Anti-Gun Forces Won’t Rest Until Second Amendment Right Is Erased From Memory

As SCOTUS Hears 2A Case, Bloomberg Reveals Fear of Gun Rights Victory, Bill-Chizek-iStock-1020504756
Anti-Gun Forces Won’t Rest Until Second Amendment Right Is Erased From Memory, iStock-1020504756

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- As reported in the leftist periodical Newsweek, on March 27, 2018 – “Young activists calling for more gun control legislation should be more ambitious in their nationwide effort and focus on repealing the Second Amendment, according to retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

“In an op-ed published Tuesday in The New York Times, Stevens praised the students and young people who rallied in Washington and around the country over the weekend as part of the March for Our Lives. The demonstration was sparked by the shooting last month at a Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 people, including 14 students, dead.

Stevens wrote that he had ‘rarely’ seen such a wide scope of ‘civic engagement’ from young people in his lifetime and encouraged their efforts to go even further.

‘That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms,’ Stevens wrote. ‘But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.’”

Anti-Second Amendment Mainstream Media Rejoices Over Majority Decision In New York City Gun Transport Case.

The seditious Anti-Second Amendment Press breathed a collective sigh of relief when the U.S. Supreme Court Majority voted for Respondent, New York City, against the Petitioner, NYSRPA, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners V. City Of New York, 590 U.S ____ (2020).* The New York City gun transport case was the first major Second Amendment case to be decided by the High Court since the McDonald case decision ten years earlier.

Although the legal issue, a very narrow one, only implicated the bizarre, abhorrent, draconian, multifaceted, bloated, fascistic, and constantly refined and engineered handgun licensing requirements of New York City, apropos of the City’s “premise handgun license,” the antigun, anti-Second Amendment mob exhibited marked hysteria that the high Court had dared to hear the case at all; concerned that a decision for the NYSRPA against the City would open the floodgates to renewed attacks against restrictive gun regulations across the Country.

The weblog “Bearing Arms,” said, at the time, just before oral argument: “Now, the Court is hearing arguments on the case. That’s more than enough to trigger anti-gunners to completely lose their crap.”

In its article, Bearing Arms cited an unconscionable, reprehensible story that appeared in the Radical Left weblog News One in which the weblog denounced and denigrated Associate Justice Clarence Thomas for having the audacity to exalt the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Unabashedly mocking the esteemed Associate Justice, the writer blurted out:

“Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been one of the most destructive justices on the court. However, his foolishness is about to hit a new level with the Second Amendment being revisited for the first time on the court in over a decade.

In case you missed it, the Supreme Court is hearing a case to expand gun rights. Yep, you read that right. The majority conservative court might make it easier to have gun [sic] in a time when the majority of Americans are asking for more gun control.

Leave it up to Clarence Thomas to be on the wrong side of history.”

“Protect people from gun violence”— by removing the most effective means, i.e., a gun,’ with which the average, rational, law-abiding person might capably protect him or herself from a vicious predator? “Wrong side of history”— (i.e., revisionist history) because Justice Thomas defends our Nation’s cherished Bill of Rights?

And Fox19 now, noted, after the New York City gun transport case decision came down:

“The anti-climactic end to the Supreme Court case is a disappointment to gun rights advocates and relief to gun control groups who thought a conservative Supreme Court majority fortified by two appointees of President Donald Trump, Justices Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, might use the case to expand on landmark decisions from a decade ago that established a right under the Second Amendment to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

Lower courts upheld the regulation, but the Supreme Court’s decision early in 2019 to step into the case signaled a revived interest in gun rights from a court with two new justices.

Officials at both the city and state level scrambled to find a way to remove the case from the justices’ grasp. Not only did the city change its regulation to allow licensed gun owners to transport their weapons to locations outside New York’s five boroughs, but the state enacted a law barring cities from imposing the challenged restrictions.

Those moves failed to get the court to dismiss the case before arguments in December, and gun control advocates worried that the court might adopt the reasoning Kavanaugh used in a 2011 opinion in his former job as a Court of Appeals judge. There, he wrote, gun laws “that are not longstanding or sufficiently rooted in text, history, and tradition are not consistent with the Second Amendment individual right.”

Anti-Second Amendment foes need not have worried. But most Americans do need to worry about the future of Americans’ natural, fundamental, unalienable, immutable God-given right to keep and bear arms.

The New York City gun transport case provides Americans with a blueprint for assessing the predilections of U.S. Supreme Court Justices on matters pertaining to the Second Amendment.

