Second Amendment Prayer for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Second Amendment Prayer for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Second Amendment Prayer for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Arizona -( Second Amendment supporters want to see President Trump appoint more originalists and textualists to the Supreme Court.  The most likely Justice to create an opening is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justice Ginsburg voted against the Heller decision. She voted against the McDonald decision. Her opinion on the Second Amendment is was clear then, and it is clear now. The Second Amendment should be defined as inconsequential because it is old. From

“If the court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new,” she said. “It gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.””

Ruth's position is to define the Second Amendment out of existence, without any real argument, because it is old. The fallback position is that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals. That is the essential Progressive position on the entire Constitution. It is old, therefore we can ignore it.

I have read a few Second Amendment supporters who openly wish for Justice Ginsburg's death. This is wrong.

To borrow a common phrase: We are better than that.

Jesus told us to love our enemies. It does not mean we must be pacifists. It does not mean we must empower our enemies. It does not mean we do not oppose our enemies.

It means we recognize that all are sinners, all need God's grace.

Justice Ginsburg needs God's grace as much as anyone does. She is old, ill, and at 85, near death.

Here is my prayer for Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Dear God, please open Ruth's heart so that she knows that she has sinned. Help her to understand that she is not a god.  Help her understand you are in charge. 

None of us know what you know. Please humble your creation, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, so she will open her heart to you, and accept your son, Jesus, as her savior. 

Lord, you wish all to be saved. All have fallen short of your perfection. While Ruth has done many things we see as evil, only you know her part in your plans. 

Lord, we look to you to open Ruth's eyes, to humble her heart, to help her seek your grace.

I, Lord, was an agnostic for 40 years. I needed to be humbled to come to you. 

If it be your will, Ruth can also be humbled and saved.  She has to chose. Lord, if it be your will, make the way for her choice clear, and easy.

The election of Donald Trump has given her pause. She sees her death may not be at the end of a long and successful career of redefining the Constitution in Progressive terms.  

Instead, it may serve as a means of restoring the Constitution to its original meaning. A different Justice, an originalist and textualist Justice,  may replace Ruth on the Supreme Court.

May that realization bring Ruth closer to you, to ask for forgiveness and guidance.

Ruth, God will help you, if only you humble yourself and ask for his help.

Lord, help Second Amendment supporters to humble their hearts.

Help Second Amendment supporters to love their enemies, and wish for the salvation of those who work against them. 

In the name of your son, Jesus.

Almighty God, may your will be done.

About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 101 thoughts on “Second Amendment Prayer for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    1. This was a great article! In fact I think the best one I have read on Ammoland. As a Christian it’s refreshing to read these types of articles. Geting bombarded by radical atheism and secularism gets to be really annoying!

    2. 3rd attempt

      Tried posting before, but it wiped.
      Your sources you cited were disproven. In addition, anyone who wants to see you are lying now can look here….

      here you cite Alex Jones, a Pollster from 2013, and then several anonymous sources. The Alex Jones and pollster source were disproven through other citation which you had no rebuttal against, and when questioned on the anonymous sources, you ran away without replying.

      and Here
      Here you attempt to cite Christianity as why you want to violate the Constitution, until I start quoting scripture and wreck your day. You were unable to cite or quote anything in reply, so once again you tuck tail and run away to try posting your lies in a new area where you think people haven’t heard you yet.

      1. Revelater,
        Thank you for taking the time to dig up previous comments I have made. Again, the information I provided from data resource centers, the media, etc. are the best I’ve been able to share. And, they are not disproven by trusted sources.
        Only in your mind. The GWD.

        1. @GWD

          John Lott is a trusted source.

          Now here is why PEW polling is not a legitimate source, as was stated to you after you cited a 2013 report that was disproven in 2013, and again in 2014 when they tried to make the same claim again,

          Pollsters like pew are not a legitimate source because the results change based on how you phrase the question. This means that the Pollsters are able to generate favorable responses to issues by how they ask a question, I will demonstrate.

