May 05, 2014

Supreme Court Declines to Review Lower Court's Approval of New Jersey Law Sharply Restricting Right to Carry Gun Outside the Home
— Ace

After a series of pro-gun rulings, the Supreme Court declines to make another one.

The Supreme Court appears hesitant to wade back into the national debate on guns.

The court refused Monday to decide whether the right to bear arms extends outside the home. The justices won't consider a challenge to a New Jersey law that restricts most residents from carrying guns in public.

...

New Jersey law enforcement groups defended the state's requirement that citizens prove a "justifiable need" to carry handguns outside the home, whether openly or concealed from view. In their brief, they claimed the law "qualifies as a presumptively lawful, longstanding regulation that does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment's guarantee."

The Ninth Circuit had offered a contrary ruling --in Peruta, the appeals court ruled that San Diego could not impose a "justifiable need" requirement on the right to bear arms.

But New Jersey's law was upheld several times by the Third Circuit -- and the Supreme Court has refused to harmonize the decisions by issuing a ruling as to who is right.

The San Diego Sheriff declined to appeal the Peruta ruling. Given this new non-ruling from the Supreme Court -- seemingly blessing a version of the San Diego "justifiable need" regime -- Peruta might wind up being an outlier. And maybe the San Diego Sheriff will choose now to appeal it (if he still has time to do so).

[Update - Andy] More from our friend Michael James Barton at NRO's Bench Memos.


Posted by: Ace at 08:35 AM | Comments (358)
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

1 First

Posted by: Bruce Lee's Fist at May 05, 2014 08:35 AM (M+evy)

2 I tried to find a way to make it A Tax...

Posted by: John Iscariot Roberts at May 05, 2014 08:36 AM (7ObY1)

3 If you like your gun you can keep your gun.

Posted by: obama at May 05, 2014 08:37 AM (WCnJW)

4 Pussies.

Posted by: EC at May 05, 2014 08:37 AM (GQ8sn)

5 New Jersey law enforcement groups defended the state's requirement that citizens prove a "justifiable need" to carry handguns outside the home... Once again the cops(spit) prove they are the enemies shock troops.

Posted by: Republique De Banana at May 05, 2014 08:38 AM (thLL8)

6 The court refused Monday to decide whether the right to bear arms extends outside the home. Does the Constitution say, "...except outside the home?"

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at May 05, 2014 08:39 AM (0HooB)

7 Gonna let that stew simmer a bit longer.

Posted by: Socratease at May 05, 2014 08:39 AM (82qVG)

8 Kennedy must have flipped and at least one other.  It only tskes four judges to OK a case for hearing.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at May 05, 2014 08:39 AM (T2V/1)

9 Do that militia thing all you want, just don't leave    your house.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 05, 2014 08:40 AM (AskuI)

10 It's nice to know police officers are the go to authority on what my constitutional rights are. Bear fuckheads! What do you not understand??

Posted by: Kreplach at May 05, 2014 08:40 AM (bd38m)

11 There goes that freedom down the drain.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 08:42 AM (BZAd3)

12 Bear fuckheads! You should never call bears "fuckheads." That just pisses them off.

Posted by: Guy Who Doesn't Give a Shit at May 05, 2014 08:42 AM (7ObY1)

13 I would not expect NJ cops to agree with anything honest.  NJ making sure that LA is not the most corrupt State.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at May 05, 2014 08:42 AM (T2V/1)

14 Decisions are Taxing.

Posted by: Dread Justice Roberts at May 05, 2014 08:43 AM (jZMVx)

15 It's the "wrong rock" game only with guns and a possible prison term. Managers will sometimes give vague instructions (and not know themselves what they want). When you come back with what you think the right answer or solution is, they say, "That's not what I was looking for." Similarly, you may think subjectively that you have a justified need for a gun, but proceed at your own risk, citizen. It's a completely capricious regime. It should be unconstitutional on those grounds alone.

Posted by: Holmes at May 05, 2014 08:43 AM (GAqms)

16 So if you're carrying a gun outside your home in NJ, just make sure you are wearing a snappy uniform.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at May 05, 2014 08:43 AM (32Ze2)

17 This is not good.   The SCOTUS, in my opinion, has an obligation to hear this case.   BUT, it's the price one pays for living in  NJ.  If you don't like it, move.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 08:43 AM (I2drx)

18 and the Supreme Court has refused to harmonize the decisions by issuing a ruling as to who is right.

I believe the phrase 'What the hell is the point of you?' should be applied to the SC here.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i][/b] at May 05, 2014 08:43 AM (JmGFJ)

19 bye bye chris christie -- no nat'l stage for u.

Posted by: jb at May 05, 2014 08:45 AM (tW5aP)

20 Is it not funny that the very places you need a sidearm the worst are the very places that work the hardest to make sure you can't. Then check the ruling party in those places!

Posted by: Old Dog at May 05, 2014 08:45 AM (tQYJH)

21 24 shot and 4 killed in Gun Free Shitcago just this last weekend.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at May 05, 2014 08:46 AM (32Ze2)

22 I would have loved to be able to carry when I was working in Newark. Fucking city of savages.

Posted by: garrett at May 05, 2014 08:46 AM (jZMVx)

23 Refusing to grant cert in this is bizarre. There's a clear circuit conflict and the holding seems at odds with Heller and its progeny. I'm actually surprised this didn't get taken up.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 08:47 AM (mf5HN)

24 We are a nation of black robed despots.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 08:47 AM (LJ7Ze)

25 I am sick of this shit where we have to worry on which side of the bed one of these fucks wakes up. And I'm counting Scalia and Thomas amongst these jerk faces. Any of these fucks know who George Mason is? Assholes!!!!

Posted by: Kreplach at May 05, 2014 08:47 AM (bd38m)

26 New Jersey law enforcement groups defended the state's requirement that citizens prove a "justifiable need" to carry handguns outside the home.

----


Well.... whadid we say???

Posted by: The Chicago Machine at May 05, 2014 08:47 AM (nELVU)

27 I'm actually surprised this didn't get taken up. We're not.

Posted by: NSA at May 05, 2014 08:48 AM (thLL8)

28 I know!


You can carry if you pay a special tax!!!


Posted by: EC at May 05, 2014 08:48 AM (GQ8sn)

29 21 That's impossible. Chicago is a gun free zone.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 08:48 AM (LJ7Ze)

30 Habeas Corpus - moot Fourth amendment - effectively repealed through the Patriot Act (with our collective blessing) First amendment - nearly moot through the establishment of 1st amendment zones Second amendment - dying a slow, agonizing death. Posse Comitatus Act - effectively moot - again through the Patriot Act and the establishment of the Homeland Security Administration. We are running out of acts and amendment to repeal or render moot.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 08:48 AM (BZAd3)

31 22 I would have loved to be able to carry when I was working in Newark. Fucking city of savages. Yep. You need a Panzer Division to work down there.

Posted by: Chaos the Other Dark Meat at May 05, 2014 08:48 AM (oDCMR)

32 Shit. Our conservative town supervisor has given up and resigned after months and months of politically-driven harassment from the left. They drove him out of office with constant nuisance lawsuits and he's done spending all his money to defend himself. Now I guess our fiscally solvent, low-crime town can go to shit like all the surrounding Lib-controlled shitholes. Fuck fuckity fuck fuck.

Posted by: Guy Who Doesn't Give a Shit at May 05, 2014 08:49 AM (7ObY1)

33 So, what's the next state to ban carry outside the home?

Posted by: Republique De Banana at May 05, 2014 08:49 AM (thLL8)

34 I am convinced that blackmail is being applied to members    of the court as well as    to politicians and news organizations.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 05, 2014 08:49 AM (AskuI)

35 When guns are outlawed, only illegal aliens will have guns. I modified it to reflect the new reality.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 08:51 AM (BZAd3)

36 I am convinced that blackmail is being applied to members of the court as well as to politicians and news organizations. Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 05, 2014 12:49 PM (AskuI) ____________________ ^^THIS^^. What else explains John Roberts vote on O'Vomitcare?

Posted by: Truck Monkey at May 05, 2014 08:51 AM (32Ze2)

37 We all need to dig deep inside our souls and ask ourselves if guns really protect us or give us an entitlement to start an altercation and end it with the use of a fire arm. God help our children. Because the NRA won't.

Posted by: Moms Demand NJ Chapter at May 05, 2014 08:51 AM (fWAjv)

38 34 What would be the point of gathering all your personal data if they weren't blackmailing the Supreme Court Justices?

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 08:51 AM (LJ7Ze)

39 We are running out of acts and amendment to repeal or render moot. And some people think electing Republican's will solve these problems. LOL

Posted by: Republique De Banana at May 05, 2014 08:51 AM (thLL8)

40 In local news, Scottie McCreary and some of his friends just got home-invaded last night.   Three intruders armed with guns.

Posted by: EC at May 05, 2014 08:52 AM (GQ8sn)

41 Almost all of the gun rights victories we've won are on a 5-4 basis and can be overturned with one more SCOTUS appt by Obama or Hillary.

Posted by: Separate but Stupid at May 05, 2014 08:52 AM (ZPrif)

42 I wonder if blackmail has that little handle that goes up?

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 08:53 AM (LJ7Ze)

43 I doubt very many cities in NJ would have followed the law if it had been fixed. The institutional disdain for legal firearms here is immutable. You can get a permit to own a handgun if you jump through some hoops and have a clean record, though.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 05, 2014 08:53 AM (8Pg2o)

44 They drove him out of office with constant nuisance lawsuits and he's done spending all his money to defend himself.

Who pays for these lawsuits?  Is this just a bunch of trust-fund-baby libtards spending away their money on nuisance lawsuits because they're bored?  I don't get it. 

Posted by: chemjeff at May 05, 2014 08:53 AM (dBV5N)

45  I am convinced that blackmail is being applied to members of the court as well as to politicians and news organizations.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 05, 2014 12:49 PM (AskuI)

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

 

I am too.  The  government  corruption abyss is pitch-black and bottomless.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 08:53 AM (I2drx)

46 We are running out of acts and amendment to repeal or render moot. Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 12:48 PM (BZAd3) I used to wave the Third Amendment banner for that but given cops taking over people's houses and what happened to those tourists in the lodge at Yellowstone (I think, distributed Horde knowledge etc), yeah, that's out the window as well.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 08:53 AM (mf5HN)

47 @  32

  Sarah Palin redux.

   That's precisely what they did to her.

Posted by: irongrampa at May 05, 2014 08:54 AM (SAMxH)

48 disturbing

Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl at May 05, 2014 08:54 AM (u8GsB)

49 Who pays for these lawsuits? Is this just a bunch of trust-fund-baby libtards spending away their money on nuisance lawsuits because they're bored? I don't get it. Big Unions with Deep Pockets in these parts.

Posted by: Guy Who Doesn't Give a Shit at May 05, 2014 08:54 AM (7ObY1)

50 My justifiable need is that I have police officers in my community who think I need their pre-approval to exercise my constitutional rights.  In short, the fact that they think they can prevent me from carrying is all the justification I need to carry.

Really, this is like requiring people to have a justifiable need to speak in public before they are allowed to do so.

Posted by: Thatch at May 05, 2014 08:54 AM (qYvEa)

51 Isn't Paul Anka from Jersey? What's his position on this?

Posted by: jwest at May 05, 2014 08:55 AM (u2a4R)

52 So the SC is letting stand that the issue is one for the various states to decide. That seems to imply that restrictions like magazine capacities will also be allowed to stand.
 
