Frivolous litigants crucified by court-Rachel Maddow melts down

[JoeB131]

Meanwhile, even SCOTUS is realizing that they screwed the pooch on Heller.

Supreme Court won t overrule gun ownership restrictions

The Supreme Court refused to weigh in again Monday on one of its most controversial topics: the right to bear arms.

The justices declined to reconsider the rights of local governments to constrain that right -- upheld by the high court in two landmark decisions over the past decade -- by requiring that handguns be disabled or locked up when they are not being carried.

The high court left standing a San Francisco law imposing those restrictions, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

San Francisco imposed the limitation in 2007 under threat of a six-month jail term and $1,000 fine. The law was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled it did not violate the Supreme Court's prior cases allowing guns to be kept at home for self-defense.

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't think so. Most think YOU are the nutty fringe . . . because you are. I mean really, how stupid is it to want to revoke one of your own rights? Lol. Obviously you need a babysitter.

It's not a "right" I need, and the cost of it outweighs the value.

Fine. But when the feds entrap those people, who were not violent until attacked, the feds take responsibility. And murdering an unarmed mother holding her child, is never acceptable. If it was as right as you say, someone would have been prosecuted. Not only was no one prosecuted, the feds paid damages.

Meaningless... Point was, she was a Nazi and the world is better off she's taking a dirt nap.

Dude, you are grasping at straws now. I am not a nutty fringe of anything to do with guns. I target shoot and hunt. Yes, we have guns for self defense, but they are revolvers or a semi-auto that was designed over 100 years ago (with a magazine capacity of 8 rounds).

What is it about the gun nut that he needs to talk about his guns like they are his children?

Yes...and every day they have citizens who are required to quietly submit to violent criminals.....and in the future...when their governments turn on them again...they will quietly march into the train cars again....because they will have no other choice...

They have a lower crime rate than we do. For instance, it's safe for a Japanese woman to go out at night. An American woman, not so much.

You know...we have seen what happens to people who have no guns in the face of government murder....we would like to try it the other way in the future.....

NO, you really haven't seen it. What you've seen is the end part of civil wars where everyone had too many guns, and they were looking for payback on their neighbors.

That right is enjoyed by 100 million people. The fact that fewer than 0.001% kill someone does not outweigh it.

The fact that she was not charged or tried before being executed means she was murdered. That you celebrate that contributes to the overall violence of our culture.

What is it about you that make you lie? There is nothing in the comment I made that even vaguely resembled talking about my guns like they are my children.

Plenty of American women go out at night. And if women going out at night is what you worry about, why are you wanting to disarm them? The average man can completely overpower the average woman.

More drivel (and a lie) from the resident anti-gun loon.

 

[WinterBorn]

Meanwhile, even SCOTUS is realizing that they screwed the pooch on Heller.

Supreme Court won t overrule gun ownership restrictions

The Supreme Court refused to weigh in again Monday on one of its most controversial topics: the right to bear arms.

The justices declined to reconsider the rights of local governments to constrain that right -- upheld by the high court in two landmark decisions over the past decade -- by requiring that handguns be disabled or locked up when they are not being carried.

The high court left standing a San Francisco law imposing those restrictions, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

San Francisco imposed the limitation in 2007 under threat of a six-month jail term and $1,000 fine. The law was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled it did not violate the Supreme Court's prior cases allowing guns to be kept at home for self-defense.

Requiring that guns be locked up when not being carried is a far cry from telling people they cannot own guns.

The San Francisco law did not violate any prior rulings by the SCOTUS. No biggie.

 

[JoeB131]

That right is enjoyed by 100 million people. The fact that fewer than 0.001% kill someone does not outweigh it.

The fact that she was not charged or tried before being executed means she was murdered. That you celebrate that contributes to the overall violence of our culture.

the sniper who shot her wasn't charged, either, so no.

And I wasn't the one stockpiling weapons for the coming race war that never seems to get here. That was the Inbred Weaver family.

Requiring that guns be locked up when not being carried is a far cry from telling people they cannot own guns.

The San Francisco law did not violate any prior rulings by the SCOTUS. No biggie.

Your boys are the NRA didn't think so.

 

[WinterBorn]

That right is enjoyed by 100 million people. The fact that fewer than 0.001% kill someone does not outweigh it.

The fact that she was not charged or tried before being executed means she was murdered. That you celebrate that contributes to the overall violence of our culture.

the sniper who shot her wasn't charged, either, so no.

And I wasn't the one stockpiling weapons for the coming race war that never seems to get here. That was the Inbred Weaver family.