          Question 1.
          Do you support Legislation to make Civilian ownership of Firearms safer?

          Question 1 Version 2
          Do you believe the Federal Government has the authority to regulate what types of firearms you are allowed to own.

          The way Polls work, if you ask a question a certain way, people start to think “Of course I like safety, safety is good” but when you ask it differently about what your intended goal is it changes their answer quite a bit. This is the same reason why all Schools from high school to the highest university do not accept certain sources such as Wikipedia.

          Of course, you did try to claim several anonymous sources to say John Lott is not credible, but when asked to cite those sources you stopped replying. So again, Pew is not a credible source in this case. You are still at 0 credible sources. The mental gymnastics is occurring on your end GWD.

          1. And GWD is off on other articles trying to avoid answering this one as well. This time Trying to reintroduce me as the main villain from the MR Bill snl skits.

            I admire his persistence, but you can tell it is starting to wear on him that he hasn’t been able to out argue me. The funny thing is I don’t even have to break a sweat running circles around him. 🙂 Please prepare, he is about to go straight to ludicrous speed.

              Put up your research that you obtain against what I have cited here.
              The PEW Research Center is one of the most trusted sources available.
              You may not want to hide under the bed afterwards as it will show how inaccurate your data is. I’m going to retire now, and will read it the next day. I have studies and chores coming up so will be busy. Also need to put a dishwasher in and clean house. Thanks, The GWD

            2. @GWD

              Ok! I love this one. You just linked to an article which has a fancy arrow at the top to show bias, then at the bottom a POLL ASKING for “Do you think they are Biased?” Upon looking closer at that page, it is an opinion piece quoting Pew Research’s “About Page” as one of their sources for its fact check rating. That is the same as asking Donald Trump to fact check whether or not Donald Trump is telling you the truth!

              There is a reason polls have to have a disclaimer when reported. “According to a Poll” or “A new survey shows the number of people who think” is placed in front, why does this happen? Because Polls are strictly limited to gathering opinions, not raw data. Polls take a small, minute portion of people and question them using a variety of methods. This is the 3rd or 4th time I am explaining this to you..

              Now since they are based in opinion vs real numbers, there is automatically a variable error built in. The level of how informed the individual answering is, their bias, how they perceive the question asked(What I described before).. It all changes the outcome. This is why they are not a citable source, but merely a tool for generating OPINION TRENDS.

              Now, I have a few articles for you to read, and then I am going to cite my biggest source. I’m not going to tell you who the source is until after you reply. I want you to take a guess at who it is.




              But by far, the most damaging information to Pew Research and it’s polls being “Accurate, Citable information that can be used as an Evidential source” comes from this quote. Lets see if you can guess who it is.

              “The accuracy of a poll depends on how it was conducted. Most of Pew Research’s polling is done by telephone. Most online polls that use participants who volunteer to take part do not have a proven record of accuracy. There are at least two reasons for this. One, not everyone in the U.S. uses the internet, and those who do not are demographically different from the rest of the public. Number two is that people who volunteer for polls may be different from other people in ways that could make the poll unrepresentative.”

              I await your response and will give you the link to the above source at that time. 🙂

            3. Looks like GWD Has not had a chance to get back to me yet. Too bad. The source I am quoting is brilliantly devious, so perhaps he saw who it was already and high tailed it since the source itself completely wrecks his claim about PEW Research.

              If he takes too long, I’ll go ahead and share it here so he can’t say I never cited my source when he runs away and tries to lie on another article.

            4. Ok, since GWD has chosen to run and hide at this time, whether for personal reasons of political, here is my source.

              I posted the three ancillary sources first since they back up the source I am using for direct Citation.

              While Green Watch Dog has wanted to use PEW as a citable source since his Alex Jones failure, in 2010 Scott Keeter who was the Director of Surveys in 2010 issued a letter as a result of questions on how accurate Surveys are. You can read that Here.