So if you are in an afflicted state like NY or NJ, your options are:
 
1. Move
2. Attempt to get the law changed
3. Decide to test the old adage 'better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6'.

Posted by: GnuBreed at May 05, 2014 08:55 AM (wNF3N)

53 We all need to dig deep inside our souls and ask ourselves if guns really protect us or give us an entitlement to start an altercation and end it with the use of a fire arm. God help our children. Because the NRA won't. Posted by: Moms ------------------------ Do you mean 'start an altercation' on a personal level? Because I see no evidence of that. While ownership has risen, murder rates have dropped. Surely you do not mean 'start an altercation' with some element of the government?

Posted by: Mike Hammer at May 05, 2014 08:55 AM (aDwsi)

54 I don't need a citizen with a hero complex trying to protect me. I'm fine without having a gun, whether it's mine or someone else's. People need to get over their irrational fear that they're going to be shot at the grocery store/library/church/walking down the street, and the irrational notion that their having a gun will stop that from happening. Except for the police.

Posted by: Moms Demand NJ Chapter at May 05, 2014 08:55 AM (fWAjv)

55 I am convinced that blackmail is being applied to members of the court as well as to politicians and news organizations.

Why is it such a stretch to simply assume that lifelong government employees have statist tendencies?

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at May 05, 2014 08:56 AM (+lsX1)

56 Who pays for these lawsuits? Is this just a bunch of trust-fund-baby libtards spending away their money on nuisance lawsuits because they're bored? I don't get it.

Posted by: chemjeff at May 05, 2014 12:53 PM (dBV5N)

 

 

---------------------------------------------

 

 

I want to hear from the people on this blog that will call him a coward, and that he quit half-way through, proving that he was, after all, worthless.

 

C'mon, I want to hear from you.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 08:56 AM (I2drx)

57 Atlas Shrugged and 1984 are books of Prophecy.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 08:56 AM (LJ7Ze)

58 @43 My town would definitely allow it. It's a strongly republican county in a sea of blue. This pisses me off to no end. I'm streaming. This makes no sense.

Posted by: Kreplach at May 05, 2014 08:56 AM (bd38m)

59 Twitter wars taking on new meaning in Ukraine. They aren't releasing personal details just so they can say mean things on the internet about each other. Euromaidan PR ‏@EuromaidanPR 13m Personal data of #Odesa pro-Ukr activists placed in social networks. Separatists call for revenge over the dead in 2May fire. 048.ua |EMPR

Posted by: Separate but Stupid at May 05, 2014 08:56 AM (ZPrif)

60 Come on down!

Posted by: Texas , Georgia and Red State America [/i] [/b] at May 05, 2014 08:56 AM (5ikDv)

61 Moms Demand NJ Chapter You're trying to kill me with a stroke right?

Posted by: Republique De Banana at May 05, 2014 08:57 AM (thLL8)

62 I am convinced that blackmail is being applied to members of the court as well as to politicians and news organizations. One of the things most parents try to instill in their kids it to be careful who they associate with. Washington DC is a nest of vipers. It doesn't matter anymore who we send in there. After about three years they're all corrupted. It starts with "horse trading". Then your POV is warped by the bubble. Then you make a couple of deals that seem advantageous at the time. Then a friend of a donor comes to get some repayment. And then and then and then...

Posted by: bonhomme at May 05, 2014 08:57 AM (l5wxK)

63 Except for the police.

No, there should be no guns anywhere, not even with the police!  We must put an end to any and all violence!  It is time for a BAN on violence!  Confiscate all the guns and have mandatory peaceful meditation for all citizens!

Posted by: Moms Demanding Attention at May 05, 2014 08:57 AM (dBV5N)

64 Moms Demand NJ Chapter You're trying to kill me with a stroke right? Posted by: Republique De Banana at May 05, 2014 12:57 PM (thLL You're being socked, people. Very very very well done sock, but still, a sock. *insert me whinging about how I got banninated when I tried to do it*

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 08:59 AM (mf5HN)

65 Interesting that we have two big circuits with split opinions. I suspect we will see another circuit involved. Then maybe the Court will intervene. Perhaps, the Court thinks it has basically spoken on the issue for now and wishes to allow the circuits develop the law for a while. I don't see this as much of a set back. I suspect the 3rd circuit will be in the minority. Getting the 9th on your side is a big get.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 09:00 AM (gmeXX)

66 @51 It is even more basic than that. The Supreme Court has already ruled that police officers are not accountable for your personal safety. In fact there was a case in New York recently where I man was being attacked by thugs and the two cops that were on the train while this attack was taking place locked themselves in the conductors car rather than confront the attacker. Fucking bastards.

Posted by: Kreplach at May 05, 2014 09:00 AM (bd38m)

67 The best socks are the ones most likely to get banned -- too accurate.

Posted by: Separate but Stupid at May 05, 2014 09:00 AM (ZPrif)

68 All of the cities in    NJ should ban guns like Chicago did.   Boom!  Problem solved, no more gun violence.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 05, 2014 09:00 AM (AskuI)

69 No, there should be no guns anywhere, not even with the police! We must put an end to any and all violence! It is time for a BAN on violence! Confiscate all the guns and have mandatory peaceful meditation for all citizens! Posted by: Moms Demanding Attention at May 05, 2014 12:57 PM (dBV5N) Thankfully someone here gets it. When you see gun extremist on our streets call 911! Make the cops identify who has a gun in inappropriate places. Tell the cops that extremists are not making us safer any more than a lunatic with an AK-47 walking down the street. We can not tell the difference.

Posted by: Moms Demand NJ Chapter at May 05, 2014 09:00 AM (fWAjv)

70 If you like your gun you can keep your gun. Posted by: obama at May 05, 2014 If you like your gun you can keep your gun locked up. BHO

Posted by: Nothing to see here, move along at May 05, 2014 09:00 AM (L0my5)

71 Big City Police should be armed with bean bag guns only. Maybe with a bracelet so no one else can shoot innocent passersby with it. Only the Police should be able to wantonly mow down innocent people indiscriminately.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:01 AM (LJ7Ze)

72 And you know what?  We should ban all aggression.  Including micro-aggression.  We need tough enforcement of bans on aggression.  But not violent enforcement.  Peaceful enforcement.

Posted by: Moms Demanding Attention at May 05, 2014 09:01 AM (dBV5N)

73 I used to wave the Third Amendment banner for that but given cops taking over people's houses and what happened to those tourists in the lodge at Yellowstone (I think, distributed Horde knowledge etc), yeah, that's out the window as well. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 12:53 PM (mf5HN) This is really astonishing when you think about it. Just a couple of years since references started cropping up about the constitution being anachronistic to our times. Yet here we are. This is telegraphing the acceptance of the U.N. global ban on guns by this country. This new lack of freedoms is so... so... liberating. Don't you think?

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 09:01 AM (BZAd3)

74 Confiscate all the guns and have mandatory peaceful meditation for all citizens! *golf clap* That is some quality socking right there.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at May 05, 2014 09:01 AM (0HooB)

75 73 too bossy

Posted by: Nothing to see here, move along at May 05, 2014 09:02 AM (L0my5)

76 Sarah Palin redux. That's precisely what they did to her. And some people on the right STILL call her a quitter. It's crazy. She was being personally bankrupted by nuisance lawsuits and left to stop the money drain.

Posted by: bonhomme at May 05, 2014 09:02 AM (l5wxK)

77 @  57

     Soona, betcha all you're gonna hear is crickets.

    Now someone prove me wrong.

Posted by: irongrampa at May 05, 2014 09:03 AM (SAMxH)

78 Atlas Shrugged and 1984 are books of Prophecy. - 1984 was wrong on one point. It's not Big Brother. It's Big Baby Brother.

Posted by: WalrusRex at May 05, 2014 09:03 AM (XUKZU)

79 The Supreme Court appears hesitant to wade back into the national debate on guns. That word 'Supreme' must not mean what I think it means...

Posted by: t-bird at May 05, 2014 09:03 AM (FcR7P)

80 48 @ 32 Sarah Palin redux. That's precisely what they did to her. Posted by: irongrampa at May 05, 2014 12:54 PM (SAMxH) Yup. Only a matter of time before the Palin Hate Squad begins chiming in and denouncing him as a quitting quitter who quits.

Posted by: Big McLargehuge at May 05, 2014 09:03 AM (o1CfD)

81 I believe the Constitution has a fatal flaw. Presidents can be impeached if they have a dearth of melanin. I don't think Judges or Serpent Court Justices can be recalled.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:03 AM (LJ7Ze)

82

63, here is a perfect example:

 


Minnesota congressman Jim Oberstar dies at 79

James L. Oberstar, the son of a miner who became a power in Washington during his 36 years in the House, where he was chairman of the Transportation Committee, died May 3 at his home in Potomac, Md0. He was 79.

His Funeral will be in "his hometown" of Washington D.C. He will be buried in Maryland too. Obviously he was loyal to "his" home state.

Mr. Oberstar, who was the ­longest-serving congressman in Minnesota history, was first elected in 1974. His legacy is visible throughout his home state, where his Washington influence secured funding for public works projects including the United States Hockey Hall of Fame in Eveleth, a commuter rail system in the Twin Cities

I visited the US Hockey hall of fame in Eveleth, MN on a Saturday morning about fifteen years ago. They had to turn the lights on for us. We were the only visitors.

Posted by: My Congressman Really, Really supports my state at May 05, 2014 09:04 AM (N7QgG)

83 Active shooter at a VA Med Center in Ohio, per Facebook.

Posted by: Lincolntf at May 05, 2014 09:04 AM (ZshNr)

84 Confiscate all the guns and have mandatory peaceful meditation for all citizens! - You give me all your money and I won't go mandatory mostly peaceful on your ass.

Posted by: WalrusRex at May 05, 2014 09:04 AM (XUKZU)

85 Heh. Rick Perry wants to raise the Maximum Wage. I do like the cut of his jib on everything except amnesty.

Posted by: Guy Who Doesn't Give a Shit at May 05, 2014 09:04 AM (7ObY1)

86 This is not good. The SCOTUS, in my opinion, has an obligation to hear this case ---- I don't see much reason to take as big a negative view on this as you without knowing more. Perhaps the facts and law (meaning how written) just don't make it a good supreme court case. Maybe the pro-2nd amendment justices think things are moving toward the 9th circuit view (i mean it was the 9th circuit) and they don't need to expend political capital on this matter - wait until another circuit voices an opinion on the matter. Things are moving in the right direction, I wouldn't take too much negativity from a decision to not grant cert - particularly when you already have the 9th on the right side (for now).

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 09:04 AM (gmeXX)

87 You had me going there for a minute Moms.

Posted by: Buck Farack, Gentleman Adventurer at May 05, 2014 09:04 AM (y9dfJ)

88 Posted by: Moms Demand NJ Chapter What sayeth the Horde? Sock or troll?

Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at May 05, 2014 09:04 AM (NSh5j)

89 The court refused Monday to decide whether the right to bear arms extends outside the home. That's how we beat the British, with a Militia Of One in every home...

Posted by: t-bird at May 05, 2014 09:04 AM (FcR7P)

90
   There's one, at #77.

    Thank you.

  More?

