The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure

[meketrefe]

Meanwhile in mexico towns are arming themselves to protect against the gang and cartel violence that is out of control and since the government and police fail to protect them.
The same people who disarmed them in the first place cannot defend them.

 

[masterswimmer]

Meanwhile in mexico towns are arming themselves to protect against the gang and cartel violence that is out of control and since the government and police fail to protect them.
The same people who disarmed them in the first place cannot defend them.

Say it ain't so!

 

[Acer-m14]

Take (part) 2 .. video .. Bill Whittle's side of it ..

Worst Decision of Judge's Life: Gun Rights for Individual Americans .. Take 2

 

[BDinPutnam]

Kelo is the worst SCOTUS decision of my lifetime.

Hands down.

 

[meketrefe]

Forget about the constitution.

Is there anyone who does not believe in natural, unalienable rights? I would say self defense is a natural right like several we call civil rights, don't you think?

Maybe one way to find out is if you pressure me and harass me in such way that I have to defend myself.

If one doesn't feel good about a dog biting someone who is beating or abusing a dog then lets say something is wrong with that person.

Don't we have the same "rights" than a dog and other sentient beings?

Even the Dalai Lama agrees with the right to self defense. Many stupid liberals who adore him do not even know. Their heads will explode I guess.

 

[meketrefe]

But lets not forget about women's rights....



but lets disarm them.

and yeah, Islam is a religion of peace.







FUCKING IDIOTS.

 

[kev74]

But lets not forget about women's rights....

View attachment 46181

but lets disarm them.

and yeah, Islam is a religion of peace.







FUCKING IDIOTS.

Tough love?

Was she getting jealous of the attention the goat was getting?

At least it wasn't a face full of acid.

That poor guy had to beat 3 of his wives this morning. He must be tired!

Enjoy the rest of the ramadan bomb-a-thon!

 

[spat]

Really!!

The people who wrote the 2nd Ammendment had just finished a war that started when the British tried to enforce a gun control scheme by confiscating *cannons* from civilians in Concord.

These were the heaviest class of weapons available to any military at the time, and they had no purpose whatsoever besides waging war.

That is what the founders were trying to protect with the 2nd amendment.

 

[libertysnake]

We traded one king for nine. Simple as that.

The supreme court was always a mistake.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Back in the Revolutionary War here in White Plains, New York, they used these grenades for sporting purposes. You know for Appleseed shoots and the like.

Here's another from the Revolutionary War, lot 260

 

[nortatoga]

The people who wrote the 2nd Ammendment had just finished a war that started when the British tried to enforce a gun control scheme by confiscating *cannons* from civilians in Concord.

These were the heaviest class of weapons available to any military at the time, and they had no purpose whatsoever besides waging war.

That is what the founders were trying to protect with the 2nd amendment.

@spat that is correct. they were buried in the freshly plowed fields at Col. Barrett's farm. And as far as I know muzzle loading cannons are still legal.

To many read FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. and think it says things that it doesn't say and rule's on thing it does rule on.

3.The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition--in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute--would fail constitutional muster.

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.

This is the Ruling of the case Period!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

@spat that is correct. they were buried in the freshly plowed fields at Col. Barrett's farm. And as far as I know muzzle loading cannons are still legal.

To many read FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. and think it says things that it doesn't say and rule's on thing it does rule on.

3.The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition--in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute--would fail constitutional muster.

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.

This is the Ruling of the case Period!!

So basically, what you are saying is that tyranny and violation of rights is kosher because some court ruled it as such.

Let me ask you this. If tomorrow some guy named Heller got arrested for carrying a Ruger 10/22 with a thumbhole stock and it went all the way up to the Supreme Court and it was ruled that it wasn't a Second Amendment violation, would you be quoting the ruling and imply that the Founders intended it?

Because that is the exact thing that you are doing when you quote Supreme Court cases.

 

[nortatoga]

So basically, what you are saying is that tyranny and violation of rights is kosher because some court ruled it as such.

Let me ask you this. If tomorrow some guy named Heller got arrested for carrying a Ruger 10/22 with a thumbhole stock and it went all the way up to the Supreme Court and it was ruled that it wasn't a Second Amendment violation, would you be quoting the ruling and imply that the Founders intended it?

Because that is the exact thing that you are doing when you quote Supreme Court cases.

I really suggest that you go and talk with a lawyer! Because you have no idea what you are reading!