              The case being, because Surveys/Polls are opinion oriented and are not raw data generated figures they are not usable as a Citation source because the amount of variables within them cannot be controlled. I have tried to educate GWD on this, but in his haste to “Win the Argument at all costs” he took shortcuts which display his ineptitude. A quick google search for a link that supports your opinion doesn’t do much good when the person you are arguing with already knows that the source you are identifying has already stated that their data should not be considered reliable.

              Class Dismissed.

    3. “If the court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new,” she said. “It gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.””

      That statement alone disqualifies her from serving on the Court. The Constitution does not “give” anyone any rights. They are a consequence of our existence. She should have been impeached at the time she made the statement, defining that she had an incurable misunderstanding of the core principles of our nation.
      Further, Ginsburg should have been impeached when she publicly stated that the Supreme Court should take into account the laws of other nations when deciding US cases.

      1. @Lee

        Quite correct. That is what the impeachment clause is there for in the Constitution. However, we have politicians who are not working for us, and groups like the NRA who could be pushing to educate but are too busy sucking their thumbs huddled in the corner that impeachment at this point is a non option.

        Most people fail at a question I ask, “what type of legal document is the Constitution?” The answer is that it is a charter under our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, which affirms what you just wrote. The constitution is a set of bylaws restricting Government even as it establishes it, limiting what it may or may not do and stating that all rights are inherently belonging to individuals, that the Government can neither grant nor take them away. If they try, the standard set for us to follow is to wipe the slate clean and start again.

        Excellent job on your comment.

    4. I say SHE is inconsequential “cause she’s too old ! One tough old biddy though. I will give her points for speaking up in re the Kavanaugh debacle. I’m just afraid she’ll outlast Justice Thomas.

    5. I see no reason to mourn the illness and near death of someone who, literally, wants me deprived of liberty and enslaved.

    6. Revelater,
      It is not mine or your position to object and try to oppress the 1st amendment. Everyone as the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Try to remember, and slowly digest that. I don’t have issues with you expressing your beliefs, not should you have a problem with one. The GWD.

      1. @Rev, the green prevaricator would dictate what we need, but try to hide from us behind the First Amendment. He has no understanding of our BOR. The free lunch dog is also wrong about thinking that he is in a position to give orders. He isn’t.
        This low level propagandist knows that after the Second Amendment is reduced, his socialist pack of perennial malcontents and hard core unemployables will go after the other Civil Rights of the American people. Calling himself a dog elevates himself and his crowd from the thieving Blattodea they are.

        1. Will, No one is to take our rights away. It’s quite simple really. Sensible gun control.
          You and I get to keep our guns, providing one minds their Ps and Qs. The majority of Americans have spoken, voted time and time again. I’m certainly not here to give orders, it’s the will of the people.

          1. The “will of the people” does NOT determine what rights I or anyone else may possess or exercise. They are unalienable (“un-a-lane-able,” NOT “un-alien-able.”). That means that they cannot be bought, sold, traded, bartered in ANY way, to any degree. Inalienable – that’s the one with “alien” in it – means that they cannot be alienated (separated) from the individual. The “people” can choose to not exercise rights that they do not wish to or do not like, but they have NO SAY in anyone else claiming, possessing or utilizing THEIR rights. “But we can amend the Constitution!” the simple-minded will say. That is true, but the Constitution did not and DOES NOT create or grant rights; it recognizes and protects rights as existing and fully independent from the Constitution. Changes to the Constitution in no way alter or eliminate rights. Facts. Whine all you want, but your null and void upon arrival laws mean nothing and those proposing, passing and enforcing such acts of treason are completely liable to felony charges and serious prison time (18 USC) and these facts are laid out clearly and indisputably in THE rule book(s) for courts, prosecutors, judges and lawyers, American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Volume 16, Section 177, late 2nd, Section 256. You might also wish to enlighten yourself via the entertaining and enlightening perusal of the decisions in Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425, pg. 442; Gomillion v Lightfoot, 364 US 155 (1966) – also cited in Smith v Allwright 321 US 649.644; Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 426, 491, Supreme Court 1603; Sherar v Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973); Marbury v Madison; Simmons v United States, 390 US 377 (1963); West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnett, (1943) and others. Enjoy.