Requiring that guns be locked up when not being carried is a far cry from telling people they cannot own guns.

The San Francisco law did not violate any prior rulings by the SCOTUS. No biggie.

Your boys are the NRA didn't think so.

The NRA fights what they perceive as restrictions that should not be there.

Heller was about not allowing citizens to own guns at all, and about the claim that the 2nd amendment did not apply to DC. Very different.

 

[2aguy]

I don't think so. Most think YOU are the nutty fringe . . . because you are. I mean really, how stupid is it to want to revoke one of your own rights? Lol. Obviously you need a babysitter.

It's not a "right" I need, and the cost of it outweighs the value.

Fine. But when the feds entrap those people, who were not violent until attacked, the feds take responsibility. And murdering an unarmed mother holding her child, is never acceptable. If it was as right as you say, someone would have been prosecuted. Not only was no one prosecuted, the feds paid damages.

Meaningless... Point was, she was a Nazi and the world is better off she's taking a dirt nap.

Dude, you are grasping at straws now. I am not a nutty fringe of anything to do with guns. I target shoot and hunt. Yes, we have guns for self defense, but they are revolvers or a semi-auto that was designed over 100 years ago (with a magazine capacity of 8 rounds).

What is it about the gun nut that he needs to talk about his guns like they are his children?

Yes...and every day they have citizens who are required to quietly submit to violent criminals.....and in the future...when their governments turn on them again...they will quietly march into the train cars again....because they will have no other choice...

They have a lower crime rate than we do. For instance, it's safe for a Japanese woman to go out at night. An American woman, not so much.

You know...we have seen what happens to people who have no guns in the face of government murder....we would like to try it the other way in the future.....

NO, you really haven't seen it. What you've seen is the end part of civil wars where everyone had too many guns, and they were looking for payback on their neighbors.

They have a lower crime rate than we do. For instance, it's safe for a Japanese woman to go out at night. An American woman, not so much.

And the Japanese can search at any time for any reason and they can also search your house without a warrant and have yearly inspections of homes...they can hold you for questioning without letting you see a lawyer and can use physical abuse to get confessions and judges don't care........they live in a police state...of course assholes like you want a police state...you hate people....which you can tell from your posts, and anything that controls people you are for......

 

[2aguy]

Meanwhile, even SCOTUS is realizing that they screwed the pooch on Heller.

Supreme Court won t overrule gun ownership restrictions

The Supreme Court refused to weigh in again Monday on one of its most controversial topics: the right to bear arms.

The justices declined to reconsider the rights of local governments to constrain that right -- upheld by the high court in two landmark decisions over the past decade -- by requiring that handguns be disabled or locked up when they are not being carried.

The high court left standing a San Francisco law imposing those restrictions, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

San Francisco imposed the limitation in 2007 under threat of a six-month jail term and $1,000 fine. The law was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled it did not violate the Supreme Court's prior cases allowing guns to be kept at home for self-defense.

Requiring that guns be locked up when not being carried is a far cry from telling people they cannot own guns.

The San Francisco law did not violate any prior rulings by the SCOTUS. No biggie.

But it still needs to be overturned....

 

[WinterBorn]

Meanwhile, even SCOTUS is realizing that they screwed the pooch on Heller.

Supreme Court won t overrule gun ownership restrictions

The Supreme Court refused to weigh in again Monday on one of its most controversial topics: the right to bear arms.

The justices declined to reconsider the rights of local governments to constrain that right -- upheld by the high court in two landmark decisions over the past decade -- by requiring that handguns be disabled or locked up when they are not being carried.

The high court left standing a San Francisco law imposing those restrictions, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

San Francisco imposed the limitation in 2007 under threat of a six-month jail term and $1,000 fine. The law was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled it did not violate the Supreme Court's prior cases allowing guns to be kept at home for self-defense.

Requiring that guns be locked up when not being carried is a far cry from telling people they cannot own guns.

The San Francisco law did not violate any prior rulings by the SCOTUS. No biggie.

But it still needs to be overturned....

Eh, I can see requiring safe storage if kids are in the home. Nothing I saw about these laws surprised me, considering where they were.

 

[JoeB131]

And the Japanese can search at any time for any reason and they can also search your house without a warrant and have yearly inspections of homes...they can hold you for questioning without letting you see a lawyer and can use physical abuse to get confessions and judges don't care........they live in a police state...of course assholes like you want a police state...you hate people....which you can tell from your posts, and anything that controls people you are for......

They have a vastly more civil society than we have. Not that it's perfect. there's nowhere near the sexual equality we enjoy.

But frankly, you can go out on the street at night and not have to worry about geting mugged.

