to it. Once Hillary Clinton becomes president and Heller gets overturned it will be open season for gun rights. Expect states like California and New York to go full United Kingdom. Expect a total and complete ban of all some automatic firearms rifles and handguns. Once Hillary Clinton becomes president and Heller gets overturned it will be open season for gun rights. Expect states like California and New York to go full United Kingdom. Expect a total and complete ban of all semi automatic rifles. When I’m in complete ban I mean 100% everyone must turn them in no grandfathering. And since this is Clintons cour turn the men no grandfathering. Oh and you will not be compensated. And since this is Clinton’s court the seizing of private property in that fashion will be ruled as constitutional. In fact I expect self-defense to become illegal.
This is reality. We will become in terms of gun rights like Mexico by 2020. Actually Mexico right now will have better gun rights than us. Guns will be blanket illegal to buy, sell or own. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Gun rights are dead. It’s just a lot of people haven’t realized it yet. Second Amendment 1791-2017. It’s been a good run.
Before all that happens, a whole bunch of people will discover that there are places from which some caps can be busted, making such a “sure thing” not so sure. Most likely *millions* of people.
Sigh.
If only medical science would look into the way donning black robes causes dis-intellectualism, wherein a seemingly functional brain suddenly becomes incapable of conscious, rational thought and the ability to read ordinary language.
Words have meaning, they tell us.
Unless it’s a judge looking at words.
Justice Breyer is telegraphing the anti gun left to dust off all their previous failed gun ban legislation and lawsuits to be reintroduced and reargued once a HRC Presidency cements at least a 5-4 and likely a 7-2 radical liberal majority on the Court.
If HRC is elected the radical liberal agenda to reinterpret and dismantle the 2nd amendment will be swift and final since a radical liberal majority of Supreme Court Justices established by HRC will remain in power for decades after she leaves office.
“The only thing to fear is fear itself “-FDR
“Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country ” – JFK
“Grab them by the pussy” – Donald J. Trump
Haha! That is fantastic!
You might as well toss in, on the upside:
“Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” — Ronald Reagan
And on the downside:
“I did not have sex with that woman.” — Bill Klinton.
Disband state militias? They weren’t “banded” in the first place, except when actually mustered. Historically, the Militia were exactly what Bryer derides – individuals keeping guns next to their beds.
Breyer’s (why do I keep thinking of ice cream?) reasoning is more subtle than you credit. The “midnight ride of Paul Revere” was about a British detail moving on the weapons cache of the local militia. That is, guns (rifles included) stored away from homes, accessible only to the militia, locked-up in a facility that was likely unguarded (speculation here). Breyer is arguing that a militia (all of the able bodied members of the community) made up of “the people” (individuals) had and have a right to keep and bear arms for the general defense provided by the/a militia. Since “the people” make up the militia, individuals may only have guns as part of “we the militia”. He might even concede individuals have a right to keep guns in/at home for use in/with the militia (and by extension defense of the home). He is correct to assume the founders were smart enough to include wording about individual possession of guns anywhere, for any reason. But they didn’t.
Yeah, Sam, but his opinion has a home in the Supreme Court, and yours does not.
Vote Trump.
Not sure I follow you, here. I put forward a speculation about what Breyer’s reasoning might be, and how it is consistent with a look at the history of how the militia operated in some places, back in the day. No attempt to agree or disagree with Breyer.
When are we going to get over this nonsense idea that pseudo-religious political rituals (e.g. elections, appointments, inaugurations, etc.) can magically bestow upon some people the moral authority to rob, kidnap, cage, and kill people, and to dictate what they may or may not own? Why do we insist on complying with unjust law? If we decided not to comply, there’s really nothing they could do about it. We outnumber them a million to one.
There’s nothing like a bleeding example, or dozens, to focus the mind.
If the individual right to bear arms were denied, I almost feel sorry for the people who would have to enforce the confiscation laws… in the same way that I feel “sorry” for what happened to the people who enforced Hitler’s laws.
I thought Judges, even SC judges were supposed to be impartial, is that in the fine print on the back of page 35 of the job app…
It pains me to say this, but HRC is going to win. I hate the thought, but we all know it’s the truth. We just need to pray for a Republican controlled House and/or Senate and ride out the next 4 years. Trump wasn’t the best candidate for the Republicans to put up, but the people voted and he won the nomination. Meh.
From my cold dead hands!
Seeing as Trump is going to lose in a landslide at this rate, our best hope is to secure Congress.
This might be delusional hope on my part but court cases take a long time, usually, to mature. After Scalia, the next seats to open will likely be Ginsburg and Breyer, so Clinton would not shift the power there anymore. But, I think, Clinton will surely be a one term president. Whoever wins, whether Trump or Clinton, would likely be a one term president. And more seats will open in 2020-2029
And those years are more pivotal, then, then 2016-2020.
And if by some ungodly miracle the orange clown wins, if the Dems get the Senate it won’t matter for gun rights.
Still, regardless of every unreliable predictions, I am voting for: none of the above. They are both vile and we will not win any of the major battles for America’s soul by electing either. So I wash my hands. Those who promoted Trump in the primary, they won the battle against the forces of good, or at least the forces of not so terrible mediocrity. We lost when Trump got the primary
Maybe something good can come from this election. I would love to see an Amendment which forces a ballot entry every time for “none of the above”. Like, enforceable, all current candidates are ineligible to run in the revote 3 weeks from now, forget 5-year campaigns. SOMETHING!!
Works in parliamentary systems. Elections can be had in weeks vs. years. Maybe the Brits had it right all those years ago.
Parliamentary systems got a fellow by the initials of AH elected back in the 1930s, just sayin’.
And Winston Churchill.
Our magnificent system will give us HRC or DJT.
Just saying.
You remind me of the British in late 1939 and early 1940 not willing to do what had to be done.
Arrogant and dangerous.
You have already lost your rights under the Second Amendment as it has already been totally trashed by a corrupt disingenuous Court system this summer.
1. The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandy Hook bans were constitutional and the States could ban any and all firearms at will
2. The Massachusetts Attorney General then took full advantage of this and re-interpreted a 10 year old weapons law and with a dictators wave of the hand banned all modern weapons in Massachusetts. Read that any semi-auto weapon.
3. The Lower Courts in California brazenly said that no one has a right to concealed carry (except the ruling elite and their jack booted thug henchmen). The Court said that weapons used for protection apply only to them (the ruling elite). When asked about open carry they laughed and said they would not rule on the bans on open carry effectively trashing the right to self defense. Stalinism at its absolute worst.
4. The Supreme Court this week ruled your Constitutional Rights (which really never existed) can be taken away for just a misdemeanor and that any domestic incident is an excuse to take a way your right to own a weapon for life. One Supreme Court Justice warned the ruling can pertain to any misdemeanor which could result in the taking away of any Constitutional right not just guns. Shades of Uncle Joe Stalin 21st century style.
5. The Peoples Republic of California has an upcoming vote on severely restricting ammo possession and making it very expensive to buy. The power to tax is the power to destroy and the Stalinist State of California knows this only too well.
In short the Second Amendment is now history Hitlery Clinton or not. Of course there will soon be ammo bans as well as one and one Connecticut Stalinist said that the right to ammo should be restricted to one bullet (round) per lifetime so as not to violate your rights. He said that with a straight face and then broke out laughing but he was 100 per cent serious.
I forgot to mention California has also banned semi-auto rifles and will phase the confiscation in over a 2 year period of time.
Comments are closed.