            In the meantime I will enjoy my liberty to pursue, enjoy and responsibly exercise MY God-given and Constitutionally recognized and PROTECTED rights for the benefit of myself, my friends and family, YOU and my fellow man in general. You are welcome, whether you are genuinely worthy or not.

            1. @CMoore, The free lunch dog is a liar. Diminishing our civil Right to keep and carry arms is exactly what he and his socialist crowd is up to. What he describes is a governmental permission, not Rights.

            1. @Charles Moore

              Ammoland is in a switch over right now, that is why they are having problems. I have heard back from Brian, and they are working on it.

              They are on a new, larger server which should handle increased traffic, and the new system that has been in the works is being worked on as I write this. I ask that you be patient with them.

              On a side note, excellent comment in reply to GWD. He has stated in the past though that he favors Mob Rule and ignores what the constitution says. Stick to the facts and history like you have and you will always out argue him.

      2. @GWD

        Again, a nice try but you fall short.

        You do have a freedom to express your opinion, but you do not have a right to have it considered as fact. I have never called for you to be banished from this site, and indeed I love it when you try to post more because it makes my job easier.

        My job is dissecting your comments and exposing your lies, pointing out factual evidence and historical anecdote which prove you are lying or trying to mislead, and then holding you accountable to your words. You have failed at every opportunity. As an example, you posted this comment on a new section because the original one you advocated oppressing the free expression of others, but you would have everyone believe here that you did not.

        You are a hypocrite through and through, and still trying to hide your previous statements.

        1. @Rev, The free lunch dog does provide a certain humorous entertainment value. The problem is that there are millions of ignorant, pusillanimous, indolent, socialists like himself, playing the part of useful idiots to the avaricious, elitists in this country.

        2. Revelater,
          Again, As I have expressed to you before, I have supported comments noted on previous forums with supporting data. The plastic back scratcher used to pat yourself on the back needs thrown out. If you feel threatened and challenged from comments I have made then please, tell them there is someone out there that disagrees under the 1st amendment. Thank you! The GWD.

          1. @GWD,

            No, You cited Alex Jones, which got disproven and taken apart by me

            You cited a pollster, which was again disproven by sources I sited.

            You then attempted to cite anonymous sources and when questioned on it you stopped replying and ran away. Which by the way, thank you for reminding me so I can link to each article in case anyone wants to see your previous comments and that you are indeed now lying. 🙂

            This one has the Citation he mentions along with the rebuttals, followed by GWD running away to a new Article

            Here he claims violating the Constitution is not a problem because he is Christian. I proceed to quote scripture and wreck his day. Again he stops replying and runs away.

            See, the more you write, the more you contradict yourself and there is evidence of you lying through your teeth. Your comments are so easy to disprove they could never be a threat. In fact, the grand exposition of your stupidity and repeated attempts at trying to lie are hilarious to the point of being entertainment to those here like WildBill, Green Mtn. Boy, and myself. You can’t seem to stop yourself from shoving your foot in your mouth and then stuffing your head up your backside. It’s better than stand-up.

    7. RBG still seems to be pretty sharp, but, who’s to really know at this point. Is this another Judge Hugo Boldt disaster in the making? Her stepping down at this point would be the honorable and responsible thing to do.

      1. Is that why almost every time we have seen her at a public function lately she is asleep? Her mind is either gone or she is heavily medicated. Either of which should disqualify her from her current position.

      2. Quote: “Her stepping down at this point would be the honorable and responsible thing to do.” Which is exactly why she refuses to do so.

