Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
What "bizarre interpretation" would that be?
That the discussion of the protection sphere of the 2nd Amendment is no longer a question of whether the Second Amendment protects a collective right or an individual right; that it surely protects a right that is separately possessed and can be enforced by individuals?
Even Heller admits that there is still a need to restrict certain kinds of weapons and restrict certain people from having them.
Which is why Joker Holmes couldn't go out and buy a howitzer...
In fact, the logic twisting Scalia had to go through to keep really heavy weapons from being an "individual right" was kind of amusing if not sad to watch.
Gee Joe, that 5th grade educaiton hampering you again?
Heller does not state there is a need to restrict weapons. Heller states that certain restrictions are within constitutional grounds.
Scalia went through no twisting whatsoever. He demonstrated what the original intent was: that "arms" referred to personal weapons a single individual would carry. As opposed to crew served weapons.
As usual you didnt read the opinion so have no first hand knowledge of it. What you did read you misunderstood because, let's face it Joe, you're stupid.
So was Obamacare and DOMA, as well as Prop 8. Yet you hail these "opinions" as resounding edicts from the Supreme Court.
Just as Scalia can't live forever, I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have an even harder time doing so.
Sucks for you, Joe.
What makes you believe the 45th President, Hillary Clinton will replace Bader Ginsburg with a conservative?
What makes you think Hillary Clinton will become the 45th President of The United States? You idiot. Replace that hole in your head with a brain.
Even Heller admits that there is still a need to restrict certain kinds of weapons and restrict certain people from having them.
Which is why Joker Holmes couldn't go out and buy a howitzer...
In fact, the logic twisting Scalia had to go through to keep really heavy weapons from being an "individual right" was kind of amusing if not sad to watch.
Gee Joe, that 5th grade educaiton hampering you again?
Heller does not state there is a need to restrict weapons. Heller states that certain restrictions are within constitutional grounds.
Scalia went through no twisting whatsoever. He demonstrated what the original intent was: that "arms" referred to personal weapons a single individual would carry. As opposed to crew served weapons.
As usual you didnt read the opinion so have no first hand knowledge of it. What you did read you misunderstood because, let's face it Joe, you're stupid.
Guy, you can dance around it all day... but the fact of the matter is, if being armed is an "individual right", then there is no good reason why we should keep Joker Holmes from owning a nuke.
Except that he's batshit crazy and would kill a lot of people with it.
And if you use that standard, you could probably keep most people from owning guns if they aren't trained soldiers or police.
[
I've already explained why nukes aren't covered by the 2A. Yt another thing you're either too stupid to understand or are intentionally lying.
Remind me why Holmes should not have been able to buy the gun he did.
"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus
Many gun rights extremists were opposed to bringing a Second Amendment case to the High Court for fear of what indeed happened: codification of reasonable restrictions on firearms.
In fact, it can be argued Heller was just as much a win for gun control advocates, in that virtually all regulatory measures are now considered Constitutional save that of an outright ban.
Gun rights extremists fantasized about onerous gun control measures in states such as California, New York, and New Jersey being invalidated as lawsuits steamrolled across the Nation.
None of that has come to pass, and likely never will, as post-Heller/McDonald case law becomes accepted and settled.
What makes you believe the 45th President, Hillary Clinton will replace Bader Ginsburg with a conservative?
What makes you think Hillary Clinton will become the 45th President of The United States? You idiot. Replace that hole in your head with a brain.
I don't see anyone who the Republicans have right now who could beat her.
Many gun rights extremists were opposed to bringing a Second Amendment case to the High Court for fear of what indeed happened: codification of reasonable restrictions on firearms.
That's some funny crap there. The issues of Heller (Parker) were not believed to be the definitive 2ndA case for the Court. DC statutes discussed the ownership of arms "within the home" and some warned that that would be the focus of the holding especially when the Court in granting Cert, composed the question it wanted argued by the parties.
Do you really believe that there were factions that hold/held any sway within the gun rights movement that believed that any case could be brought that did not stipulate to the "reasonable restrictions" like felon dispossession and sensitive place and manner restrictions or expected that such restrictions wouldn't survive an initial review (after such a long hiatus from examining the RKBA/2ndA)?
Really, stop being such a disingenuous partisan hack . . .
In fact, it can be argued Heller was just as much a win for gun control advocates, in that virtually all regulatory measures are now considered Constitutional save that of an outright ban.
That is a fantasy that exists only within your head.
It has no legitimacy outside, in the light of day.
Gun rights extremists fantasized about onerous gun control measures in states such as California, New York, and New Jersey being invalidated as lawsuits steamrolled across the Nation.
All in good time. There was a reason Nordyke was finally settled out of court, that allowed the 9th to let Hickman stand and support nearly all the gun control schemes of California.
As a three judge panel said in Nordyke:
". . . we must first decide whether Heller abrogated Hickman. It did. Hickman rested on our conclusion that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right; Heller squarely overruled such conclusion. . . . Thus the basis for Hickmans holding has evaporated, and the opinion is clearly irreconcilable with Heller. In such circumstances, we consider our prior decision abrogated by higher authority."
Nordyke v King, (April 20, 2009) (194KB pdf)
That decision was set aside for en banc hearing to be held after McDonald v Chicago.
The truth is, that is the holding that awaits California and NJ.
The 'state's right" reasoning for Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968) is now invalid so the support for NJ's draconian ID card and purchase permitting has evaporated.
The suits will come, have no doubt and NJ's and CA's and many, many, many other illegitimate and unconstitutional gun laws will fall.
None of that has come to pass, and likely never will, as post-Heller/McDonald case law becomes accepted and settled.