"Wahhhhh, the mean man doesn't want me to be able to threaten people wiht a gun!"

 

[2aguy]

And the Japanese can search at any time for any reason and they can also search your house without a warrant and have yearly inspections of homes...they can hold you for questioning without letting you see a lawyer and can use physical abuse to get confessions and judges don't care........they live in a police state...of course assholes like you want a police state...you hate people....which you can tell from your posts, and anything that controls people you are for......

They have a vastly more civil society than we have. Not that it's perfect. there's nowhere near the sexual equality we enjoy.

But frankly, you can go out on the street at night and not have to worry about geting mugged.

"Wahhhhh, the mean man doesn't want me to be able to threaten people wiht a gun!"

so...thanks for the endorsement of the police state.......I don't remember...are you one of the morons bitching about stop and frisk......or how the police treat minorities? I mean...if letting our police have the powers of Japanese police makes us safer....why not?

 

[JoeB131]

so...thanks for the endorsement of the police state.......I don't remember...are you one of the morons bitching about stop and frisk......or how the police treat minorities? I mean...if letting our police have the powers of Japanese police makes us safer....why not?

Depends if they have "probable cause" or not. I'd have no problem with "Stop and Frisk' if you did it proportionately instead of 'Hey, that one looks black".

But to the point, the Tokyo Police only had to draw their weapons FIVE TIMES in the last year. Tokyo is as big as New York. They must be doing something right.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't think so. Most think YOU are the nutty fringe . . . because you are. I mean really, how stupid is it to want to revoke one of your own rights? Lol. Obviously you need a babysitter.

It's not a "right" I need, and the cost of it outweighs the value.

Fine. But when the feds entrap those people, who were not violent until attacked, the feds take responsibility. And murdering an unarmed mother holding her child, is never acceptable. If it was as right as you say, someone would have been prosecuted. Not only was no one prosecuted, the feds paid damages.

Meaningless... Point was, she was a Nazi and the world is better off she's taking a dirt nap.

Dude, you are grasping at straws now. I am not a nutty fringe of anything to do with guns. I target shoot and hunt. Yes, we have guns for self defense, but they are revolvers or a semi-auto that was designed over 100 years ago (with a magazine capacity of 8 rounds).

What is it about the gun nut that he needs to talk about his guns like they are his children?

Yes...and every day they have citizens who are required to quietly submit to violent criminals.....and in the future...when their governments turn on them again...they will quietly march into the train cars again....because they will have no other choice...

They have a lower crime rate than we do. For instance, it's safe for a Japanese woman to go out at night. An American woman, not so much.

You know...we have seen what happens to people who have no guns in the face of government murder....we would like to try it the other way in the future.....

NO, you really haven't seen it. What you've seen is the end part of civil wars where everyone had too many guns, and they were looking for payback on their neighbors.

Well you could change your mind after an incident or anything. Besides, it doesn't matter how you personally feel about it. This country is made up of all different people, and many of them do enjoy their right. Maybe you can't see it, but it's you who is the "nutty fringe" and it seems as if you would actually like a police state too.

 

[JoeB131]

Well you could change your mind after an incident or anything. Besides, it doesn't matter how you personally feel about it. This country is made up of all different people, and many of them do enjoy their right. Maybe you can't see it, but it's you who is the "nutty fringe" and it seems as if you would actually like a police state too.

I think there are more people who are tired of sharing their streets with heavily armed madmen than there are people who squeal about "Freedom" when stroking their guns.

Fact is, most Western Democracies limit who can have guns, and they are probably FREER than we are.

When you live in a country where the police have to arm themselves like soldiers, where apparently, you have cops who think that brutal physical force is necessary to subdue a nearly naked 14 year old girl, are we really living in a "free" society?

 

[ChrisL]

Well you could change your mind after an incident or anything. Besides, it doesn't matter how you personally feel about it. This country is made up of all different people, and many of them do enjoy their right. Maybe you can't see it, but it's you who is the "nutty fringe" and it seems as if you would actually like a police state too.

I think there are more people who are tired of sharing their streets with heavily armed madmen than there are people who squeal about "Freedom" when stroking their guns.

Fact is, most Western Democracies limit who can have guns, and they are probably FREER than we are.

When you live in a country where the police have to arm themselves like soldiers, where apparently, you have cops who think that brutal physical force is necessary to subdue a nearly naked 14 year old girl, are we really living in a "free" society?

The fact is that most legal gun owners are law-abiding citizens.

 

[2aguy]

so...thanks for the endorsement of the police state.......I don't remember...are you one of the morons bitching about stop and frisk......or how the police treat minorities? I mean...if letting our police have the powers of Japanese police makes us safer....why not?