Posted by: irongrampa at May 05, 2014 09:04 AM (SAMxH)

91 No, there should be no guns anywhere, not even with the police! We must put an end to any and all violence! It is time for a BAN on violence! Confiscate all the guns and have mandatory peaceful meditation for all citizens! Posted by: Moms Demanding Attention #banbossybitches

Posted by: rickb223 at May 05, 2014 09:04 AM (XCfYI)

92 Atlas Shrugged and 1984 are books of Prophecy. Nope. Cookbooks.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at May 05, 2014 09:04 AM (0HooB)

93 All of the cities in NJ should ban guns like Chicago did. Boom! Problem solved, no more gun violence. Supply free abortions as well.

Posted by: Republique De Banana at May 05, 2014 09:05 AM (thLL8)

94 55 I don't need a citizen with a hero complex trying to protect me. I'm fine without having a gun, whether it's mine or someone else's. Posted by: Moms Demand NJ Chapter at May 05, 2014 12:55 PM (fWAjv) You do not get to decide for the rest of us. My right is not subject to YOUR whim.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 05, 2014 09:05 AM (bb5+k)

95 Well, since we're talking guns and the need therefore, hey, New Jersey, here's what just happened to me. Guy came in, decent enough looking fellow, and starts up a spiel about having furniture on a truck outside to sell and shows me a business license. I tell him that sorry the boss isn't here right now (which is true). He then asks me if I'm the only one here. Yeah. I had my hand on that bear mace on the front desk in a heartbeat and told him that I would hope it was obvious that I would not answer that question and then he thanked me and left. But, hey, NJ, I'm a nutty mcnutbar for thinking I need a gun, right? Note that I have no idea if the guy was dangerous. Which is the entire point. I don't know one way or another. Protip to the 'rons though - asking a woman if she is alone in the office is a sure fire way to fire off every single warning bell she has.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 09:05 AM (mf5HN)

96 No, there should be no guns anywhere, not even with the police! We must put an end to any and all violence! It is time for a BAN on violence! Confiscate all the guns and have mandatory peaceful meditation for all citizens! Posted by: Moms Demanding Attention #banbossybitches

Posted by: rickb223 at May 05, 2014 09:05 AM (XCfYI)

97 Sarah Palin redux. That's precisely what they did to her. Palin was in office for what, 2 years? Our guy has devoted decades to running our town. It's not a glamorous job like Governor, and it doesn't pay well either. He did it out of love for his town.

Posted by: Guy Who Doesn't Give a Shit at May 05, 2014 09:06 AM (7ObY1)

98
   About time for Hollowpoint to chime in.

Posted by: irongrampa at May 05, 2014 09:06 AM (SAMxH)

99 Active shooter at a VA Med Center in Ohio, per Facebook. I question the timing.

Posted by: Republique De Banana at May 05, 2014 09:06 AM (thLL8)

100 Isn't this the fucking raison d'être of the Supreme Court? To take conflicting opinions and law and craft one common understanding and law? Fucking. Assholes.

Posted by: Kreplach at May 05, 2014 09:06 AM (bd38m)

101 89 Posted by: Moms Demand NJ Chapter

What sayeth the Horde? Sock or troll?

Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at May 05, 2014 01:04 PM (NSh5j)

 

Sock.  Its RWC.

Posted by: buzzion at May 05, 2014 09:07 AM (LI48c)

102 69 All of the cities in NJ should ban guns like Chicago did. Boom! Problem solved, no more gun violence. Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 05, 2014 01:00 PM (AskuI) The right's response to ANY gun violence in Chicago is that Chicago has possibly the strictest gun laws around, so it just shows that gun control does not work. What they fail to note is that gun laws won't work unless we have a national gun control policy, as it is too easy to buy guns elsewhere and bring them into the big cities.

Posted by: Moms Demand NJ Chapter at May 05, 2014 09:07 AM (fWAjv)

103 Sarah Palin was also a crossbow enthusiast.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:08 AM (LJ7Ze)

104 Heller was a 5-4 decision. Maybe both side were unsure of how Kennedy would vote so neither wanted to grant cert and be on the losing side.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 09:09 AM (gmeXX)

105 I can guarantee you    that 99% of the guns used in Chicago crime were purchased in Chicago.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 05, 2014 09:09 AM (AskuI)

106 Very very very well done sock, but still, a sock. *insert me whinging about how I got banninated when I tried to do it* Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 12:59 PM (mf5HN) Such nonsense commentary is perfectly consistent with the opinions of various liberal asswipes with whom we've all had the bad fortune to become familiar. You can't parody this stuff anymore.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 05, 2014 09:09 AM (bb5+k)

107 "What else explains John Roberts vote on O'Vomitcare? " =============== Nativist DC dumbfuckery. What, you don't think Supreme Court justices like getting invited to cocktail parties? Just look at one picture of Roberts doing that closed-eyed tight-lipped smile thing that he does and you know this is a guy who craves approval.

Posted by: Kensington (@NYKensington) at May 05, 2014 09:10 AM (H84UO)

108 Well, that'll put a stake thru national right to carry. Which, IMHO, isn't a bad thing. "What the feds give, the feds can take away."

Posted by: rickb223 at May 05, 2014 09:10 AM (z/J+t)

109 Sock. Its RWC. Heh. I knew it was a Moron/'ette. I liked the "sneaking up on you" part. The first comment wasn't too far out, the next one was a little bit further out, and the third one was where you set the hook. Bravissimo.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at May 05, 2014 09:10 AM (0HooB)

110 The right's response to ANY gun violence in Chicago is that Chicago has possibly the strictest gun laws around, so it just shows that gun control does not work. What they fail to note is that gun laws won't work unless we have a national gun control policy, as it is too easy to buy guns elsewhere and bring them into the big cities. Posted by: Moms Demand NJ Chapter at May 05, 2014 01:07 PM (fWAjv) RWC's awesome socking of actual gun rights opponents views does point out what the other side thinks. The newest spin I'm seeing on the Chicago death count is that the Right is jacking off to those numbers because they are so happy about black kids in Chicago getting killed. You know, it must be truly awesome to take a position and make in nonfalsifiable. Why the hell do I waste my time on trying to be sure I know the foundations for my views and the pros and cons thereof. Oh. Wait. I keep forgetting that there are no cons to Libtopia. Everything is Skittles shitting unicorns.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 09:11 AM (mf5HN)

111 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:11 AM (PYAXX)

112 101 Just build a wall around Chicago with watchtowers and machine gun nests so none of those racists can smuggle guns back into Chicago.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:11 AM (LJ7Ze)

113
   For those who came to Palin's defense, thank you.

   I've wondered from time to time if this tactic would be employed again elsewhere.

   Be interesting to trace the funding.

Posted by: irongrampa at May 05, 2014 09:12 AM (SAMxH)

114 It would appear that "Moms" is RWC.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 05, 2014 09:12 AM (bb5+k)

115 The sidebar looks a lot better now that Gillespie has been pushed down a ways.

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at May 05, 2014 09:12 AM (L02KD)

116

Well, that'll put a stake thru national right to carry. Which, IMHO, isn't a bad thing.
"What the feds give, the feds can take away."

 

--

 

Rick, we don't need a national right to carry.  We have a God given right to carry, recognized in the Bill of Rights.  The issue is having a framework to keep the police at bay.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 05, 2014 09:12 AM (AskuI)

117 I'll stop before a banning. You can't parody this stuff anymore. Posted by: D-Lamp at May 05, 2014 01:09 PM (bb5+k) True. Those were actual comments lifted from MDA and CSGV facebook. (I had to use the more 'sane' ones to appear plausible. Didn't want to use their go-to debate tactic of 'you have a small dick.')

Posted by: RWC at May 05, 2014 09:13 AM (fWAjv)

118 This thing with the cops pushing this stuff has not sat well with more for a while. When they they passed the new laws up in NYS, I took a drive up to the first gun show in Middletown with my dad, just to see what the changes would be. Much to my surprise the same dealers were there selling the same stuff, just for "LEO" only. It's high time these exemptions are ended, I think that's one way to get them back on our side. The fact is if you need something for your duties as a cop, it should be provided by the department. You shouldn't get special privilege to have your own private stash of weapons the rest of us are not legally permitted to own. It's bullshit.

Posted by: Dr. Shatterhand at May 05, 2014 09:13 AM (n/ogz)

119 Rick, we don't need a national right to carry. We have a God given right to carry, recognized in the Bill of Rights. The issue is having a framework to keep the police at bay. I agree. But to let the feds get their stinking paws on it would be bad.

Posted by: rickb223 at May 05, 2014 09:14 AM (z/J+t)

120 RWC's awesome socking of actual gun rights opponents views does point out what the other side thinks. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 01:11 PM (mf5HN) See 117. That is exactly what they think.

Posted by: RWC at May 05, 2014 09:14 AM (fWAjv)

121 Even a large dick makes a poor weapon.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:14 AM (LJ7Ze)

122 Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 01:11 PM (mf5HN) It's really sad that, when you get down to it, the left has exactly 1 tactic- the ad hominem attack. They can't win on substance- and if the debate goes long enough, they know that substance will win the day over emotionalism. So they get their emotive talking point out there, and then cry "Raaaaacist!" (or "war on wimmin!" or whatever) such that even continuing the argument "proves that you are" whatever they're claiming.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:14 AM (PYAXX)

123 Sarah Palin was also a crossbow Reality Show enthusiast. FIFY

Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 05, 2014 09:15 AM (SY2Kh)

124 RWC shows that we perfectly perceive the Liberal perspective, and its flawed nature. The converse is not true. Well socked.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at May 05, 2014 09:15 AM (aDwsi)

125 I could tell that was a sock.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:16 AM (LJ7Ze)

126 Once again, I'm going to say, thank God I live in Oklahoma.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 09:16 AM (I2drx)

127 I had to use the more 'sane' ones to appear plausible. Didn't want to use their go-to debate tactic of 'you have a small dick.' You mean their whole platform is 'MOAR COCK'? Did not know that.

Posted by: t-bird at May 05, 2014 09:16 AM (FcR7P)

128 Okay, help a girl out: How do you tell if it's a sock? Usually, I can tell if they're being really sarcastic (or if they admit it), but you guys seem to have a built-in sock-finder.

Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at May 05, 2014 09:16 AM (NSh5j)

129 Only a RAAAAACIST could defend Silver's continued ownership of the Clippers after he made private racist comments. Only a homophobe could defend Chick-fil-A's right to have a stance on marriage. And, in the case of Chicago gun violence- only a racist gun-nut would argue that anything other than complete national gun confiscation is the solution to the problem.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:16 AM (PYAXX)

130 You shouldn't get special privilege to have your own private stash of weapons the rest of us are not legally permitted to own ----- I argued this point with some a few months ago with respect to someone saying that the Atl Braves (or maybe the city or county) were no longer allowing off-duty cops to carry weapons into the stadium. I argued that it made sense to me because cops shouldn't get special privileges over citizens.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 09:17 AM (gmeXX)

131 121 Even a large dick makes a poor weapon. Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 01:14 PM (LJ7Ze) Have you seen the destruction some of the schadenboners have brought about here??? Not to be trifled with!

Posted by: RWC at May 05, 2014 09:17 AM (fWAjv)

132 128 minx+hash Google it. Sometimes just hash will unearth the real nick.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:18 AM (LJ7Ze)

133 Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at May 05, 2014 01:16 PM (NSh5j) Hash will give it away. (Bolded part of your nic)

Posted by: RWC at May 05, 2014 09:18 AM (fWAjv)

134 Okay, help a girl out: How do you tell if it's a sock? Usually, I can tell if they're being really sarcastic (or if they admit it), but you guys seem to have a built-in sock-finder. Look for the IP Hash (eg: (PYAXX) for AllenG). Then google "site:minx.cc PYAXX" and look to see if it's someone you know.