    8. goober-ment types who think they deserve respect can earn it by stridently defending the Constitution & BOR, otherwise resign and GTFO of America – you are the enemy

    9. I appreciate the article. His attitude is the Christian attitude. I have prayed for her recovery and Christian conversion. I don’t know a single decision of hers that I agree with but I wish no one to go to hell.
      According to the Holiness of Jesus Christ we all deserve to go there but thank God for His forgiveness and His saving grace.

    10. Some mentioned Ammoland censoring. We need to be mindful that Ammoland is not the only monitor here. There are many that would like to SWAT us just because we exist. Multiple government and private entities monitor just about everything searching for “flags” to stick people with. Beware is all.

      1. They are welcome to try. I suspect that when the “swatters” call my local PD they would be confused by the raucous laughter that would ensue. “Roy D. is going to do What?????????” “Yeah, sure your right.” “What did you say your name was?”

    11. QOUTE:She voted against the McDonald decision. Her opinion on the Second Amendment is was clear then, and it is clear now. The Second Amendment should be defined as inconsequential because it is old.:QOUTE

      And now, finally, at last , RBG discovers that, she herself, is now soon to be “defined as inconsequential” because she too, is “very old”.
      If any SCOTUS liberal socialist, progressive marxist judge would only read the Federalist Papers,our country’s ForeFather’s own words on RKBA , the 2nd A , and thoroughly read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights we’d all be much better off. If they cannot , they then are traitors to our Great Nation. And our Gov. is full of them.

    12. It is her dream to one day see our nation become another socialist republik. Hopefully her dark soul will never witness this, dead or alive. Dont think for a second that hollywood created and timed the release of their BS movie about her.

    13. You do realize that she is a non-religious Jew? She probably despises people like you as just another hayseed holy roller.
      She comes out of NYC, and is basically what used to be called a “crypto-communist (someone who hid their support for communist goals and worked inside the system to destroy it).

      BJ Clinton appointed her, probably at the recommendation of the Hildebeast. Sadly, when Democrat presidents nominate judges, republicans NEVER expose their backgrounds or question their judicial philosophy. The idiots just mumble something about how “bipartisan” they are and rubber stamp the nomination. Its not considered polite or civil to bring up the fact that Ginsburg, Sotomayor, or Kagan are for all intents and purposes extreme Leftists that hate the founding of the country and dismiss the Constitution as nothing more than an irrelevant document written for and by old white slave owners.

      Ginsburg once embarrassed herself by saying the South African Constitution was preferable to the US Constitution as an example for anyone who would write a new one. She is somehow an expert on the Constitution but obviously had no respect for it and was there to tear it down wherever possible. The same people also said Obama was some kind of “constitutional scholar”… this is sort of like saying a car thief is an automotive engineer.

      She believes the 2nd Amend. was only relevant at the founding of the US. Ironically, she lived during WW-2 and is probably quite familiar with what happened to unarmed Jews in Nazi Germany. I can only assume she thought the problem was guns and not the Nazi “Total State” mentality.

      Good riddance. I don’t wish her an early death, but I do wish she would step aside. She’s done enough damage for one lifetime.

      1. There are many who did not believe in God, but changed their positions, just as there have been many anti 2A people who have changed their positions because of personal experiences. RBG may not believe in God now, but there is nothing which says she can not change.

    14. I, too, do not wish anyone’s death. I pray for RBG’s salvation and for enlightenment of her heart. And, for her health, and soon retirement.

    15. Please explain. I have a job but I am old enough to retire so I am working only because it is my desire. Im so sick that I cant do my job at work so they bring the work to me and I work from home. NOT!!!! She should be retired under mandatory retirement just like any one of us pee on’s would be if it were us with these same circumstances on our job. If she is drugged up because of pain and the prescription says do not operate heavy equipment or drive or make critical decisions while on this medication she shouldn’t be able to make decisions that effect an entire country. Mandatory retirement only because of health reasons or no vote for her until she can perform her duties like the other justices. Amen.

