Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regardless of ideology or belief, gun control should be dead because of the 2nd Amendment that has never been repealed, overwritten or superseded. The rights of the people to keep and bears shall not be infringed.
It is ideology and belief that injects "what they meant was" into something so straightforward, explicit and plain as the 2A, especially given the 9th and 10th Amendments guiding anyone on how to read the US Constitution and whose rights we default to.
But as Frank DeForest points out, a conservative Chief Justice twisted himself into a legalese pretzel to make the forcing of American citizens to purchase some other American's private property at gunpoint something that is constitutional.
Also from alleged conservatives on the court:
Kelo v New London reinventing the 5th Amendment because the State benefits if you do.
U of M law school case where institutional racial discrimination that violates spirit and letter of the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act is upheld because "government has a compelling interest" in violating every civil rights law in existence.
So just because Trump can pack the court with more "conservatives" doesn't necessarily mean they won't succumb to bench legislation tyranny. Power is corrupting, and absolute power is absolutely corrupting.
Pressure for what? Most people are happy with current laws (and many think they are too loose), so there isn't a whole lot pressure to loosen them further.
I am ok with FL laws, and would be ok with national right to carry if people were required to get a national carry licence (background check, mental evaluation, drug screen, basic firearm safety & handling course).
I am in agreement on all but this........ but I think that the background check should include mental illness. But that brings up a plethora of problems / arguments of it's own.
You just summed up our entire government, and 75% of the voters in 7 words, well done!
Yep. Supremes are nothing more than your typical politician who happens to wear a robe so as to convey some sense of respectability
The entire premise of this thread is laughable considering how often conservatives have voted to expand govt. rule in our lives.
Oh and lets not forget GOP bossman Trump has called for more gun control measures.
The emperor has no clothes.
With this appointment to the court any far reaching gun control and or bans are effectively gone for the foreseeable future, perhaps a generation. In fact we may finally see national right to carry.
I presume you are talking about the Supreme Court. The nominee must be vetted by the American Bar Association to make sure they are competent and then the FBI to make sure they are squeaky clean. That means, trump cannot push through the same incompetent, unethical, immoral, yahoos he brings into his cabinet. Also, since this is a lifetime appointment we cannot assume anything. Historically, nominations from the conservatives do not always work out the way we think it will. For example, Justice Kennedy was nominated by Reagan. He is now the swing vote. These are smart people. Their thinking evolves over time as they are introduced to different positions.
Bottom line, a particular nomination and confirmation is no guarantee of a specific outcome on different and contentious legal/social issues. To some extent, we have to trust our system. And to make sure it justifies our faith--we have to vote in much larger numbers.
I see the appointment of a Conservative judge as a comfort that the Constitution will remain intact. People have the Right to own a gun and to use that gun in a lawful manner.
We are so lucky that Hillary did not win the election. Could you imagine the liberal progressive picks she would have made to fill possibly up to 4 spots on the Supreme court ! America would have never been the same.
The Supreme court will uphold our Second Amendment Rights but the states can still put certain restrictions on those rights. In my state of Mass. you need to be licensed and be 18 to own a rifle or shotgun, 21 for a handgun and the so called "assault weapons" are banned from being bought or sold. You can at least still own one for now if you already had it.
We are lucky that Trump is our President and I am sure that he will make a terrific choice for a nominee just like he did with Gorsuch.
Now if we can only convince Ginsberg to hang it up.
I presume you are talking about the Supreme Court. The nominee must be vetted by the American Bar Association to make sure they are competent and then the FBI to make sure they are squeaky clean. That means, trump cannot push through the same incompetent, unethical, immoral, yahoos he brings into his cabinet. Also, since this is a lifetime appointment we cannot assume anything. Historically, nominations from the conservatives do not always work out the way we think it will. For example, Justice Kennedy was nominated by Reagan. He is now the swing vote. These are smart people. Their thinking evolves over time as they are introduced to different positions.
Bottom line, a particular nomination and confirmation is no guarantee of a specific outcome on different and contentious legal/social issues. To some extent, we have to trust our system. And to make sure it justifies our faith--we have to vote in much larger numbers.
This is all true ........... but he can nominate a staunch originalist with a record of protecting the 2nd. All presidents nominate the judges that see things the way they do. I myself believe Kennedy was a great judge and a conservative. S.C. judges should rule on constitutionality.....period.
This is all true ........... but he can nominate a staunch originalist with a record of protecting the 2nd. All presidents nominate the judges that see things the way they do. I myself believe Kennedy was a great judge and a conservative. S.C. judges should rule on constitutionality.....period.
I don't know what having a record of protecting the 2nd means but you have to understand that people evolve. I wouldn't be opening that champagne yet!
I'm worried about other potential rulings that a conservative will vote but I know that our system works. It has for over 200 years.
I don't know what having a record of protecting the 2nd means but you have to understand that people evolve. I wouldn't be opening that champagne yet!
I'm worried about other potential rulings that a conservative will vote but I know that our system works. It has for over 200 years.
Why would you be worried about everyone having their Constitutional Rights restored? Are you happy living in what has evolved over the past 40-50 years into a semi-fascist country, bombarded by laws that violate Constitutional Rights?
I am in agreement on all but this........ but I think that the background check should include mental illness. But that brings up a plethora of problems / arguments of it's own.
Why would you be worried about everyone having their Constitutional Rights restored? Are you happy living in what has evolved over the past 40-50 years into a semi-fascist country, bombarded by laws that violate Constitutional Rights?
I don't understand what you are talking about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