Posted by: bonhomme at May 05, 2014 09:18 AM (l5wxK)

135

I argued this point with some a few months ago with respect to someone saying that the Atl Braves (or maybe the city or county) were no longer allowing off-duty cops to carry weapons into the stadium. I argued that it made sense to me because cops shouldn't get special privileges over citizens.

 

--

 

I don't know Atlanta laws, but in Texas, police officers are considered on call when off duty, in other words, they must respond to a crime    if they are present.  For this reason, all Texas officers carry at all times.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 05, 2014 09:19 AM (AskuI)

136 More Koch is always a good thing.

Posted by: Harry Reid at May 05, 2014 09:19 AM (LJ7Ze)

137 I liked the "sneaking up on you" part. The first comment wasn't too far out, the next one was a little bit further out, and the third one was where you set the hook. -------------------- Yeah, the tip-off was the implication that Liberals might be walking to church.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at May 05, 2014 09:19 AM (aDwsi)

138 128 Okay, help a girl out: How do you tell if it's a sock? Usually, I can tell if they're being really sarcastic (or if they admit it), but you guys seem to have a built-in sock-finder. Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at May 05, 2014 01:16 PM (NSh5j) -------------- It's hard to tell, most I think check the hash. i.e. The letter/number combo after your username. Though some are longstanding socks, like Mary from Brattleboro.

Posted by: nnptcgrad at May 05, 2014 09:19 AM (gwUoM)

139 you guys seem to have a built-in sock-finder. Every browser does. Search for "site:mu.nu (fWAjv)"

Posted by: t-bird at May 05, 2014 09:19 AM (FcR7P)

140 Okay, help a girl out: How do you tell if it's a sock? Usually, I can tell if they're being really sarcastic (or if they admit it), but you guys seem to have a built-in sock-finder. Experience, mostly. But also check out the hash. Like yours (from the computer you're on right now) is "(NSh5j)" So if you decided to comment as LeftWingCrazyPerson, the hash wouldn't change, and people could look and realize you were wearing a sock.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:19 AM (PYAXX)

141 ... when you get down to it, the left has exactly 1 tactic- the ad hominem attack. --AllenG I saw that caption fit properly beneath Hitler's photo.

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 05, 2014 09:19 AM (gmrH5)

142 "I argued this point with some a few months ago with respect to someone saying that the Atl Braves (or maybe the city or county) were no longer allowing off-duty cops to carry weapons into the stadium. I argued that it made sense to me because cops shouldn't get special privileges over citizens. Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 01:17 PM (gmeXX)" I have been trying to argue this point a lot lately, with mixed results. In NJ retired LEO's can get a carry permit. I would argue they should not have this privilege. The logic behind it is "to make our communities safer"

Posted by: Dr. Shatterhand at May 05, 2014 09:20 AM (n/ogz)

143 And, in the case of Chicago gun violence- only a racist gun-nut would argue that anything other than complete national gun confiscation is the solution to the problem. 120 million guns. 30 million illegals. Work on the smaller number first.

Posted by: rickb223 at May 05, 2014 09:20 AM (z/J+t)

144 Ah, I feel smarter already. Thanks, guys.

Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at May 05, 2014 09:20 AM (NSh5j)

145 Whoops, mu.nu works, but I meant 'site:minx.cc ...'

Posted by: t-bird at May 05, 2014 09:20 AM (FcR7P)

146 Who pays for these lawsuits? Is this just a bunch of trust-fund-baby libtards spending away their money on nuisance lawsuits because they're bored? I don't get it. Posted by: chemjeff at May 05, 2014 12:53 PM (dBV5N) You don't have to pay a lawyer if you're the lawyer.

Posted by: AmishDude at May 05, 2014 09:21 AM (1UzRc)

147 OT but I want to apologize in advance for the incipient East Coast brown out I'm about to cause: http://bit.ly/1iiTZUJ The look on Brit Hume's face when they first cut to him is awesome. All the awesome. Bless her heart, that mewling little cuntling does her best to spin the unspinable. If it weren't that this subject involved the death of four Americans and the massive dereliction of duty by the executive branch, it would be adorable.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 09:21 AM (mf5HN)

148
Oh man, I think this is a big one, it seems to me that this will resonate way beyond NJ.  Not a lawyer nor do I play one on tv, I suspect many of them might poo poo this, but I see a rash of new 'outside the home' laws coming down the pike.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at May 05, 2014 09:21 AM (hJauc)

149 Given that I use 3G on my iPad, I wonder if my hash changes a lot. Never kept track of it.

Posted by: nnptcgrad at May 05, 2014 09:22 AM (gwUoM)

150 OT: What a sad ending to what was an exciting air show till yesterday. All the air crafts are leaving unceremoniously, instead of the normal "good bye" fly bys.

Posted by: Ma Bell at May 05, 2014 09:23 AM (RLdcX)

151 Looks like Boner Johnny gave the Select Committee to Gowdy.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 05, 2014 09:23 AM (oFCZn)

152 Though some are longstanding socks, like Mary from Brattleboro. I miss Jose Canseco and Daughter Quivering Lip. Hadji doesn't come around much anymore either, which is sad. He Who Holds the Goat for the Delight of Others...

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at May 05, 2014 09:23 AM (0HooB)

153 146 Or if you have the Southern Palestine Law Center or the ADL funding you. Those two are both under Federal control and financing.

Posted by: Harry Reid at May 05, 2014 09:23 AM (LJ7Ze)

154 I suspect many of them might poo poo this, but I see a rash of new 'outside the home' laws coming down the pike ---- That ought to be good for the GOP. Gun control voting tends to decrease your chance of reelection.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 09:24 AM (gmeXX)

155 I do have to say, SCOTUS declining to pick this up seems... odd... to me. Wasn't part of the decision in the case that forced IL to institute some form of concealed carry the fact that not being able to carry your gun outside your home meant you had been stripped of the "and bear" part of "keep and bear arms?" I don't see how this is functionally any different. My "need" to carry a weapon is that there are bad people who wish to do harm to innocents- and there's a chance *I* might be that innocent.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:24 AM (PYAXX)

156 Speaking of brownouts I had a sample of Chipotle the other day.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:25 AM (LJ7Ze)

157 I miss Jose Canseco and Daughter Quivering Lip. There are many threads which would be improved with a Canseku.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:25 AM (PYAXX)

158 Though some are longstanding socks, like Mary from Brattleboro. Posted by: nnptcgrad at May 05, 2014 01:19 PM (gwUoM) Whom I sometimes think is Ace. Whoever it is, they change their hash quite a lot when posting under that name. I figure that only Ace or Cob could get away with it. Perhaps it's even a group of people.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 05, 2014 09:25 AM (bb5+k)

159 Looks like Boner Johnny gave the Select Committee to Gowdy. Forgive me for not getting too excited about this development.

Posted by: Republique De Banana at May 05, 2014 09:25 AM (thLL8)

160 Speaking of brownouts I had a sample of Chipotle the other day. Freebirds is better.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:25 AM (PYAXX)

161 Sarah Palin was also a mayor for six years (1996-2002).

Posted by: mrp at May 05, 2014 09:26 AM (JBggj)

162

Once again, I'm going to say, thank God I live in Oklahoma.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 01:16 PM (I2drx)

 

Being  so  close to Texas   I would thank God too. 

Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 09:26 AM (m2CN7)

163 Though some are longstanding socks, like Mary from Brattleboro. Oh, and don't forget the rules of Trolls. #1- Don't feed the troll #1a- Unless you're doing it so you can beat them over the head. #2- All trolls are Average Joe.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:26 AM (PYAXX)

164 I do have to say, SCOTUS declining to pick this up seems... odd... to me ---- Allen - is it possible that Kennedy is a wavering vote. If you aren't sure you can get him and the country is moving your way anyway, why risk a chance he may vote against you. Likewise if you are the liberal 4, if you aren't sure you can get him why risk completely losing the issue. On this aspect of it the line hasn't moved, no one has completely lost (or won).

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 09:27 AM (gmeXX)

165 I assumed Mary was somebody's sock that ended up becoming one of the long running jokes of the blog to the point anybody socks as her.

Posted by: nnptcgrad at May 05, 2014 09:27 AM (gwUoM)

166 Being so close to Texas I would thank God too. Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 01:26 PM (m2CN7) In fairness, I can think of two things I wish Texas had which Oklahoma does. Mazzio's Pizza. Open carry.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:27 AM (PYAXX)

167 San Diego sheriff doesn't have to do anything. The CA AG Harris is moving to appeal Peruta to the full CA Supreme court. From there it may go to SCOTUS.

Posted by: Max Entropy at May 05, 2014 09:28 AM (cgtTL)

168 In view of the quality socking going on, I present the following.

http://rhinoden.rangerup.com/the-damn-few-gun-control/

Yeah...it's long...watch it when you have a spare 30 minutes and need the laugh.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at May 05, 2014 09:28 AM (knoK7)

169 9 Do that militia thing all you want, just don't leave your house. Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 05, 2014 12:40 PM (AskuI) THIS. I can't comprehend what this is constantly an issue in need of "clarification". "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." This isn't a Supreme (or any other) court issue. It's an issue of 5th grade reading comprehension. There is nothing written or implied about hunting, inside or outside of homes, types of arms,... nothing. Want elaboration on the full intent? Fine. Read the Federalist Papers. Too, "like, 200 years old, dude"? Fine. Look at EVERY place that has outlawed citizens owning arms. Why did they do it? What happened to crime rates? What happened to the scope and power of government? Don't want people to have guns? Fine. Start a campaign to repeal the Second Amendment. Enough pretending. Of course, no one will be honest enough to start such a campaign because they'd be: 1. Made a mockery of 2. If it did actually go anywhere, they'd have to face down the majority of the population who own guns. "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people" All you need to know right there. Too bad we abandoned that idea.

Posted by: Damiano at May 05, 2014 09:28 AM (j0wOO)

170 Mary Clogenstein cracks me the hell up sometimes.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:28 AM (LJ7Ze)

171  Given that I use 3G on my iPad, I wonder if my hash changes a lot. Never kept track of it.

Posted by: nnptcgrad at May 05, 2014 01:22 PM (gwUoM)

 

 

------------------------------------------

 

 

I use 3g too and my hashtag changes at least once a day.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 09:28 AM (I2drx)

172 All trolls are Average Joe. Eh, sometimes they're AtC.

Posted by: bonhomme at May 05, 2014 09:28 AM (l5wxK)

173 Looks like Boner Johnny gave the Select Committee to Gowdy.

Forgive me for not getting too excited about this development.

Posted by: Republique De Banana at May 05, 2014 01:25 PM (thLL


-----


Heard on the radio that McLame and Graham wanted Pelosi and Reid to serve on the committee as well....


..... those fuckers....

Posted by: fixerupper at May 05, 2014 09:28 AM (nELVU)

174 Aren't the Bill of Rights sacrosanct? I thought they were inalienable?

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:29 AM (LJ7Ze)

175 If I remember right, New Jersey's one of those states that doesn't have gun rights enshrined in their constitution which is why the laws are so cockamamie.

Perhaps it has nothing to do with it. Regardless, Jersey's a suck state with 100's of contradictory gun laws. If the 2nd is your tent pole philosophy, then don't live there is really your best answer.