    16. I am a Monarchist first and foremost . I serve a living King. His will be done and we will play a.part in His greater plan. ALWAYS fight the good fight for the right reasons. Defend and protect our God given rights under our Constitution. RGB is His to judge alone. We need to keep our Constitution in tact in the here and now under the guidance of the Constitution we all claim to reveer.

    17. What should happen to federal or state executive, judicial and legislative members, whether appointed or elected who do not support and defend the US Constitution as sworn through their oath of office?

      Doesn’t denial of the any Amendment, including the 2nd Amendment, constitute a violation of that oath of office? Is removal via impeachment our recourse? I’m, just saying.

      1. YES! To violate the oath of office is a breach of contract with the voters. To legislate for illegal changes to the Constitution is, in my opinion, treason, for it is an act to dissolve the very form of government under which we live.

        In business, one party is subject to legal action for a breach of contract. The form of the contract makes no difference. The breaker of the contract is subject to legal punishments. Politicians should also be held accountable for their breaches of contract with their constituents. For example, a politician who claims to be a conservative and then changes party or consistently votes against conservative values had breached the contract with the people who put him/her in office. The same should be true of politicians who conduct themselves in an uncivilized manner while in office. As an example; the use of foul language (“we’re going to impeach that MF”) or one who calls for harm to anyone else.

    18. She said it herself, “It gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation”. The selective service act identified everyone between the ages of 18-45 as members of the militia and was held up in the Supreme court when challenged. So I guess all those people have the right to keep and bear arms. And I also wonder why she can’t agree with her fellow judges on their rulings, they are in fact the law of the land whether she acknowledges it or not.

      1. What she doesn’t seem to grasp is that Alexander Hamilton defined the Militia as all abled body men from the ages of 16 to the age of 45, except for a few public officials. Considering that the life expectancy of a white male back then was about 36 years he meant all the male adult citizens of this country. As far as the 2nd amendment being “old”, Ruth, your 85 yourself, so you don’t have any room to talk.

        1. @Rocketman, Ginzburg never was, even her prime, the kind that would or could defend her self or her country. She is the kind that must order others.

    19. The second amendment is a lot older than R.B.G. and protects a hell of a lot more than she EVER protected. Stand up to the LEFT. Print ALL the comments.

    20. The second amendment is a lot older than R.B.G. and protects a hell of a lot more than she EVER protected. Stand up to the LEFT. Print ALL the comments.

    21. We need bright, intelligent, honest and healthy members of the Supreme Court. Especially they need to be 2nd Amendment Supporters.
      We need an amendment passed that redefines how long they can remain on the Supreme Court and under what conditions.

    22. “Lord, you wish all to be saved.”
      “If it be your will, Ruth can also be humbled and saved.”

      Could be confusing for some, assuming you mean “His wish” and “His will” are one and the same.

      1 Timothy 2
      3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
      4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
      5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

      It is His will that RBG be saved, totally up to her to decide.

      1. So God’s will can be defeated by his creation? You need to look at the entirety of scripture. If you do you will see that Good expresses himself both through his commandments (what we are told to do) and via that which he predestines (what he causes to happen). Read Ephesians 1:11-14 and also 2:4-10 (Paul is communicating to believers). Also Romans 8:28-30 and 9:14-24. God bless.

        1. @TheTruthSetsFree

          No, that is not what Chris is saying. Chris is commenting on the gift of Free Will. God gives humanity a choice to either follow him or reject him. This is the choice an individual must make, but it is not without consequences. The very first passage of the chapter Chris is quoting is saying that prayers should be made on behalf of all mankind. A full reading of the text provides better understanding.

          It is God’s will that all can be saved, but not all choose to. This is recognized in scripture and Jesus spoke on it by acknowledging the choices made will determine whether he welcomes you or says “I never knew you.”

    23. This is 1 old biddy that as long as she is breathing wont retire. At this point Im sure its all on her principles that are keeping her around. Which stink to high heaven. I don’t wish ill health on anyone. But as long as she holds a life term. I wish her a short fast recovery and an equally long retirement already.
      That said. No terms for anyone on a bench should be life. Id love to see term limits for ALL branches of government. It was never intended to be a carrier.