First, the liberal wing of the High Court—comprising, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—abhors the Second Amendment. The liberal wing will contort the law to find Government actions constitutional that are clearly unconstitutional and that tend to weaken our fundamental, natural rights and liberties. The liberal wing will continue to demonstrate little reluctance in subordinating the U.S. Constitution and U.S. case law precedent to the dictates of international norms and standards that stand in marked conflict to our system of laws and jurisprudence.

Second, the conservative wing of the High Court—comprising, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—in the mold of the late, brilliant and esteemed Justice, Antonin Scalia, will continue to demonstrate great deference to our Constitution, and will, consistent with their Oath, always strive to preserve and strengthen our natural rights and liberties.

Third, Chief Justice Roberts cannot and should not be considered a Judicial conservative. He does not exemplify those Justices of the conservative wing of the Court. Even the expression, Judicial ‘moderate’ may not be an accurate descriptor for him. He does not exhibit the appropriate deference to the Second Amendment as now exemplified in having sided, sans a qualified concurring opinion, with the decision of the liberal—dare we say, increasingly, ‘radical’—wing of the High Court. Justice Roberts will continue to see-saw between the two wings of the Court. But do not expect the Chief Justice to treat our Bill of Rights with deep, abiding respect and reverence.

Fourth, prior to the decision in the New York gun transport case, one would have reasonably thought that Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the newest member of the Court—as of the posting of this article—would exhibit the same deference to the Bill of Rights as those Justices comprising the conservative wing of the Court. Certainly, given Justice Kavanaugh’s comprehensive, well-reasoned, and well-written dissent in Heller II, one would have expected Justice Kavanaugh to express the same desire for consistency and detail in his written opinions as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice that he had exhibited as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Sadly, that does not appear to be the case. Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring in the New York City gun transport case appears oddly dull, imprecise, even apologetic in tone. And the decision is not consistent with his dissent in Heller II.

Justice Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential philosophy remains at this point inscrutable and that is not a good thing. In the next several segments, we attempt to unpack Kavanaugh’s concurring, along with a review of past Second Amendment cases that the High Court denied cert, and a close look at the issue of mootness, as the majority decision in the New York City case wasn’t consistent with Supreme Court precedence; not even close.


*SCOTUSblog Holding and Judgment:

Holding: Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule on transporting firearms is moot, and any claim for damages with respect to that rule may be addressed in the first instance by the court of appeals and the district court on remand.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on April 27, 2020. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined in full and Justice Thomas joined except for Part IV-B.



Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Subscribe
Notify of
71 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Circle8
5 months ago

The second amendment was included in our constitution because our fore fathers knew there would be traitors in our government and country that want to overthrow the USA. The traitors would need to over power the citizens in order to turn this country into a dictatorship. After two and one half centuries they have accumulated enough traitors to try and eliminate the 2nd Amendment and our freedoms. This country fought for our freedoms against a tyrannical government before and we can do it again. These traitors, both in Washington and throughout the states, must be defeated and imprisoned or eliminated… Read more »

nobodyuknow
nobodyuknow
5 months ago

You Communist Democraps can have my guns . . . BULLETS FIRST!!!

nobodyuknow
nobodyuknow
5 months ago

You Communist Democrap A******S are going to keep, pushing your DISARM AMERICA agenda until you find yourselves starting America’s Second Civil War!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 months ago

, Good training! I hope that was their twenty best.

Ej harbet
Ej harbet
5 months ago

Hmm,so did nyc reinstall the transportation ban? No? I guess the gun grabbers didnt win after all did they?

RoyD
RoyD
5 months ago

USA: For some reason I can’t seem to find any of your other posts on this site. Hmmmm.

Ej harbet
Ej harbet
5 months ago
Reply to  RoyD

Chulak is having bad weather? Lol

RoyD
RoyD
5 months ago
Reply to  RoyD

USA: I was just wondering as last week I was threatened with, as part of this article’s title reads, being “erased from memory” as far as having ever been on Ammoland. So I was just wondering……..

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
5 months ago
Reply to  RoyD

That looks like eastern Montana USA.

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
5 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

Wherever you’re headed, you have a lot of boring ahead of you.