Posted by: Chupacabras at May 05, 2014 09:30 AM (CGjum)

176 ... when you get down to it, the left has exactly 1 tactic- the ad hominem attack. --AllenG And right on cue: But a senior staffer to a Democratic House member who serves on the House Oversight Committee told MailOnline that Republicans aligned with tea party groups – ‘tea baggers,’ he called them – are ‘chasing their tails’ in an effort to tarnish President Obama’s legacy and hamper Democrats’ electoral chances during the fall midterms.

Posted by: WalrusRex at May 05, 2014 09:30 AM (XUKZU)

177 Aren't the Bill of Rights sacrosanct? I thought they were inalienable? They should be (sacrosanct). But they really aren't. They are not "inalienable." There are three "inalienable" (or "Natural") rights- Life, Liberty, Property. All other "rights" descend from those.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:30 AM (PYAXX)

178 Allen,    Mazzio's has locations    in Palestine, Tyler, and I think     Nacogdoches.    OK, a bit of a drive.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 05, 2014 09:31 AM (AskuI)

179 New Jersey.

Posted by: mrp at May 05, 2014 09:31 AM (JBggj)

180 Universality of acceptance has always been an argument of leftists. If there is no universal buy-in, (whatever concept it is they are espousing) will not work. That's why so many people get killed by leftists. Dissent must be crushed or it won't work. If you don't agree, you're racist, or uncaring, or mean spirited, or murderous, or evil. I think that it is safe to say that this theme of the necessity of universal acceptance to become more and more prevalent and we continue our roller coaster ride of decline into socialism.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 09:31 AM (BZAd3)

181
Aren't the Bill of Rights sacrosanct? I thought they were inalienable?

----

YOU.THOUGHT.WRONG.

Posted by: The NSA, IRS, FBI, CIA, HLS, ICE, HHS, DEA, EPA, OSHA, and Unions Everywhere at May 05, 2014 09:31 AM (nELVU)

182 SCOTUS declines to rule on 'right to carry" restriction; but does rule by 1 that council meetings may indeed continue to begin with a (Christian) prayer so long as other religions aren't bashed in the prayer. How long before (Michigan) majority Muslim towns begin their council meetings with what Obama called the most beautiful sound in the world? Not that I mind the vocalized intonations when done well by a cantor; but WHO would verify that the "religion of resistance is futile" prayer in a foreign language wouldn't be bashing those whom Islam dams as "Infidels"? As if the SCOTUS would or should ever rule that public prayers or free speech outside of a religious center must be offered in English. //yes some snark...those with ears to hear, let them hear. "Get a brain chip translator if it matters." You will be assimilated.

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 05, 2014 09:32 AM (gmrH5)

183 All rights are inalienable. Some are just more inalienable than others.

Posted by: Damiano at May 05, 2014 09:32 AM (j0wOO)

184 Apparenty this will be the new Democrat plantation spin on Benghazi: "It is difficult to believe that FOX NEWS is still pushing this Benghazi conspiracy and cover up nonsense. This ranks with FOX NEWS' accusation that the Clintons' killed Vince Foster and that 'Obamacare' would usher in the era of death panels." The Dems must be hammered on Benghazi and they people must not get in the weeds about whatever nonsense they want to go off on. NOTHING WAS DONE TO HELP THE EMBASSY FOUR DIED THE ADMINISTRATION LIED AND LIED AND LIED FOR PURELY PARTISAN POLITICAL PROTECTION BEFORE AN ELECTION. THEN THEY COVERED IT UP. Lies. Murder and coverups. Watergate had no body count.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 05, 2014 09:32 AM (XyM/Y)

185 Posted by: WalrusRex at May 05, 2014 01:30 PM (XUKZU) One of the benefits of being a cynic is that I'm right more often than I'm wrong about what people will do. One of the down-sides of being a cynic is that I'm right more often than I'm wrong about what people will do.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:32 AM (PYAXX)

186 "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." This isn't a Supreme (or any other) court issue. It's an issue of 5th grade reading comprehension. Well, to someone who doesn't know the history of the term "well-regulated" or the definition of militia, I can see them being confused about the first clause. Also "infringed" isn't really common-use anymore. Because I've looked it up I know "infringed" means to encroach on a right. But I can see how someone might think it means "taken away" as in "it's OK to limit as long as it's allowed a little bit."

Posted by: bonhomme at May 05, 2014 09:32 AM (l5wxK)

187 I do have to say, SCOTUS declining to pick this up seems... odd... to me.

Wasn't part of the decision in the case that forced IL to institute some form of concealed carry the fact that not being able to carry your gun outside your home meant you had been stripped of the "and bear" part of "keep and bear arms?"

I don't see how this is functionally any different. My "need" to carry a weapon is that there are bad people who wish to do harm to innocents- and there's a chance *I* might be that innocent.
...............
There is a world of difference.

Illinois had totally banned any and all carry.  SCOTUS says that is unconstitutional.

But they never said carry for all comers was the preferred solution.

New Jersey is allowing limited carry, which satisfies the ruling.

Posted by: Chi-town Jerry at May 05, 2014 09:32 AM (Z7PrM)

188 I saw a good photoshop of Jay Carney into Baghdad Bob. He had a beret even.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:33 AM (LJ7Ze)

189 "Even a large dick makes a poor weapon." Excellent point Boss.

Posted by: TBOlt69 at May 05, 2014 09:33 AM (lcRh2)

190

Being so close to Texas I would thank God too.
Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 01:26 PM (m2CN7)

 

 

---------------------------------------------

 

 

Trust me.  Being adjacent to TX has nothing to do with our  state laws.  We're very independent minded here.  The only thing that Oklahoma likes about TX  is their junior college football teams.

 

I'm kidding.  Texans and Oklahomans are brothers.  Very competitive brothers, but  brothers just the same.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 09:34 AM (I2drx)

191 Bill Ayers famously touted the necessity of universal acceptance when he stated that it would probably be required to eliminate 20 to 30 million people on the right following the success of their revolution.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 09:34 AM (BZAd3)

192 But a senior staffer to a Democratic House member who serves on the House Oversight Committee told MailOnline that Republicans aligned with tea party groups – ‘tea baggers,’ he called them – are ‘chasing their tails’ in an effort to tarnish President Obama’s legacy and hamper Democrats’ electoral chances during the fall midterms. Posted by: WalrusRex at May 05, 2014 01:30 PM (XUKZU) LOL. Because Obama needs sooo much help to totally destroy his reputation/legacy. I think somebody here called it the 'reverse Midas touch', and they were spot on.

Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at May 05, 2014 09:34 AM (NSh5j)

193 Allen, Mazzio's has locations in Palestine, Tyler, and I think Nacogdoches. OK, a bit of a drive. Hmmm... Yeah, those are all a bit of a drive from DFW. Not much better than OKC. We used to have one in Cleburne (the town where I grew up). Then it shut down it's buffet right at the same time that Cici's started to get really popular... whoops.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:34 AM (PYAXX)

194
This isn't a Supreme (or any other) court issue. It's an issue of 5th grade reading comprehension.

----

Dude..... your talking about the same people that believe Separation of Church and State, Right to an Abortion, Free Health Care and Social Justice are explicitly in the Constitution.

Posted by: fixerupper at May 05, 2014 09:35 AM (nELVU)

195 One of the benefits of being a cynic is that I'm right more often than I'm wrong about what people will do. One of the down-sides of being a cynic is that I'm right more often than I'm wrong about what people will do. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 01:32 PM (PYAXX) Every time I get the notion that perhaps i'm being too cynical, something will happen to make me realize you can't be too cynical.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 05, 2014 09:36 AM (bb5+k)

196 The Dems are looking at a double-digit loss in the House on Election Day.  As for their Senate chances .....   hahahahahahahahaha!

No wonder why they're going nuts.

Posted by: mrp at May 05, 2014 09:36 AM (JBggj)

197 I think all of those fall under the Good and Plenty clause.

Posted by: Congressman Rangel at May 05, 2014 09:36 AM (thLL8)

198 Militia actually included ESD. Up until age 45ish I think. No womens though.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:37 AM (LJ7Ze)

199 New Jersey is allowing limited carry, which satisfies the ruling. ---- It satisfies it for the third circuit.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 09:37 AM (gmeXX)

200 Texas also lacks a senator like Inhofe who frequently rips into the gorebal worming kooks.

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at May 05, 2014 09:37 AM (L02KD)

201 Allen, there is a Mazzio's near Waco, too

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 05, 2014 09:37 AM (AskuI)

202 There is a world of difference. Maybe rhetorically, but not in reality. If I have to prove I have a reason to carry (beyond the facts of my God-given right to protection of my life, liberty, and property, and the constitutionally guaranteed right to "keep and bear arms"), then that at least allows (if not outright encourages) the state to prevent me in fact (if not in theory) from engaging in the above mentioned rights.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:37 AM (PYAXX)

203 Where is Climate Chupacabra enshrined in the Constitution?

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:39 AM (LJ7Ze)

204 "I'm kidding. Texans and Oklahomans are brothers. Very competitive brothers, but brothers just the same." Oklahoma sucks. That's the only thing that keeps Texas from falling into the ocean.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 05, 2014 09:39 AM (gOoFi)

205 Re: Trolls

Ever notice that actual trolls are very rare here, when compared to other sites?

I really do think that the quality of moron response is the key.

Re: Guns

It's a very, very bad sign that they didn't take this up.

It doesn't matter what they say, anyway.  Connecticut proves it - there are too many people who have stopped giving a damn if they are called criminals, and are practicing Irish Democracy.

It'll get hot when the leftists in charge continue to push the cops to do their dirty work for them.

Posted by: grognard at May 05, 2014 09:39 AM (/29Nl)

206 I'm kidding. Texans and Oklahomans are brothers. Very competitive brothers, but brothers just the same. TX and OK have far more in common with each other than we do in opposition. And, frankly, far more in common with each other than we have in common with any single other State. Which only makes the rivalry all that more emphatic.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:39 AM (PYAXX)

207 Allen, Mazzio's has locations in Palestine, Tyler, and I think Nacogdoches. OK, a bit of a drive. "Nacogdoches is full of roaches!" -Groucho Marx

Posted by: bonhomme at May 05, 2014 09:40 AM (l5wxK)

208 Reid and McCain could be around for a long time. Scientists: 'Vampire therapy' could reverse aging...

Posted by: Republique De Banana at May 05, 2014 09:40 AM (thLL8)

209 Texas also lacks a senator like Inhofe who frequently rips into the gorebal worming kooks. Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at May 05, 2014 01:37 PM (L02KD) I've been practicing gorebal worming with my pet gerbil... he doesn't seem to enjoy it though.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 09:40 AM (BZAd3)

210 Because I've looked it up I know "infringed" means to encroach on a right. But I can see how someone might think it means "taken away" as in "it's OK to limit as long as it's allowed a little bit."

Posted by: bonhomme at May 05, 2014 01:32 PM (l5wxK)

 

 

------------------------------------------------------

 

 

"....shall not be infringed" means for the government to leave it the fuck alone.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 09:40 AM (I2drx)

211 From a political perspective, this can't help Christie very much; though he may already be sunk.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 09:40 AM (gmeXX)

212 You can "keep and bear arms" Sure. Here's a fly swatter. This is the only type of arms that you are allowed to "keep and bear". We require you to "keep and bear" it in a locked safe with another lock that prevent 's the swatter part from moving. The safe, flyswatter, and respective locks can never be opened, removed or be kept or borne outside of your home. How do you get it home? That's your problem, not ours. And, for god's sake, it cannot be painted black or have a thing that goes up.