      1. Ruth Ginsberg called the constitution old And outdated /she needs to check the mirror/If anybody in their right mind gives up anything gun related to these unconstitutional bolshevik illegal thieving gun grabbing bastards /then you deserve what you get/EX-POST FACTO-1776 On steroids

      1. @ GMB It’s looking like they will have to bring the coffin in to pick her up because she won’t leave on her own power. It is a good thing she is already dressed for the occasion. Another SCOTUS appointment and another time we get to watch the democrats go nuts and do nutty things again.

    24. “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater

    25. Amen! The 2A movement needs more like this. The moral high ground is ours, but we abandon it every time we behave sinfully and hatefully towards our opponents.

      1. There are many kinds of hatred, as many kinds of fire;
        And some are fierce and fatal with murderous desire;
        And some are mean and craven, revengeful, sullen, slow,
        They hurt the man that holds them more than they hurt his foe.
        And yet there is a hatred that purifies the heart:
        The anger of the better against the baser part,
        Against the false and wicked, against the tyrant’s sword,
        Against the enemies of love, and all that hate the Lord.
        O cleansing indignation, O flame of righteous wrath,
        Give me a soul to feel thee and follow in thy path!
        Save me from selfish virtue, arm me for fearless fight,
        And give me strength to carry on, a soldier of the Right!
        Henry Van Dyke (1852-1933)

      2. @Augray

        Something I have talked about over the last few years has been the necessity of Consistency and the current lack of said substance on the Right. Everyone here knows and is willing to propound on the hypocrisy of the left, but few ever look at their own lives and examine their own actions.

        How can any here claim to be constitutionalists if they advocate kidnapping, imprisonment, or death on others for simply disagreeing with them? Yes, it did happen here on an Ammoland article, and the ones advocating for it have at multiple times claimed to be constitutionalists. I was one of the few who criticized those statements openly as hypocritical. Dean has the right of it. I do not hate Ginsburg, but I wont sit by and comply with her beliefs or rulings either. Each is responsible for their own actions and the repercussions.

        Acta non Verba Augray. It’s a test many have failed here.

        1. First of all I don’t wish any hate or harm to anyone regardless of color -creed or religion -but it’s not about those things-You are correct as usual Rev -We’re all going through a learning process because of necessity’.. if we failed to execute before,,I think this time the nonbelievers will awaken -I can only hope that real Americans with heart will stand and deliver when time comes-Has anyone else noticed Ammoland censoring or not publishing comments?

          1. Yes. I have reached out to Brian with a question. Don’t jump to conclusions yet, they may be having issues. I’ll try and let you know somehow if I hear back from Brian at Ammoland or not.

            Hopefully he will respond quickly.

          2. Greg,
            As one who supports sensible gun laws, I have yet to be censored or not have my comments published. If one is respectful to others, does not threaten harm to others, or uses mean and ugly language, then their right to free speech should be observed.

            1. Green Watch Dog

              Nothing you support is Sensible. You advocate breaking law(The Constitution) and calling on those doing so to oppress and enslave those who resist.

              Further, it is not agreeable speech that needs protection. It is disagreeable, mean speech that you don’t like that is protected by the First Amendment. Whether you agree with it being observed as a Right or not has nothing to do with it, that is what makes it Free. Once again you come here to lie, and miss the irony of your having done so.

            2. @L.L Smith

              Green Watch Dog is a Confiscationist. He believes in passing “sensible” gun bans so the Government can decide what types of Arms are safe for you to have.

              He Supports Red Flag laws that violate the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

              He has also stated that whether a law violates the Constitution or not, he would revel in being able to enforce it by his own hand if he could and he would confiscate arms from those he feels need them taken away.

              Don’t buy into his lies. If you like I can point to other articles here and you can read his comments for yourself. He’s a bloomburg toady through and through, and a consummate coward.