Arizona Don
Arizona Don
5 months ago

In 1919 a certain group of people here in the United States of America thought all they had to do to ban booze in the country was pass a law (in this case a constitutional amendment) outlawing it. They were wrong. Now it seems these so called democrats (so called because they are no longer real liberal democrats they are now socialist or more accurately communists) for some reason think all they have to do is somehow get rid of the second amendment and we, gun owning law abiding citizens, will just hand over our guns. They are wrong again.… Read more »

Finnky
Finnky
5 months ago
Reply to  Arizona Don

@AZ Don – Agree with virtually all that you said, except for “social equality” bit. To me “social equality” means that everyone has the same opportunities, though perhaps not the means to pursue them. Believe you meant enforced equality of economic outcomes. Socialism relieves you of obligation to care for your children and parent – thus breaking family ties and enabling mass control over all individuals, and destroying much of the motivation which drives people to succeed.

Arizona Don
Arizona Don
5 months ago
Reply to  Finnky

According to AOC social equality is everyone getting the same rewards from government. However government controlling everything. When that happens there are always a few elites at the very top who get extra since they see themselves as the special group. Ask any hippie who joined a commune during the 60’s and 70’s.

However I am not here to argue any point. Socialism is the basis for communism, fascism and marxism. All are evil for they all destroy liberties.

Camotim
Camotim
5 months ago

The attacks on Justice Thomas are classical dumb ass liberal racism.

RJL
RJL
5 months ago

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. Criminal liberal Socialist/Communist/Marxists in Congress & the public sector are endangering the rest of the law-abiding American public, Anti-Constitutionalist’s=Anti-Americans=Enemies of the United States. They have no place in a Free Constitutional Republic. In which… Read more »

Gerry
Gerry
5 months ago

The USSC is no longer in the ideological verdict business. The NYC case was moot because the city changed their law. Doesn’t matter legally if they changed it just to keep from getting an adverse ruling. They changed it, and therefore there’s no case. We should be glad they didn’t make a decision based on the feelz instead of the law. I know damn well if they decided a case in favor of the left based on making people happy instead of what they’re supposed to do, folks on the right side would go insane, so demanding that sort of… Read more »

Finnky
Finnky
5 months ago
Reply to  Gerry

@Gerry – Unfortunately it does set a precedent. Now every nascent dictator with local jurisdiction understands that with state support they can infringe all they want for the years it takes for a case to reach SCOTUS. Fortunately to reinforce mootness NY state passed a law restricting localities ability to impose extra infringements above and beyond those the state implements. Will be interesting to see whether state courts uphold those limits – but getting state preemption in place in all 50 is certainly a goal most of us support. In that way, this case an be seen as a minor… Read more »

John
John
5 months ago

The Supremes set an example for the lower courts, when a controversy does not exist, there is nothing to adjudicate. NY caved, no doubt so as not to have the court strike down their unconstitutional Poobah, so a win for gun owners not just in NY, but more importantly, across the Country as the message was sent when the Supremes granted certiorari. This is a win for gun rights, and a blow to gun control, period. I agree with the author on one point, CJ Roberts flips between judicial activism and judicial originalism, contradicting himself in cases when penning his… Read more »

Finnky
Finnky
5 months ago
Reply to  John

– I’d go a step further. COVID will kill many of our older citizens before a vaccine is developed. None of the justices are young and there is substantial risk that any of the justices could be replace before the next presidential term. Three or four seats turning over next term is not out of the question.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 months ago
Reply to  Finnky

@Finnky, Good for you, pointing out the righteous possibilities. I’m really digging those positive waves!

cav2108
cav2108
5 months ago

They don’t come any more tone-deaf than these treacherous destroyers of the Constitution. The French aristocracy were pretty tone-deaf too. Stevens is certainly tied with the lowest of the bottom-feeders.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 months ago
Reply to  cav2108

@Cav, Stevens retired … but he is still a bottom feeder!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

, that is funny. I meant that Justice Stevens retired from the S. Ct. He was replaced by Kavanaugh.

Doszap
Doszap
5 months ago

Just have one thing to say to the court, YOU FK this up, you will rue the day you were born, the RED LINE will be crossed and REVOLUTION is inevitable.

Core
Core
5 months ago

They can play high court but they answer to Article VI! These judges will be held responsible, if this trend continues there will be a day of reckoning soon. Trump will be reelected and a new justice will be assigned. Tyrants will be held responsible at all levels of government. Defund them, Disbar them, and Discharge them from Office!

Degforyou
Degforyou
5 months ago
Reply to  Core

Amen!!!!

Dubi Loo
Dubi Loo
5 months ago

I wonder how many anti-gunners and/or fence sitters are reevaluating their position in this period of intense tyranny?

I Imagine there are many who are pissed off for having their livelihoods stolen, being forced by police to obey mandates rather than laws, and being placed on house arrest.