Posted by: Liberals Everywhere at May 05, 2014 09:40 AM (j0wOO)

213 USA Today-Pew Research poll released today:

2014 Generic Congressional vote:  GOP 47  Dems  43   +4 Republicans

Whoa.

Whoa.

Whoa.

Posted by: mrp at May 05, 2014 09:41 AM (JBggj)

214 208 You know who this really helps? Depends.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:41 AM (LJ7Ze)

215 Roger Simon over at PJ media says that there should be a follow up to the movie,"All the Presidents Men" and it should be called "All The Presidents Dudes starring Justin Bieber as Tom Vietor. Another witty commentator over there suggested movieshere are a number of feature films so ripe they fall off the tree that Hollywooze are missing: 1) Dude, I Lost My Care! 2) A Day At The Racists 3) A Man For All Treasons 4) Swindler's List 5) Dances With Words 6) Framer vs Framer 7) A Czar Is Born Petty Woman 9) Guess Who's Coming To Dinesh? 10) Benghazi, Jerusalem, Kiev, Damascus, Tblisi: Five Easy Peaces

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 05, 2014 09:41 AM (XyM/Y)

216 Christie has a very big novelty fork stuck in his ass.

Posted by: Chupacabras at May 05, 2014 09:41 AM (5npD/)

217 Every time I get the notion that perhaps i'm being too cynical, something will happen to make me realize you can't be too cynical. I always expect to be disappointed. I'm rarely disappointed...

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at May 05, 2014 09:41 AM (0HooB)

218 Which only makes the rivalry all that more emphatic. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 01:39 PM (PYAXX) Plus the fact that Okies are weird... so...

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 09:41 AM (BZAd3)

219 Oklahoma sucks. That's the only thing that keeps Texas from falling into the ocean. Why is Idaho so windy? Because Utah sucks!

Posted by: bonhomme at May 05, 2014 09:41 AM (l5wxK)

220 The idea that a law abiding citizen requires permission to bear arms on his person outside the home goes against the very idea and reason for the 2nd amendment. These justices need a horse whipping.

Posted by: Kreplach at May 05, 2014 09:41 AM (bd38m)

221 Movie titles courtesy of someone called CFbleachers.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 05, 2014 09:42 AM (XyM/Y)

222 The Constitution only applies when and how the overlords deem.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:43 AM (LJ7Ze)

223 199 New Jersey is allowing limited carry, which satisfies the ruling. ... How can limiting something be judged as not infringing something?

Posted by: Damiano at May 05, 2014 09:44 AM (j0wOO)

224 It's a very, very bad sign that they didn't take this up. ---- I guess I fail to see why it is a very, very bad sign? We have a split between 2 circuits and the pro-gun circuit is the 9th. Heller is a fairly recent opinion on an issue that largely remained silent for years. Possible that the court wants to let it breath a bit? Could there be some uncertaining on Kennedy? I don't know. While it might be good if the court took the case, it would not be good if Kennedy sided with the 3rd circuit because the facts are bad.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 09:44 AM (gmeXX)

225 I just like to give Soona the business on the Texas-Ok rivalry.   That  said,  I'll trade you Dallas for OKC.  

Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 09:44 AM (m2CN7)

226 These justices need a horse whipping. I was thinking a good hanging but, I'll take a severe horse whipping.

Posted by: Republique De Banana at May 05, 2014 09:44 AM (thLL8)

227 "Oklahoma sucks. That's the only thing that keeps Texas from falling into the ocean. Why is Idaho so windy? Because Utah sucks!" Yeah, it's an old and lame one but, hey, you can use it anywhere. Southeast OK is nice country. Hills, lakes, pine trees. Pretty. Most people here in DFW think you've got to drive to Colorado to see those things when they're really 2-3 hours north.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 05, 2014 09:45 AM (gOoFi)

228 How can limiting something be judged as not infringing something?

Posted by: Damiano at May 05, 2014 01:44 PM (j0wOO)



After a couple hundred years of bastardization of the English language by lawyers, many of whom get elected to write further bastardization of English into the actual laws, well, anything is possible.

Posted by: grognard at May 05, 2014 09:45 AM (/29Nl)

229 That said, I'll trade you Dallas for OKC. Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 01:44 PM (m2CN7) I bet if we took up a collection, we could pay OK to take Dallas...

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:45 AM (PYAXX)

230 Let's sweeten the deal, give then Dallas and Houston for OKC.

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at May 05, 2014 09:45 AM (L02KD)

231

Thought I start the Houston-Dallas hatefest. 

Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 09:46 AM (m2CN7)

232 "I was thinking a good hanging but, I'll take a severe horse whipping. " You want hanging. You'll settle for horse whipping. You'll get a strongly worded letter.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 05, 2014 09:46 AM (gOoFi)

233 "Thought I start the Houston-Dallas hatefest. " It's on, bitches!

Posted by: Dallas at May 05, 2014 09:47 AM (gOoFi)

234 Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 01:46 PM (m2CN7) I don't think anybody likes Dallas. Unless you're using "Dallas" to refer to the entire Metroplex. In which case- fightin' words. Not because of wanting to give us to OK, but because you'd be conflating the rest of us with those idiots in Dallas.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:47 AM (PYAXX)

235 "justifiable need"

To protect myself as I pursue happiness.

And fuck you.

Posted by: Dang at May 05, 2014 09:47 AM (MNq6o)

236 After a couple hundred years of bastardization of the English language by lawyers, many of whom get elected to write further bastardization of English into the actual laws, well, anything is possible. They're not bastardizing the English language, that was bastardized from the beginning. They're bastardizing logic, reason, and the Enlightenment.

Posted by: bonhomme at May 05, 2014 09:47 AM (l5wxK)

237 Why is Idaho so windy? Because Utah sucks! And Washington blows.

Posted by: eleven at May 05, 2014 09:47 AM (GXZgZ)

238


Unless you're using "Dallas" to refer to the entire Metroplex. In which case- fightin' words. Not because of wanting to give us to OK, but because you'd be conflating the rest of us with those idiots in Dallas.

 

---

 

Exactly

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 05, 2014 09:48 AM (AskuI)

239 You want hanging. You'll settle for horse whipping. You'll get a strongly worded letter "thank you sir, may I have another?". Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 05, 2014 01:46 PM (gOoFi) FIFY.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:48 AM (PYAXX)

240 Why does Texas have so dang many pro sports teams? Those are just Billionaire EBT schemes.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:48 AM (LJ7Ze)

241 It's clear the proggies on the court are afraid of further 2A victories, so they are denying the opportunity.




We are one seat away from losing it all....

Posted by: [/i]KG at May 05, 2014 09:48 AM (p7BzH)

242 Oh and I forgot to add.... THE ACTUAL FUCKING WORDS OF THE 2nd AMENDMENT! But these fucking cunts can find the the absolute right to murder your baby between a penumbra of an emenation! Again this is the reason the court exists - to harmonize law. EPIC. FAIL.

Posted by: Kreplach at May 05, 2014 09:49 AM (bd38m)

243 Southeast OK is nice country. Hills, lakes, pine trees. Pretty. Most people here in DFW think you've got to drive to Colorado to see those things when they're really 2-3 hours north. Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 05, 2014 01:45 PM (gOoFi) That's true. I used to fly all over that country. Very picturesque. A lot of the gangsters used to have their hideouts in the hill country there.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 09:49 AM (BZAd3)

244 Aren't the Bill of Rights sacrosanct? I thought they were inalienable? ---- YOU.THOUGHT.WRONG. [Constitutionally illegitimate authoritarians] -- No. Our Bill of Rights AND SO MUCH MORE are inalienable. Humanity, though denied by tyrants, yet exists in one's heart and mind. Which means a lot in principle so long as that matters to you, to your higher Self, maintaining that Divine Spark though in a quandary whether to let it shine or refrain from allowing swine to trample and rend it and life asunder. I heard a Jungian say that our Zeitgeist (which we are obligated to not summarily submit to) highlights people fighting over a word; that in the majority of people's minds these days, an ideology not only (erroneously) excuses but "requires" such people to commit genocide and assassinations of others in defense of a set of words, an ideology. Take Monarchist "divine rights" oblivious aristocracy slaughtering an entire WWI generation for NO REASON beyond "Because I Could -- a matter of honor", the Jewish Intelligentsia Marxists aka Zionists, Bolsheviks, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Jihadists, House of Saud, Muslim Bro by any other name al Qaeda or Taliban, Bush "You're with us or against us" nation building for corporatist blood money profits through never ending wars, or Clinton - Obama et al. US "shared" uniparty neo-bipartisan values political hacks in THEIR post-constitutional era. When abused and suffering, the Irish Catholics say (or said), "Give it up to God."

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 05, 2014 09:49 AM (gmrH5)

245 Thanks, Ali G.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 05, 2014 09:49 AM (gOoFi)

246 Why does Texas have so dang many pro sports teams? Those are just Billionaire EBT schemes ---- It has less than CA, NY and FL.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 09:49 AM (gmeXX)

247 Why does Texas have so dang many pro sports teams? To make New Mexico and Oklahoma jealous. Though a better variation on that: Q: Why doesn't Ft. Worth have a professional football team? A: Because then Dallas would want one, too.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:49 AM (PYAXX)

248

Why does Texas have so dang many pro sports teams? Those are just Billionaire EBT schemes.

 

--

 

Yes, it is ridiculous

Posted by: California at May 05, 2014 09:49 AM (AskuI)

249 Here's some good gun news: My husband's band performed for a fundraiser for the local high school symphonic band. My merchandising helper carries. He called the school ahead of time to see if he would be allowed to carry on the school grounds for the concert, and they said it was fine. They didn't care as long as it was concealed.

Posted by: Mindy at May 05, 2014 09:49 AM (FBjwb)

250 Just heard my first jd winteregg radio ad. It ends with him saying "and I don't golf. "

Posted by: Buzzion at May 05, 2014 09:50 AM (hePwy)

251 242 And the commerce allows them to mandate that you buy whatever they want you to.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:50 AM (LJ7Ze)

252 After a couple hundred years of bastardization of the English language by lawyers, many of whom get elected to write further bastardization of English into the actual laws, well, anything is possible. And what they wrote still doesn't mean what it says because PostModernism.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at May 05, 2014 09:50 AM (0HooB)

253 221 Movie titles courtesy of someone called CFbleachers. Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 05, 2014 01:42 PM (XyM/Y) That would be a Cubs fan.

Posted by: grammie winger at May 05, 2014 09:50 AM (oMKp3)

254 Just got back from the horse farm, where a friend and I walked his dog, who had been accustomed to living by the beach before her owner died, but hadn't been out and able to run around much for the last few months. She had a great time. I had to leash her for her own protection when she saw the horses. She ran right through the fence,right up to Sandy, who almost accidentally trampled her. She wallowed in a swamp, chased a few squirrels, got totally covered in dirt/debris and then I gave her a bath up at the barn. One happy doggy.

Posted by: Lincolntf at May 05, 2014 09:50 AM (ZshNr)

255 251 Clause.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:51 AM (LJ7Ze)

256 Doggeh do what doggeh do.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 05, 2014 09:52 AM (gOoFi)

257 Posted by: Lincolntf at May 05, 2014 01:50 PM (ZshNr) That's the first thing to make me smile in like 2 days.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:52 AM (PYAXX)

258 One happy doggy.

Posted by: Lincolntf at May 05, 2014 01:50 PM (ZshNr)

 

Happy  dogs are good Human therapy. 

Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 09:52 AM (m2CN7)

259 147 OT but I want to apologize in advance for the incipient East Coast brown out I'm about to cause: http://bit.ly/1iiTZUJ The look on Brit Hume's face when they first cut to him is awesome. All the awesome. Bless her heart, that mewling little cuntling does her best to spin the unspinable. If it weren't that this subject involved the death of four Americans and the massive dereliction of duty by the executive branch, it would be adorable. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 01:21 PM (mf5HN) Heh. Hume is grilling her on the source for the video claim: “Well, can you identify anybody?” Hume challenged. “Can you identify any CIA information? Can you identify any source?” “My view is, having been around at the time, that this was not deliberately misleading,” Harman concluded. “It turned out to be wrong, but it was not deliberately misleading.” WMD in Iraq anyone? Oh, I forgot, Bush lied, people died, right progs?

Posted by: Weirddave at May 05, 2014 09:52 AM (N/cFh)

260 "justifiable need" That's just words on paper. The sheriff will determine "justifiable need" according to a secret algorithm that is not open to review. Here's the algorithm by the way: private static bool ApplicantGetsAPermit(Applicant applicant){ If(donorList.contains(applicant)) return true; else if(politicalAllyDonorlist.contains(applicant)) return true; else if(copList.contians(applicant)) return true; return false; }

Posted by: bonhomme at May 05, 2014 09:53 AM (l5wxK)

261 To paraphrase Rush just now- the country is being ruled by a vocal minority party and the Republican's have PTSD. LOL

Posted by: Republique De Banana at May 05, 2014 09:53 AM (thLL8)

262 240. Those are just Billionaire EBT schemes. Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 01:48 PM (LJ7Ze) As if there isn't a Texas sized shit load of drug money laundered through banks and sports (gambling) organizations.

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 05, 2014 09:53 AM (gmrH5)

263 Living breathing document means they can edit and rewrite it or just re interpret it as they please. It's not written in stone.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:53 AM (LJ7Ze)

264 “My view is, having been around at the time, that this was not deliberately misleading,” Harman concluded. “It turned out to be wrong, but it was not deliberately misleading.” I'm glad that Hume, at least, is calling this out. OF COURSE it was "deliberately misleading" (read: lying). When you make something up out of whole-cloth, you can *only* be lying.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:54 AM (PYAXX)

265 "As if there isn't a Texas sized shit load of drug money laundered through banks and sports (gambling) organizations." You bet your posterior there is.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 05, 2014 09:54 AM (gOoFi)

266 A "right" that requires justification and government permission  before exercising it  is no right.

Posted by: @JohnTant at May 05, 2014 09:54 AM (PFy0L)

267 Murder is illegal. Justify how passing laws on what device can or cannot be used to murder someone will impact a person who has chosen to ignore the fact that murder is illegal, then we can talk about amending Constitutional rights. Note that second part. If you want to change the Constitution, there is a defined method to do so. "Reinterpreting" the meaning of simple words is not one of them.

Posted by: Damiano at May 05, 2014 09:55 AM (j0wOO)

268 Rule by chaotic dictate! Yay!

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 05, 2014 09:55 AM (XN0LR)

269 I bet if we took up a collection, we could pay OK to take Dallas...

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 01:45 PM (PYAXX)

 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

 

Damn.  Go away for a few minutes to fix myself something to eat and I come back to find my fair city being traded  for Ft. Worth's sewage treatment facility.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 09:55 AM (I2drx)

270 WMD in Iraq anyone? Oh, I forgot, Bush lied, people died, right progs?

Posted by: Weirddave at May 05, 2014 01:52 PM (N/cFh)

 

Difference being  that the Bush administration  was  not sitting on e-mails and information  that told them what  they  were saying was totally untrue.   Quite  the contrary. 

 

 

Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 09:55 AM (m2CN7)

271 Isn't this a variation of the 'judge shopping' tactic? Each one of the Supreme Court Justices has a responsibility to a specific appeals court. Appeals coming from NJ go to a specific judge who has a specific ideology/agenda. If you want a specific ruling/or refusal to rule on a specific case, you bring the appeal to the specific Supreme Court Justice most likely to decide the issue in your favor. The result is the divergent opinion on right to care a weapon depending on which legal jurisdiction in which you reside. In other words, 'the law' depends on the opinion of one judge who claims the authority to tell you what the law is. This isn't 'states rights' under the US Constitution, this is random chance; who your Supreme Justice is. This isn't Equal Protection. This is the whim of one justice to review or not, especially when the whim of the one justice is at variance with the majority.

Posted by: Ordinary Average Guy at May 05, 2014 09:55 AM (5C9lS)

272 You bet your posterior there is. Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 05, 2014 01:54 PM (gOoFi) Yep, the "see no evil, hear no evil" just do evil elephant in the room.

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 05, 2014 09:56 AM (gmrH5)

273 I guess I fail to see why it is a very, very bad sign?


I suppose it's not if you see this stuff as a chess game.

I don't see it that way. When there's a split between Circuits, that means that somewhere, someone is doing it wrong.  I think the Court should be more interested in making sure everyone is doing it right, than in political expediency.

But I guess that makes me naive and old fashioned that way.



We have a split between 2 circuits and the pro-gun circuit is the 9th. Heller is a fairly recent opinion on an issue that largely remained silent for years. Possible that the court wants to let it breath a bit? Could there be some uncertaining on Kennedy?


The 2nd Amendment has been "breathing" since the ratification of the Bill of Rights. 

This is not a complicated issue.  The fact that they are making it complicated is all of the "bad sign" I need.





Posted by: grognard at May 05, 2014 09:56 AM (/29Nl)

274 I'm sure I enjoyed it as much as she (Jake is her name, I don't know why, I assume his dad adopted her thinking she was a male) did. I told the guy we should do it often and we made a plan to try to go at least every Friday, when he is off from his job and I have to be there anyway.

Posted by: Lincolntf at May 05, 2014 09:56 AM (ZshNr)

275 Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 01:55 PM (m2CN7) Funny you.

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 05, 2014 09:57 AM (gmrH5)

276 The Second Amendment even covers heavy weapons.

Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 09:57 AM (LJ7Ze)

277 Rule by chaotic dictate! Yay! Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 05, 2014 01:55 PM (XN0LR) I see you are familiar with alextopian jurisprudence.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 09:57 AM (mf5HN)

278

I  know its been said a zallion times  but  the  Democrats would  never survive if they did not have the  press  in their pocket.  

Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 09:57 AM (m2CN7)

279 This is how I picture the governments response to molon labe to unfold: There are so many departments and agencies in this country with 'enforcement' arms, and with the help of the national guard, they are going to just show up and take your damned guns so rapidly that by the time your head stops swimming, all of the (legal) guns will be gone. Instead of FBI, or DEA, or DHS, stenciled on their backs, they'll have "your tax dollars at work".

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 09:58 AM (BZAd3)

280 "Justifiable Need." Is that a "dog whistle" for documented donations of sufficient size to the Democratic party? Posted by: JB1000 at May 05, 2014 12:53 PM (16OL0) Or like in my county in my beloved Clownifornia, being a private pilot enrolled in the county sheriff's "air auxiliary". Last time I checked, we have a little over 1k CCW holders in the county and about 80-90% are pilots in the auxiliary.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 05, 2014 09:58 AM (TIIx5)

281 213 USA Today-Pew Research poll released today:

2014 Generic Congressional vote: GOP 47 Dems 43 +4 Republicans

Whoa.

Whoa.

Whoa.

Posted by: mrp at May 05, 2014 01:41 PM (JBggj)


Six. Months. Out. We can contemplate mutual fellatio in late October.

Posted by: joncelli at May 05, 2014 09:58 AM (RD7QR)

282 They're not bastardizing the English language, that was bastardized from the beginning. They're bastardizing logic, reason, and the Enlightenment.

Posted by: bonhomme at May 05, 2014 01:47 PM (l5wxK)


I see your bet and raise you:


"That depends on what the meaning of "is," is."

Posted by: grognard at May 05, 2014 09:59 AM (/29Nl)

283 The Second Amendment even covers heavy weapons. A fact that makes a lot of people very uncomfortable. The Second Amendment (read using the understood meanings of words in the 18th c) says that if I can afford one, I should be able to buy a howitzer.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 09:59 AM (PYAXX)

284 This is not a complicated issue. ---- I think what you meant to say is this shouldn't be a complicated issue. And on that point I agree with you. But the court does make things complicated (see Obamacare). And if there is any uncertainty as to which way Kennedy may vote, then I'd just assume stand still for now. I don't know if that is the reason cert wasn't granted - I'm just speculating. Not all circuit splits are resolved immediately. I just don't see this as fatal as you see it. Of course, I could be wrong.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 10:00 AM (gmeXX)

285 Six. Months. Out. We can contemplate mutual fellatio in late October. Eschew Contemplation.

Posted by: eleven at May 05, 2014 10:00 AM (GXZgZ)

286 The Second Amendment even covers heavy weapons. Posted by: Boss Moss at May 05, 2014 01:57 PM (LJ7Ze) If they interpreted the second amendment the same way they interpret "the establishment clause", you are exactly right.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 10:00 AM (BZAd3)

287 Six. Months. Out. We can contemplate mutual fellatio in late October. Posted by: joncelli at May 05, 2014 01:58 PM (RD7QR) Okay... But first...

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 10:01 AM (PYAXX)

288 USA Today-Pew Research poll released today: 2014 Generic Congressional vote: GOP 47 Dems 43 +4 Republicans Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Let's not start soaping each others backs just yet. There's six months left for the GOP to step on their collective dicks.

Posted by: Republique De Banana at May 05, 2014 10:01 AM (thLL8)

289 Hey, lots of citizens have heavy artillary already. Why just last week, the news reported a kid was going to shoot up a school woth a 45mm gun.

Posted by: DangerGirl at May 05, 2014 10:01 AM (1EJ2w)

290 I'm kidding. Texans and Oklahomans are brothers. Very competitive brothers, but brothers just the same. You do know how Tx and Ok got settled, don't you? As the settlers were coming across the prairie, they came to a sign: Welcome to Oklahoma, for Texas, turn left. Those that could read turned.

Posted by: Weirddave at May 05, 2014 10:02 AM (N/cFh)

291 I think the Court should be more interested in making sure everyone is doing it right, than in political expediency. ---- Not if the Court is wrong. I'll wait and see how the other circuits respond before I worry too much about an issue that we have been winning (legally and more importantly at the ballot box) for the past 25 years.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 10:03 AM (gmeXX)

292 The Second Amendment (read using the understood meanings of words in the 18th c) says that if I can afford one, I should be able to buy a howitzer.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 01:59 PM (PYAXX)

 

 

-------------------------------------------

 

 

'Tis true.  We should be able to assemble the same amount of firepower that the government has.  Towns used to  own  their own artillary.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 10:03 AM (I2drx)

293 The Second Amendment even covers heavy weapons. Word. The Battles of Lexington and Concord didn't happen because the Limeys were trying to take farmer's squirrel rifles. Although, by the time it was over, I'll bet they wish they had.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 05, 2014 10:03 AM (TIIx5)

294 278 I know its been said a zallion times but the Democrats would never survive if they did not have the press in their pocket. Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 01:57 PM (m2CN7) Agree, and it's the reason I keep saying it ought to be our number one priority to cut the legs out from under the Liberal press.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 05, 2014 10:05 AM (bb5+k)

295 Who knew that "shall not be infringed" would one day be as difficult to understand as "what the definition of is, is?"