            3. “sensible” gun laws established by hitler’s socialist worker’s party worked very well against the Jews of Europe, so FU a**hole. btw, the grand mufti was hitler’s guest during ww2.

            4. @LL Smith, How could this green socialist dog person credibly claim to recognize anything reasonable, much less “law”.

          3. @GregTorchia

            Promised I would let you know along with others.

            Heard from Brian at Ammoland and they are in the middle of changing things over. They are on a new server which will be able to handle a lot more traffic, and they have been working on a new system for a while now regarding comments. They have not got it fully implemented yet, but are working on it even as I write this. It may be a few days, or a week or two.

            Bear with the technical difficulties for now. Things are being worked on even as I write this so a little patience until everything is fixed will help. Nothing at this point has been intentional, just the computer system having fits.

        2. @Revelator, I don’t much agree with you after the tirade you posted against me some time back, but I do agree with this post and support your feelings here. Justice Ginsburg has a right to her opinion even if it’s different from all others on the court. Can you even imagine what would happen if all nine were conservatives? Not saying I support her, but I won’t be throwing out vile names and or wishes against her.

          1. @Bill N, Ginsburg, as a private person has a Right to an opinion. As an employee of the federal government, Ginzburg has available to her, only, the powers and authorities granted by the Constitution. Ginburg is not empowered to mix the two. Intentionally misusing her authority makes her, … what were the vile names that you did not want to use?

          2. @Bill N

            First of all, thank you. I’m not here as part of a popularity contest. Those I write to I do so for two reasons, they are either like GWD and trying to sow lies, or they are those who could be better and stronger provided they don’t make allowances for opinion in place of facts. There is a difference between having an opinion and forcing others to go along with it out of ego or vanity. It’s why I seldom verbalize my own opinions here.

            I’m interested in two things, facts and consistency in regards to the constitution, and preparing people to stand against what is invariably coming. For anything that I might criticize you on, I also will stand up for you when you get something right. I know who and what I am, and I know I’m not easy to get along with but you can always count on me for two things. First, I will always look you in the eye and give you a straight reply, and second I won’t lie to you. You get the same response from me today that you will get next year, or 10 years from now.

            I hope that someday you may understand that about me, that even if we disagree I’ll still turn around and defend your rights. I won’t let bad information go unchallenged, and I will call out any hypocrisy or double standard, but I respect your rights as a person and I will never hold a grudge.

            As long as you practice Acta non Verba, you will have my respect. If for some reason we ever meet I’d hope to have an honest back and forth with you, and would even buy you lunch. Stay safe, be honorable, and (I hope) get stronger.

        3. Sir,
          I agree with your first paragraph whole heartedly. And no one should threaten another. The problem is that what RBG, who is in a position of great power, is trying to do is to deny our God given right to defense of family and nation. This is not some simple disagreement, so many people react with equal but opposite vigor. This only serves to polarize our already divided country further. It would be more productive to show the opposition grace and perhaps to invite them to your gun club to show them that firearms are not the enemy.

          1. You seem confused. “Gun control” is not about controlling guns. It is about removing the means that others have of resisting the “gun controllers” ultimate aims which their control over other people. Your “invitation” would do nothing to change their goals. Stop being sophomoric please.

          2. @TheTruthSetsFree

            Indeed, this is not some simple disagreement. We have a right to life, and therefore a right to defend it. We have a right to defend life, so we have a right to possess and utilize the tools we find most logical or capable for achieving those ends. It is why I will not comply with any unconstitutional demand placed upon me.

            What I also realize however is that there are people out there who don’t like firearms. I do everything I can to educate them, and I’ve taught a good number how to shoot and how to do so safely. I won’t force anybody though. Those who fight against us now are not those people, they have an agenda that looks at firearms as a means to an end. They seek control over others, and that is something I will never abide for the same reasons I just stated above. If my refusal to yield is what divides then, so be it.

    Leave a Comment 101 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *