If Hillary wins say GOOD-BYE to your firearms

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“If Hillary wins say GOOD-BYE to your firearms”

Pity we can’t say goodbye to these moronic lies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Remember folks, if Killary wins they will take as a MANDATE to Amend the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose.
They will do it by claiming that Americans NEVER had an individual right to bear arms.
WAKE UP AND VOTE.

You are aware what it takes to amend to the Constitution?

It takes 5 justices to overturn Heller.

Which isn’t going to happen.

‘[T]here are several reasons to believe that even a Supreme Court with a liberal majority will not overturn Heller.

The first reason is that Heller’s impact on America’s gun laws has been very small. The decision struck down bans on handguns in the home, but Scalia’s opinion also made clear that many forms of gun control remain constitutionally permissible. Indeed, even though Heller triggered a wave of lawsuits challenging nearly every type of gun law, very few laws have been overturned. The lower federal courts have read Heller to allow, for instance, broad restrictions on concealed carry of firearms; bans on military-style “assault” weapons; bans on high-capacity magazines; restrictions on guns for domestic abusers; and a wide variety of other limits on gun ownership and possession. In other words, Heller poses no obstacle to anything on the agenda of the contemporary gun control movement.
[…]
Earlier this year, after Scalia’s death, the liberal Justices signaled that they are not aggressively seeking to overturn Heller in a Second Amendment case involving bans on stun guns, Caetano v. Massachusetts. The Court’s per curiam opinion reversed a Massachusetts court ruling that held stun guns were not arms protected by the Second Amendment. Not only did the Court’s decision, supported by the liberal Justices, affirm Heller, but it was also the first Supreme Court case to broaden Heller to apply to weapons other than handguns. If the liberal Justices were so determined to overturn Heller, they could easily have voted to affirm the Massachusetts decision. Instead, they voted the other way. Caetano was perhaps only a small step but it was clearly in opposite direction from overturning Heller.’

The Court after Scalia: Would a liberal Supreme Court overturn Heller?

Indeed, given current Second Amendment jurisprudence, and that the appellate courts have been for the most part in agreement, it’s likely few, if any, ‘gun cases’ will make it to the Supreme Court.

Consequently, this nonsense about Clinton ‘taking away’ anyone’s guns is baseless demagoguery and idiocy.

 

[P@triot]

“If Hillary wins say GOOD-BYE to your firearms”

Pity we can’t say goodbye to these moronic lies.

Pity you refuse to accept reality.

 

[Dot Com]

OP Contumacious you retard

 

[M14 Shooter]

Remember folks, if Killary wins they will take as a MANDATE to Amend the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose.
They will do it by claiming that Americans NEVER had an individual right to bear arms.
WAKE UP AND VOTE.

You are aware what it takes to amend to the Constitution?

It takes 5 justices to overturn Heller.

Which isn’t going to happen.

According to a number of Hillary supporters, it is.
Good to see you believe Hillary supporters are morons.

 

[bendog]

Remember folks, if Killary wins they will take as a MANDATE to Amend the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose.
They will do it by claiming that Americans NEVER had an individual right to bear arms.
WAKE UP AND VOTE.

You are aware what it takes to amend to the Constitution?

It takes 5 justices to overturn Heller.

Which isn’t going to happen.

According to a number of Hillary supporters, it is.
Good to see you believe Hillary supporters are morons.

Some are. Heller will not be overturned. Nor will Citizens United. Firearms will be regulated by local and state laws. There's no natl consensus. If Hillary's elected, eventually there will be laws restricting campaign donations.

 

[Syriusly]

Let me remind you folks, the right to bear arms to defend our lives is the MOST Basic of all rightse

But wait- I thought President Obama had already seized all of your guns?

Right Wing Nut jobs predicted that before he took office- surely it has happened by now?

LOL

 

[2aguy]

Let me remind you folks, the right to bear arms to defend our lives is the MOST Basic of all rightse

But wait- I thought President Obama had already seized all of your guns?

Right Wing Nut jobs predicted that before he took office- surely it has happened by now?

LOL

obama has filled the appellate courts with anti gunners...

 

[Contumacious]

Remember folks, if Killary wins they will take as a MANDATE to Amend the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose.
They will do it by claiming that Americans NEVER had an individual right to bear arms.
WAKE UP AND VOTE.

You are aware what it takes to amend to the Constitution?

It takes 5 justices to overturn Heller.

Which isn’t going to happen.

‘[T]here are several reasons to believe that even a Supreme Court with a liberal majority will not overturn Heller.

