Brandon is "disappointed". Too bad! Now someone offer to rub his leg hairs and I'm sure he'll feel better.
New Supreme Court Ruling
- Thread starter NoVertical
- Start date
2nd amendment was the biggest mistake the founding father's made. Ruining a perfectly good country.
haha... I'm not a gun fan but I'm pretty sure there's more wrong with this country than guns
Keith wasn't a half bad sportscaster.... his career went to the dumpster quickly after ESPN
I have read the decision.
No big deal.
The bigger deal is that so many criminals have guns despite the law.
No big deal.
The bigger deal is that so many criminals have guns despite the law.
Yeah the party that is worried about saving our democracy and our Constitution wants states to ignore a SCOTUS ruling 🤔
Who ignores the SCOTUS?
Andrew Jackson - while annihilating the Indians.
Little Rock Klan - opposing integrated schools.
Keith Olbermann - wiping his ass with the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.
Olbermann is wrong. States absolutely should not refuse to abide by a Court ruling. Please stop projecting your disrespect for democratic norms on other people.
What do they care they know the FBI and DOJ will not do a thing to them in they burn down cities again. They are all on the same team.
Your last sentence's use of "despite the law"brings up one of the weird parts of the Bruen decision in Alito's concurrence. Alito wrote:
Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.
P. 72 of this: DocumentCloud
www.documentcloud.org
What judge in his right mind would ever think that any statute ever truly "stops" prohibited behavior or that a statute that doesn't actually "stop" prohibited behavior is unworthy of keeping? Judges at all levels deal with people who refuse to obey statutes and court orders. They all know, including Alito, that the mere existence of a statute does not "stop" any prohibited behavior. Weird that he argued this.
Now, if the opposing attorneys or dissenters used "stop" in their arguments, then maybe Alito was justified in using "stop" himself, but his question at the beginning of my quoted passage above indicates that this wasn't what he was saying.
2nd globally to Brazil in gun deaths, but we've got Venezuela and Mexico by a mile.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Tells us all about it from your nazi fascist viewpoint.... or do you prefer white supremacist or dumb trumper?
So being against killing a fetus is equated to being a white supremacist? Please enlighten me
Is a'gonna post me sum dum shit so the other hillbillies will give me likes..
YEE HEE HEE HAW HAW HAW!
YEE HEE HEE HAW HAW HAW!
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Butting into other people's business is something you think is ok? Tell us more adolf
Feel better?Is a'gonna post me sum dum shit so the other hillbillies will give me likes..
YEE HEE HEE HAW HAW HAW!
One trick pony. 😂Is a'gonna post me sum dum shit so the other hillbillies will give me likes..
YEE HEE HEE HAW HAW HAW!
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Yup, just like novertical had dems correctly by calling dems Marxist. But you apparently missed his bull shit
Apparently only you triggered meYup, just like novertical had dems correctly by calling dems Marxist. But you apparently missed his bull shit
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
The biggest problem with the 2nd Amendment is that it’s horribly written. Depending on your interpretation of the commas and clauses it either says that well regulated militias shall not be infringed or the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We could use a little more clarity with that one in retrospect.
Oddly enough, carrying firearms was often banned in towns in the 1800s where they couldn’t be carried at all in town and had to be turned in to the town Marshall.
Oddly enough, carrying firearms was often banned in towns in the 1800s where they couldn’t be carried at all in town and had to be turned in to the town Marshall.
The best you have is to tell someone that disagrees with you on this issue is that they’re Adolf? There are millions of Jews who might and should be offended at the comparison. Not to mention the thousands of American lives lost fighting that evil…. Hyperbole is unbecoming of you
Don't you think that was by design since they could have made it clear what they meant? Obviously owning a gun as an individual is not the same as a well regulated militia so what are they really saying? Are they saying states can have a militia and the government can't pass laws to stop them?
That's true because you and I would probably have different opinions on exactly what it meant but maybe back when it was written it may seemed more clear.
Another one that I have trouble with is the Establishment Clause. To me it just says that the government can't pass laws to establish a religion but it's sure evolved to a lot more than that. For example, they just ruled that Maine couldn't withhold money from schools (paraphrasing) because they were religious based. In other words Maine can't discriminate base on religion. That got some people up in arms but that ruling, to me, has nothing to do with establishing a religion.
Yeah, the establishment clause is also a tricky one for sure.
I certainly get the idea that “establishment” isn’t binary and that it’s on a continuum. Like, making Catholicism the state religion would clearly be a violation, I would think that publicly funding the Catholic Church in part would still violate even if it wasn’t made the official state religion. How low on the continuum of state sanctioned/supported religious related stuff is violative? Who knows.
We will know the moment an Atheist group starts an Atheist school and demands state money. If they get it, it has nothing to do with establishment.
I assume(maybe wrongly because I didn't read the details) that the schools were teaching what was required by the state so if an atheist wants to start a school and teach what's required it would be fine by me.
Similar threads