Bobtail
Bobtail
5 months ago
Reply to  Dubi Loo

A bunch of Karens that stampeded to panic buy guns during this MIGHT be.

Bill
Bill
5 months ago

This is bogus reporting! The author doesn’t have a clew about legal procedure! There was nothing to adjudicate. We had already won when they changed the law!

Instead of trying to find some way to spank the Supreme Court, we should have thanked our legal team for being so persuasive and persistent that the other side folded!

We don’t need to generate fake news!!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 months ago
Reply to  Bill

@Bill, The “Mootness Doctrine” is a little more complicated than that. The test of “mootness” has two criteria: “… it can be said with assurance that there is no reasonable expectation … that the alleged violation will recur … and that interim relief completely and irrevocably eradicated the the effects of the alleged violation…” Please see County of Los Angeles v. Davis (quoting US v. W. T. Grant Co.) See also Lewis v. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n. I see no such assurance or irrevocable eradication in the case before us. I don’t think that Roger Katz, The GOA, or the… Read more »

RK-ARBALEST QUARREL
5 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Wild Bill, You are correct in your remarks on mootness. You’ve done your research. Kudos to you. But, as for Bill, apparently, we need to remark: AQ isn’t in the business of “bogus reporting” or delivering “fake news,” and we take strong exception at his assertions. There is much more to the mootness issue than a perfunctory look at the concept tends to engender. New York City was hoping that the High Court would dismiss the case out-of-hand once the City redrafted the law. The Supreme Court didn’t do that, but, having decided to hear the mootness issue, we felt… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 months ago

@RK, You are very generous, but it is the instructors at TJACG’s School in Charlottesville, Va. that pounded the concepts into our heads at the Defensive Federal Litigation course that deserve the praise. And they deserve more praise than they ever get.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Ooops, I fat fingered it. It is TJAG’s school, rather than TJACG’s School… My apologies if the typo caused any confusion.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 months ago
Reply to  Bill

, It is still clue, not clew.

Laddyboy
Laddyboy
5 months ago

“The majority conservative court might make it easier to have gun [sic] in a time when the majority of Americans are asking for more gun control.” How can these individuals claim to be supporting the Constitution !!! With these Anti-Constitutional statements, these DISHONORABLE Ones MUST be removed.

Arizona Don
Arizona Don
5 months ago
Reply to  Laddyboy

The majority of Americans are asking for “MORE” gun control? Not true! For the first time in my life I stood in line for over an hour to buy a gun just a couple weeks ago.

Gun control has not worked for over ninety years what makes you or anyone think it will work now? Besides the goal of those seeking more and more gun control is registration and then confiscation!

Arny
Arny
5 months ago
Reply to  Arizona Don

I had to wait 5 hrs a few weeks ago. So I ordered another. I’m curious to see how long the wait will be this time around. There was a state trooper still waiting & he got there before me. This was in PA before the stimulus checks & mask required. Right after they threatened to sue the Governor for not having gun stores as essential.

Will Flatt
Will Flatt
5 months ago

This article makes it sound like SCOTUS has gone entirely to the Dark Side, and this is pure clickbait. This is just one case, this is just a mooting of that case, and a majority of the justices are NOT decidedly antigun. Were it so, they would have taken this case and then ruled IN FAVOR OF NYC! But they did NOT.

Moreover, the 10 other 2A cases pending have not been removed from the docket. I guarandamntee you that AT LEAST a couple of these WILL be heard!

Shame on you Roger (and AQ?) for pushing such clickbait!!

RK-ARBALEST QUARREL
5 months ago
Reply to  Will Flatt

Will, You declare that the NYC gun transport case has been rightly decided and you project the certain belief that the U.S. Supreme Court will agree to review one of the pending Second Amendment cases. AQ harbors no such illusion. And we find it odd that you and several other readers seem to accept on faith that the liberal wing of the Supreme Court that abhors the Second Amendment and that will not abide the exercise of it—along with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, who joined the liberal wing in favor of the City—had, in fact, decided the case… Read more »

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
5 months ago

HOLY MOLY GUYS! YOU SHOULD HAVE JUST WRITTEN ANOTHER ARTICLE ON IT!!!