The first reason is that Heller’s impact on America’s gun laws has been very small. The decision struck down bans on handguns in the home, but Scalia’s opinion also made clear that many forms of gun control remain constitutionally permissible. Indeed, even though Heller triggered a wave of lawsuits challenging nearly every type of gun law, very few laws have been overturned. The lower federal courts have read Heller to allow, for instance, broad restrictions on concealed carry of firearms; bans on military-style “assault” weapons; bans on high-capacity magazines; restrictions on guns for domestic abusers; and a wide variety of other limits on gun ownership and possession. In other words, Heller poses no obstacle to anything on the agenda of the contemporary gun control movement.
[…]
Earlier this year, after Scalia’s death, the liberal Justices signaled that they are not aggressively seeking to overturn Heller in a Second Amendment case involving bans on stun guns, Caetano v. Massachusetts. The Court’s per curiam opinion reversed a Massachusetts court ruling that held stun guns were not arms protected by the Second Amendment. Not only did the Court’s decision, supported by the liberal Justices, affirm Heller, but it was also the first Supreme Court case to broaden Heller to apply to weapons other than handguns. If the liberal Justices were so determined to overturn Heller, they could easily have voted to affirm the Massachusetts decision. Instead, they voted the other way. Caetano was perhaps only a small step but it was clearly in opposite direction from overturning Heller.’

The Court after Scalia: Would a liberal Supreme Court overturn Heller?

Indeed, given current Second Amendment jurisprudence, and that the appellate courts have been for the most part in agreement, it’s likely few, if any, ‘gun cases’ will make it to the Supreme Court.

Consequently, this nonsense about Clinton ‘taking away’ anyone’s guns is baseless demagoguery and idiocy.

The fact that federal laws regulating firearms have not been overturned merely means that Americans have lost the right to judicial review.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.


The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the Constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the Government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States.


The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)


.

 

[Contumacious]

OP Contumacious you retard

Read the dissent in Heller


The leftwing fascists will overturn Heller by claiming that Americans NEVER HAD AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO FIREARMS.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Let me remind you folks, the right to bear arms to defend our lives is the MOST Basic of all rights

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

yep, one bullet at a time.

 

[bendog]

Might want to start on the bunkers.

 

[Dot Com]

OP Contumacious you retard

Read the dissent in Heller


The leftwing fascists will overturn Heller by claiming that Americans NEVER HAD AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO FIREARMS.

Reminds me of what the former most rw judge on SCOTUS said in Heller:

Heller quotes from the majority - opinion is linked in the next post

“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not[.]” (22)

 

[SwimExpert]

Let me remind you folks, the right to bear arms to defend our lives is the MOST Basic of all rights

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

That's what they said about her husband. And Obama. Democrats are so incompetent, they haven't got the job done yet.

 

[Moonglow]

Remember folks, if Killary wins they will take as a MANDATE to Amend the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose.
They will do it by claiming that Americans NEVER had an individual right to bear arms.
WAKE UP AND VOTE.

You are aware what it takes to amend to the Constitution?

It takes 5 justices to overturn Heller.

That is not an amendment to the Constitution, that is judicial review..

 

[Moonglow]

Might want to start on the bunkers.

yes, before the price of concrete increases more, the winter is the best time to pour, concrete is usually cheaper then.

 

[Dot Com]

I'm a gun owner but not a gun nut like Contumacious M14 Shooter Wildman etc...

 

[2aguy]

OP Contumacious you retard

Read the dissent in Heller


The leftwing fascists will overturn Heller by claiming that Americans NEVER HAD AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO FIREARMS.

Legal Precedent only matters to a lefty if they like the Precedent...if they don't, then it was never valid......that is why allowing the left to control the court will be so bad......

 

[2aguy]

OP Contumacious you retard

Read the dissent in Heller


The leftwing fascists will overturn Heller by claiming that Americans NEVER HAD AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO FIREARMS.

Reminds me of what the former most rw judge on SCOTUS said in Heller:

Heller quotes from the majority - opinion is linked in the next post

“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not[.]” (22)

You morons keep going back to that one passage....and when you read it you see it as saying.....We can limit every single aspect of owning a gun to the point the Right to bear arms essentially means nothing...as long as we pretend to agree that the 2nd Amendment exists.......

That is not even close to what Scalia meant.......morons.

We have limits already......you can't own a gun if you are a felon, you can't use a gun for a crime....and that is pretty much all you need.......just like you can't use words or speech to violate the rights of another person...twits.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm a gun owner but not a gun nut like Contumacious M14 Shooter Wildman etc...

Yawn.