June 26 at 11:48AM
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Your Glock
Today's historic Supreme Court ruling gives Americans brand new rights that we've had for centuries…
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment.
Let's all get drunk and shoot!
PERMALINK:
RSS
he he.
Yes, and he works for a National Cell Phone Company. So all his calls and contacts are free.
You got this guys name and number?
Yeah, they are a weird bunch on Yahoo 360. Sex and Drugs. They got both of those down.
Oh yeah, that guy in Calfornia that sends them all across the country to various women. You met him on Yahoo 360 too?
Wait! I know someone that can send you some Brownies with some illegal substances in them! That will be more fun! Personally though I prefer mine plain.
Bang! Bang! He shot it down. Justice Scalia – the loose strict constructionist. He is the Law.
In defining a "well-regulated militia" he states in the opinion of The Court:
"To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them."
I'm sorry what the fuck is a subset of "all able-bodied men?" By this,I guess he means a man's rib. Can a wheelchair bound female be considered part of a "well-regulated militia" with a right to bear arms. Growl.
I agree in part with this ruling, but not because of Scalian logic. Sorry. A theory of common sense and understanding the Constitution is a breathing document.
We, the people, have a right to bear arms to a reasonable extent. Is that strict construction? No. It just makes sense. Now, that's not what the 2nd Amendment explicitly states. So, he's got to fit a square peg in a round hole just to save face under a bogus pretext of "strict construction." Yet, he can't do this with a right to privacy. Because there is no explicit right to privacy in The Constitution, there must be no right to privacy. What a bunch of hogwash.
Ya think the Founding Father's words should be viewed in a vacuum? If so, no Founding Mothers or their female descendant counterparts would be included in the conversation today. Perhaps, 2/3 of African-Americans would be counted as chattel. Oh yeah, The Founders were soooooo prophetic they envisioned drive byes as the logical extension of carriages, horses, and muskets. Scalia uses a rope a dope tactic and stacks the deck of cards to suit his needs and make law. Oxymoronic logic? Not even close. Worse. It's whatever the hell he wants with a spin.
YOU WANT MORE SCALIAS? MORE ROBERTS? MORE THOMAS? LESS CONSTITUTION? THIS IS THE BIGGEST DAMN ISSUE FACING THE COUNTRY.
C'mon. Just say it man. We need the gats. And, by no stretch of the imagination can the word "militia" be interpreted to mean the real deal. The right of people to defend themselves. Since such an interpretation would require a different model of thinking, he couldn't take such a route to reach The Court's conclusion. It is an intellectually dishonest decision.
Plus, he pistol whips Justice Stevens particularly in the Opinion of The Court. He sprays the dissent with lead, riddles and ridicules an old man, and has absolutely zero respect. For anything or anyone. Especially women's rights. Rubbish. Get the wire hangars to defend against the upcoming rulings.
Jon- All due respect, you gave Justice Scalia way to big a gun in your book. Psych 101 – he's overcompensating.