Knute
Knute
5 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

But people won’t read an article that long. You ought to be aware of that, and that the way to reach people is to just give teasers in the article, and then fill in the details later, if anyone questions your position, or just attacks you, as was done here.
And, yet again Arbalest Quarrel is dead on the target. Beats me how they can be so accurate with a crossbow…. 🙂

Knute
Knute
5 months ago
Reply to  Knute

Will Flat) Can you not see that the “boatload” of things that you didn’t say were not actual quotes (thus the lack of quotation marks…), but were intended as a general summing up of the many things that you IMPLIED, but did not actually say?

Darkman
Darkman
5 months ago

9 of Our Betters chosen by Our betters. To determine if the Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. Are in fact a Rights. Based on their opinions of how/why they were written. 9 of Our Betters who answer not to the Citizenry. Or even to Our Betters who chose them. Making their (The 9’s) opinions the final word on the Rights of “We the People”. And before someone points out they (The 9) can be impeached by Our Betters. That has happened but once in the history of the Court. Which means in the political landscape. “We the People”… Read more »

Will Flatt
Will Flatt
5 months ago
Reply to  Darkman

I don’t know who these “betters” are that you refer to, sir. May I familiarize you with the concept of the supremacy of the citizenry in matters of governance?? “We the people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the Constitution.” – Abraham Lincoln The problem with government today, including the courts, is they do not fear the people. This is how tyranny flourishes. “When the people fear the government you have tyranny…when the government fears the people you have liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson And… Read more »

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
5 months ago
Reply to  Will Flatt

Just vote them out of office Will Flat. I don’t think that there is any need to shoot them up. Yet. We are going to see a lot of tyrants kicked out of office in the wake of this COVID pandemic. Wait and see.

Will Flatt
Will Flatt
5 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

Ah, hello again low-information-vooter. Tell me, if you possess the mental capacity, how vooting for the last 50 years has slowed, let alone stopped, the advance of tyranny?? Especially since 2000 when they changed the rules for vooting. Tyranny has massively leapt forward in the last 20 years and NOTHING has slowed it. Do you know nothing?? Do you not know that Thomas Jefferson specifically said that “The tree of Liberty MUST be refreshed from time to time with the BLOOD of patriots AND TYRANTS”?? You cannot stop the growing movement of angry Americans who are yearning to bathe in… Read more »

panem et circenses
panem et circenses
5 months ago
Reply to  Will Flatt

Point taken, Will. But lighten up on the folks here that are allies.

Will Flatt
Will Flatt
5 months ago

You may not have seen some of the other threads, but this same individual was posting some weapons-grade douchery elsewhere. His answers to America’s problems is to increase to the maximum extent possible the number of low-information, low quality voters *AS IF* that will magically cure tyranny in government, bad politicians, bureaucratic overreach, and everything else that’s messed up.

It may seem like I was being unecessarily harsh, but appearances are often deceiving and absolutely so in this instance. The harshness was well-earned and absolutely necessary.

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
5 months ago
Reply to  Will Flatt

Will Flatt. This “same individual” literally created an account yesterday. LOL MAN!

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
5 months ago
Reply to  Will Flatt

Doing the same thing expecting different results is the definition of insanity, Will Flatt.

How long have you been talking on this forum about how we must rise up? Also, I would like to point out that not a single idiot on this page has a single idea as to when they cross the line.

Sure, voting hasn’t been working. I am not saying that we should continue as we are. We need more people to vote. There is no way that more Americans voted for Hitlary than Trump in 2016. We should prevent democrats from voting from the grave.

Ansel Hazen
Ansel Hazen
5 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

Here’s a thought. Trump 2020 or boogaloo. And perhaps people like the author should spend some quality time explaining to people of Jewish faith that voting demoncrat is voting for their slaughter.

Will Flatt
Will Flatt
5 months ago
Reply to  Ansel Hazen

Leftists lack the gene in their DNA that permits introspection and self-awareness. Worse, this is a brain disease that is contagious. Some demographics are harder hit than others.

Doszap
Doszap
5 months ago
Reply to  Ansel Hazen

I think it doesn’t matter if Trump wins,I now see him as part of the problem(he’s done more damage than Obama did), as well as the illustrious SCOTUS,Kavanaugh is less than impressing me on the 2A topic. Roberts to me is a traitor. Win or Lose, I see no option for anything except a Boog. The cops are going to continue to BREAK the LAW, in the name of the LAW. All Governors, Mayors, AG’s, and LE Chiefs/Sheriffs HAVE all broken their OATHS(the ones that are breaking the FEDERAL law by decree(not legislation,or Constitutionally.) WE DO NOT FOLLOW ORDERS BY… Read more »

Doszap
Doszap
5 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

No, its coming to your city, and if you are not prepared locked and loaded get ready to be a SERF.

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
5 months ago
Reply to  Doszap

I ain’t going down easy.

USMC0351Grunt
5 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

To wait and vote them out of office is to give them permissii. to keep committing the crimes they are committing against, We the People. It is our job and our duty as Citizens to immediately remove them from Office should they be committing crimes against We the People, not sit on our complacent asses allowing them to keep committing more crimes until the next election calendar date!

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
5 months ago
Reply to  USMC0351Grunt

@USMC0351Grunt, I would like to know what else we have recourse to do?

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
5 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

Will, that’s unlikely to fix dingbat.

Darkman
Darkman
5 months ago
Reply to  Will Flatt

Sorry you missed the sarcasm. I’ll try to make it a “Little” more obvious next time. As for supremacy of the citizenry. That was my point. It no longer exists due to the Fear of Consequences. “We the People” haven’t been the Master of Congress or the Courts for longer than most of the posters on this site. Due to apathy and trading comfort/security for responsibility. Along with the fact that by dividing “WE the People” along ideological lines. The people are so busy fighting among themselves. “Our Betters” get by with doing as they please. Regardless of the Constitution… Read more »

Will Flatt
Will Flatt
5 months ago
Reply to  Darkman

I agree with you 110%. What ought to be and what actually are… are two different things. But there’s still enough patriots out there who refuse to be RULED that TPTB hesitate to go full speed ahead.

As for your sarcasm, I see it now, now that you’ve pointed it out. I keep telling people that unless it’s on video, sarcasm just doesn’t transmit well over the internet.

As one of our brothers here says often, ARM UP, CARRY ON!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 months ago
Reply to  Darkman

@Dark, Sarcasm is inefficient, and I am a little dark myself. Just hit me straight.

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
5 months ago
Reply to  Darkman

Well, Darkman, let us not forget that the reason that justices are not voted in on terms is to try to promote justice and not politics in the justice system.

Will Flatt
Will Flatt
5 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

ROFL yeah right!! Tell me again, Mr. low-information vooter, how not allowing Justices to be term-limited has kept politics out of SCOTUS! Because from where I’m at, everything SCOTUS does lately is purely political. All the focus is on “is this Justice a conservative or liberal?” and whether one POTUS or another will be able to nominate various judges to be Justices on the high court, to influence the ratio of conservatives to liberals on the court!

You need to get some situational awareness of how things really are before you go pounding on that keyboard, mister.

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
5 months ago
Reply to  Will Flatt

I totally agree with you Will Flatt that the theory is a far stretch from the truth. I just haven’t heard any ways to try to limit politics in justice.

By the way, I love the GIF.

Darkman
Darkman
5 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

Yea how’s that been working out for Ya. Politics has infected every facet of the Courts. Justice is and has always been governed by the opinion of the Courts. In regards to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The law is the written word. Justice is a matter of opinion. Yours,Mine,Someone Else’s or the Courts.
Justice Law and Legal Definition. Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness, religion and/or equity. Justice is the result of the fair and proper administration of law.

Justice Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
5 months ago
Reply to  Darkman

Maybe some politics is unavoidable in the justice system Darkman? You would not agree with Ruth Bader on anything given the same evidence. Having justices voted in would leave them making campaign promises that they would break in order to be voted in again. Having them assigned means that they don’t have to worry about reelection. They will act how they feel that they should. Which will be very similar to the way that the person that assigned them would act.

Ansel Hazen
Ansel Hazen
5 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

And like career legislators who spend their lifetime in congress it hasn’t seemed to work.

Jonesy
Jonesy
5 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

Has not seemed to have succeeded from the “thirties” till present time.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 months ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

@GF, That safeguard against politics entering judicial analysis seems not to have worked as well as planned.

Doszap
Doszap
5 months ago
Reply to  Darkman

The 2A is simply a message to the GOVERNMENT “KEEP YOUR FREAKING HANDS OFF”.
WE THE PEOPLE had the RIGHTS to KABA BEFORE the BOR’s was ever dreamed of.

UNALIENABLE is just that, UNALIENABLE.

It’s called NATURAL LAW and it’s over 6000 yrs old.
NO GOVERNMENT by MAKING a NEW LAW or STRIKING down an old one can take away something that wasn’t There’s to give or Take to begin with.

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
5 months ago
Reply to  Doszap

Some people seem to think that the 2A is a right because it’s in the bill of rights, instead of realizing that its in the bill of rights because its a right.

Yeah, canadians are sunk.