The surface has barely been scratched.
In fact, Heller brought all gun laws into doubt.
Lower federal courts are now in the process of reassessing the constitutionality of all gun laws that come before them because of Heller, even the supposedly unassailable "long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons":
"As the Government concedes, Hellers statement regarding the presumptive validity of felon gun dispossession statutes does not foreclose Bartons as-applied challenge. By describing the felon disarmament ban as presumptively lawful, the Supreme Court implied that the presumption may be rebutted."
U.S. v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011) (internal citation removed)
Of course felon disablement of gun rights were/are sustained because they are founded on legitimate exercises of government authority which have been upheld many times using a wide range of legal reasoning under constitutional law.
Now, on the other hand, gun control laws that were upheld by citing Tot or Cases (and their illegitimate progeny) and reasoned upon the theories that the 2nd Amendment does not secure an individual right but only guarantees the right of states to organize its own militias, WILL BE STRUCK DOWN.
Heller ripped the support out from under thousands of federal, state and local gun control laws by invalidating the legal reasoning of the court decisions that have been used to sustain them.
To state otherwise is either profound ignorance or forced delusion used to nurture an anti-constitutional agenda.
Did you miss this or are you just ignoring it?
[
I've already explained why nukes aren't covered by the 2A. Yt another thing you're either too stupid to understand or are intentionally lying.
Remind me why Holmes should not have been able to buy the gun he did.
You've "explained" it, but you really havne't.
In fact, as long as the government has nukes, individuals should be allowed to have nukes. I mean, if you tards claim the reason why we need guns to overthrow the government, dammit, individuals should have the same grade of weapons as the government.
And as long as you guys don't make any distinction of who is qualified, then, dammit, Joker Holmes should have a nuke!!!!
What makes you think Hillary Clinton will become the 45th President of The United States? You idiot. Replace that hole in your head with a brain.
I don't see anyone who the Republicans have right now who could beat her.
I think she beat herself, Joe. The competition need not be that effective.
[
I've already explained why nukes aren't covered by the 2A. Yt another thing you're either too stupid to understand or are intentionally lying.
Remind me why Holmes should not have been able to buy the gun he did.
You've "explained" it, but you really havne't.
In fact, as long as the government has nukes, individuals should be allowed to have nukes. I mean, if you tards claim the reason why we need guns to overthrow the government, dammit, individuals should have the same grade of weapons as the government.
And as long as you guys don't make any distinction of who is qualified, then, dammit, Joker Holmes should have a nuke!!!!
I am sorry you are too stupid to understand the reasoning Scalia gives in Heller. If you haven't understood it by now then you never will.
Sorry.
You're dismissed, Joe. You are incapable of playing at this level. And it's a pretty low level.
I don't see anyone who the Republicans have right now who could beat her.
I think she beat herself, Joe. The competition need not be that effective.
Again, not really.
She lost in 2008 because she supported the Iraq War when the majority of her party was against it.
I think the Dems are well over that now.
The problem with your theory is that "I hate that guy so much, I'll vote for anyone" is pretty much what got you guys Romney. No one voted "for" Romney as much as they voted "against" Obama.
And that is never enough.
You've "explained" it, but you really havne't.
In fact, as long as the government has nukes, individuals should be allowed to have nukes. I mean, if you tards claim the reason why we need guns to overthrow the government, dammit, individuals should have the same grade of weapons as the government.
And as long as you guys don't make any distinction of who is qualified, then, dammit, Joker Holmes should have a nuke!!!!
I am sorry you are too stupid to understand the reasoning Scalia gives in Heller. If you haven't understood it by now then you never will.
Sorry.
You're dismissed, Joe. You are incapable of playing at this level. And it's a pretty low level.
Scalia is a massive, hateful retard, and frankly, that's all the understanding you need.
HIs reasoning is that weapon ownership is an individual right, but not a weapon that would acheive the reason that you nutters give...
[
But now after her stellar performance with Benghazi everyone is ready to jump on the bandwagon of a callous and cynical woman.
At this point, Joe, what difference does it make?
[
But now after her stellar performance with Benghazi everyone is ready to jump on the bandwagon of a callous and cynical woman.
At this point, Joe, what difference does it make?
No one gives a fuck about Benghazi.
Except people who'd never vote for a Democrat to start with.
Again, you guys have to start living in the world the rest of us live in because that's where elections are won or lost.
[
But now after her stellar performance with Benghazi everyone is ready to jump on the bandwagon of a callous and cynical woman.
At this point, Joe, what difference does it make?
No one gives a fuck about Benghazi.
Except people who'd never vote for a Democrat to start with.
Again, you guys have to start living in the world the rest of us live in because that's where elections are won or lost.
The relatives of those killed probably give a fuck, Joe. Even if you don't, you heartless bastard.
So was Obamacare and DOMA, as well as Prop 8. Yet you hail these "opinions" as resounding edicts from the Supreme Court.
Just as Scalia can't live forever, I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have an even harder time doing so.
Sucks for you, Joe.
What makes you believe the 45th President, Hillary Clinton will replace Bader Ginsburg with a conservative?
What makes you think Hillary Clinton will become the 45th President of The United States? You idiot. Replace that hole in your head with a brain.
[
But now after her stellar performance with Benghazi everyone is ready to jump on the bandwagon of a callous and cynical woman.
At this point, Joe, what difference does it make?
No one gives a fuck about Benghazi.
Except people who'd never vote for a Democrat to start with.
Again, you guys have to start living in the world the rest of us live in because that's where elections are won or lost.
Given the idiot you Liberals voted into office now, I'd wager people like Joe Biden are higher on your list than Billary atm.