Depends if they have "probable cause" or not. I'd have no problem with "Stop and Frisk' if you did it proportionately instead of 'Hey, that one looks black".

But to the point, the Tokyo Police only had to draw their weapons FIVE TIMES in the last year. Tokyo is as big as New York. They must be doing something right.

Again...they can search you and your home at will...whenever they want....and they can hold you for just about as long as they want and brutalize you to get you to confess...and if a judge finds out...he doesn't care..........moron....

 

[2aguy]

Meanwhile, even SCOTUS is realizing that they screwed the pooch on Heller.

Supreme Court won t overrule gun ownership restrictions

The Supreme Court refused to weigh in again Monday on one of its most controversial topics: the right to bear arms.

The justices declined to reconsider the rights of local governments to constrain that right -- upheld by the high court in two landmark decisions over the past decade -- by requiring that handguns be disabled or locked up when they are not being carried.

The high court left standing a San Francisco law imposing those restrictions, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

San Francisco imposed the limitation in 2007 under threat of a six-month jail term and $1,000 fine. The law was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled it did not violate the Supreme Court's prior cases allowing guns to be kept at home for self-defense.

And if it is good for guns...it is even better for all of our electronic devices...right?

The crimes that take place against children on the computer, even by other children are a growing threat......trying to find the numbers for death by cyber bullying and sexual stalking are not easily found...but...if less than 100 children a year can force gun grabbers to pass laws forcing gun owners to keep unattended guns locked up....then why not your computer..Right? it is about saving the lives of children...even if there are under 100 a year then all computers, laptops and tablets need to have a lockable cover over them when the owner is not using them....
and no...passwords are not enough...we need them locked securely...right....? so only a hard cover that denies any access to them will do......

so..if you do not lock up your computer, laptop or tablet...6 months jail time for each device left unsecured, and a 1000 dollar fine for each......just makes sense right...? It isn't interfering with your ability to use that device....? Right?

and then we don't ever have to worry about any cyber stalking or cyber bullying again.....no more need for that guy who surprises sexual predators...no more Slender Man murders....right?


Let's do some good and lock up those computers....after all....they are just objects that you use because you have small penises...right?

 

[2aguy]

Well you could change your mind after an incident or anything. Besides, it doesn't matter how you personally feel about it. This country is made up of all different people, and many of them do enjoy their right. Maybe you can't see it, but it's you who is the "nutty fringe" and it seems as if you would actually like a police state too.

I think there are more people who are tired of sharing their streets with heavily armed madmen than there are people who squeal about "Freedom" when stroking their guns.

Fact is, most Western Democracies limit who can have guns, and they are probably FREER than we are.

When you live in a country where the police have to arm themselves like soldiers, where apparently, you have cops who think that brutal physical force is necessary to subdue a nearly naked 14 year old girl, are we really living in a "free" society?

The fact is that most legal gun owners are law-abiding citizens.

And people who carry guns are more law abiding than the average citizen and more law abiding than police officers.........so joe is not only wrong he is an idiot.......

 

[turtledude]

I think there are more people who are tired of sharing their streets with heavily armed madmen than there are people who squeal about "Freedom" when stroking their guns.

Fact is, most Western Democracies limit who can have guns, and they are probably FREER than we are.

When you live in a country where the police have to arm themselves like soldiers, where apparently, you have cops who think that brutal physical force is necessary to subdue a nearly naked 14 year old girl, are we really living in a "free" society?

you ought to move to one of those "Freer" countries. Think of the laundry bills you will save from not constantly crapping in your panties over the fear of someone walking down the street next to you might be packing a Glock 17 or a Smith and Wesson 44

 

[turtledude]

Depends if they have "probable cause" or not. I'd have no problem with "Stop and Frisk' if you did it proportionately instead of 'Hey, that one looks black".

But to the point, the Tokyo Police only had to draw their weapons FIVE TIMES in the last year. Tokyo is as big as New York. They must be doing something right.

and for centuries, Japanese elite could kill commoners for owning a sword. Japan and "civil rights" are a joke

 

[westwall]

Depends if they have "probable cause" or not. I'd have no problem with "Stop and Frisk' if you did it proportionately instead of 'Hey, that one looks black".

But to the point, the Tokyo Police only had to draw their weapons FIVE TIMES in the last year. Tokyo is as big as New York. They must be doing something right.

and for centuries, Japanese elite could kill commoners for owning a sword. Japan and "civil rights" are a joke

The Yakuza are still known to murder people in front of the Japanese police.