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 10:05 AM (BZAd3)

296 'Tis true. We should be able to assemble the same amount of firepower that the government has. Towns used to own their own artillary. The military school I attended in Mobile had its own cannon.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at May 05, 2014 10:05 AM (0HooB)

297 they don't need to expend political capital on this matter

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 01:04 PM (gmeXX)


Oh, the irony.... given how the rationale for lifetime appointments to the SC is based on them not being vulnerable to political considerations....

Posted by: [/i]KG at May 05, 2014 10:06 AM (p7BzH)

298 "Oklahoma ... That's the only thing that keeps Texas from falling into the ocean." No, not OK. That would be the Edwards Plateau like an anchor given shifting land and water mass motion/stability.

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 05, 2014 10:06 AM (gmrH5)

299 @295 Thread winner definitely. Possible winner of the interwebz as well.

Posted by: Kreplach at May 05, 2014 10:07 AM (bd38m)

300 Towns used to own their own artillary. Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 02:03 PM (I2drx) Playing devil's advocate here: Do you mean town gov'ts owned artillery, or that the residents owned the guns and lent them to the town for defense? Because I can see how some lefty could willfully misinterpret that. As for me, I think owning a cannon would be pretty awesome.

Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at May 05, 2014 10:07 AM (NSh5j)

301 No, not OK. That would be the Edwards Plateau like an anchor given shifting land and water mass motion/stability.

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 05, 2014 02:06 PM (gmrH5)

 

 

----------------------------------------

 

 

At last......science.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 10:08 AM (I2drx)

302 Possible winner of the interwebz as well. Posted by: Kreplach at May 05, 2014 02:07 PM (bd38m) I'm flattered, but that doesn't make it hurt any less.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 10:09 AM (BZAd3)

303 "Never been to war, never fired a shot. Our old cannon sure means a lot." We used to crawl all over it. It was a big toy to us.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at May 05, 2014 10:10 AM (0HooB)

304 Probably already mentioned, but I just read that Boner picked Trey Gowdy to head the Benghazi Select Committee. Good news indeed.

Posted by: shredded chi at May 05, 2014 10:10 AM (WYB4/)

305 "2014 Generic Congressional vote: GOP 47 Dems 43 +4 Republicans"

I think this election is going to be closer than people figure, just as 2012 was, because of a factor not well captured in polling: illegal voting by illegal aliens.

The illegals are razor keen on getting amnesty and will do anything within their power to bring it closer.

This is also why the left are so utterly adamant against tightening up of voting procedures. They know perfectly well that there is a metric shit-ton of fraud and that much of the fraud is being perpetrated by the illegal alien bloc.

Posted by: torquewrench at May 05, 2014 10:10 AM (noWW6)

306 Playing devil's advocate here: Do you mean town gov'ts owned artillery, or that the residents owned the guns and lent them to the town for defense? Both, if I recall my American History correctly. Many of the cannon used in the Revolutionary war were privately owned. Heck, most merchant sailing vessels of the day mounted at least a few cannon to protect themselves from pirates/privateers. But, yes, most often it was a local government which had enough cash to purchase cannon- not private citizens. BUT any private citizen who *could* afford to purchase such weapons was able to do so.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 10:10 AM (PYAXX)

307 Playing devil's advocate here: Do you mean town gov'ts owned artillery, or that the residents owned the guns and lent them to the town for defense? Because I can see how some lefty could willfully misinterpret that. As for me, I think owning a cannon would be pretty awesome.

Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at May 05, 2014 02:07 PM (NSh5j)

 

 

----------------------------------------

 

 

The 2nd allows  both.  (Also giving honorable mention of the 10th Amendment)

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 10:11 AM (I2drx)

308 @306

That's my recollection, too.

Posted by: Chupacabras at May 05, 2014 10:11 AM (5npD/)

309 Presented without comment: http://bit.ly/1n22YS5

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 10:12 AM (mf5HN)

310 Oh, the irony.... given how the rationale for lifetime appointments to the SC is based on them not being vulnerable to political considerations.... ---- Yeah, well everything is political. To think that justices don't engage is vote swapping is naive. And we obviously know they are swayed by public opinion. We can lament that it shouldn't be this way, but the justices are only human. We have been winning on this issue for 25 years. I don't think we should interpret a non-denial of cert as a loss.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 10:12 AM (gmeXX)

311 OT - For some months, I have been having trouble with Google AdWords. No matter what I did, I couldn't get my company to come up in Google searches. Finally, I gave up and went to an internet service for hiring independents - ODesk. First, I found and hired a guy in India for $18/hr. He was worthless. Then I found a girl in Texas who specialized in SEO and AdWords, charging $44/hr. If things keep going the way they are now, I may just send her a new car on top of her wages - she's that good. I love happy endings.

Posted by: jwest at May 05, 2014 10:13 AM (u2a4R)

312 Liberal: We can all agree that the average citizen doesn't need a howitzer, tank, or RPG. Me: I disagree. If the government decides, on it's own authority and without the consent of the governed, to seize my property or infringe on my basic rights to pursue life, liberty and happiness; not only will I need those things, but a well ordered militia would also be extremely useful. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The government doesn't grant and guarantee my rights. I have rights by virtue of being a human being and they are guaranteed by me. Government's job is to function according to the powers that I delegate to it.

Posted by: Damiano at May 05, 2014 10:15 AM (j0wOO)

313 This is also why the left are so utterly adamant against tightening up of voting procedures. They know perfectly well that there is a metric shit-ton of fraud and that much of the fraud is being perpetrated by the illegal alien bloc. The fascist goober who sits behind me was just insisting that no one would ever submit a ballot on behalf of any of those dead people on the rolls. I can't tell if he's a liar, or the dumbest true-believing sonuvabitch in the movement.

Posted by: HR at May 05, 2014 10:15 AM (/kI1Q)

314 Having the court grant cert and then upholding the 3rd circuit would have been a real loss.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 10:15 AM (gmeXX)

315 Both, if I recall my American History correctly. Many of the cannon used in the Revolutionary war were privately owned. Heck, most merchant sailing vessels of the day mounted at least a few cannon to protect themselves from pirates/privateers. But, yes, most often it was a local government which had enough cash to purchase cannon- not private citizens. BUT any private citizen who *could* afford to purchase such weapons was able to do so. Hmm, interesting. From an ideological standpoint, I'll go with that reading of the 2nd, but from a practical POV, I'm still not sure I want private citizens getting nuclear/bioweapons.

Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at May 05, 2014 10:16 AM (NSh5j)

316 Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 02:12 PM (mf5HN) Heh. Heh heh. That didn't get an active smile like Lincolntf's happeh doggeh story. But it did get a smirk. Of course, Jerry Jones is such a publicity hound, he's highly unlikely to make such a mistake. More's the pity.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 10:17 AM (PYAXX)

317 Agree, and it's the reason I keep saying it ought to be our number one priority to cut the legs out from under the Liberal press. Posted by: D-Lamp I've been reading your comments for some time now and I'm beginning to think you feel today's journalists are scaliwags and malcontent mischief makers.

Posted by: Daybrother at May 05, 2014 10:17 AM (YjmhC)

318 Just get Chris "Krispy Kreme"  Christie on it.  After all, he claims he is pro-gun now.

Posted by: Registered Voter at May 05, 2014 10:17 AM (0DC/m)

319 Liberal: We can all agree that the average citizen doesn't need a howitzer, tank, or RPG. Holy Osiris' missing phallus. I totally need a tank.

Posted by: HR at May 05, 2014 10:17 AM (/kI1Q)

320  Presented without comment:

http://bit.ly/1n22YS5

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 02:12 PM (mf5HN)

 

 

-----------------------------------------

 

 

Heh.  Also,  no comment. 

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 10:17 AM (I2drx)

321 " 'Tis true. We should be able to assemble the same amount of firepower that the government has. Towns used to own their own artillary. " -- Every federal agency is now armed to the teeth with its own militia comprised of brain dead bullies who think that to support and defend the US Constitution and Republic is terrorism subject to authoritarian Bush-DHS PATRIOT ACT disappearances. And yes, AllenG, I do lay that at the feet of Republicans who stroked neoconservative voters with "the government would NEVER abuse its citizens" mantra. And because they said it so nicely with smiles and sugar coating for votes, with such "sincerity" as we used to mock back in the 70s, with such "feeling" as we mock today (feelings trump facts and logic -- too much psycho-anal-ysis, Americans fell for it and defended it and YET defend it whenever the Patriot Act comes back up for another renewal vote by Congress. Oh, it's so NECESSARY in order to maintain the insider status quo of who matters, and who doesn't in this transnational corporatist oligarchy. Polynikes, the Democrats wouldn't have the Patriot Act DHS and every other federal agency to abuse had Republicans not opened those gates for themselves. Media or not -- hole in the pocket. Turnsies.

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 05, 2014 10:18 AM (gmrH5)

322 Whoops, sorry. Those first three paragraphs are AllenG's; the last one is mine.

Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at May 05, 2014 10:18 AM (NSh5j)

323 "Having the court grant cert and then upholding the 3rd circuit would have been a real loss."

Yes, but having them grant cert and then slap down the Third would have been a huge win.

Posted by: torquewrench at May 05, 2014 10:18 AM (noWW6)

324 189"Even a large dick makes a poor weapon."

Excellent point Boss.

Posted by: TBOlt69 at May 05, 2014 01:33 PM (lcRh2)

 

 



The Preznit being the exception to the rule.

Posted by: Reggie Love at May 05, 2014 10:19 AM (/AHDz)

325 Yes, but having them grant cert and then slap down the Third would have been a huge win. ---- No doubt. This is why I am of the opinion that Kennedy is wavering. Neither the liberal or conservative 4 know which way he will go.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 10:20 AM (gmeXX)

326 Holy Osiris' missing phallus. I totally need a tank.

Posted by: HR at May 05, 2014 02:17 PM (/kI1Q)

 

Have you ever seen the police video of the guy who made his own tank out of a bulldozer.   Leveled half the city  before they were able to stop him.   Only thing he didn't have was a turrent  with a big gun.   He did have small arm portals though. 

Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 10:20 AM (m2CN7)

327

>>Playing devil's advocate here: Do you mean town gov'ts owned artillery, or that the residents owned the guns and lent them to the town for defense?

Both, if I recall my American History correctly. Many of the cannon used in the Revolutionary war were privately owned.

Heck, most merchant sailing vessels of the day mounted at least a few cannon to protect themselves from pirates/privateers.

But, yes, most often it was a local government which had enough cash to purchase cannon- not private citizens. BUT any private citizen who *could* afford to purchase such weapons was able to do so.

.

.

.Ben Franklin purchased his own cannons to equip his Privateer, the Black Prince.

Posted by: Registered Voter at May 05, 2014 10:21 AM (0DC/m)

328 It would appear that "Moms" is RWC.


Posted by: D-Lamp at May 05, 2014 01:12 PM (bb5+k)

 

 

 

Wait... RWC  is  a  tranny?

Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at May 05, 2014 10:21 AM (rXcBX)

329 I've been reading your comments for some time now and I'm beginning to think you feel today's journalists are scaliwags and malcontent mischief makers. Posted by: Daybrother at May 05, 2014 02:17 PM (YjmhC) I believe that the vast majority of them deliberately use their influence to sway elections towards the Democrat. I believe they need to be deprived of their ability to influence elections through Omission of stories harmful to Democrats, or Harping on stories harmful to Republicans. Their influence is responsible for electing this current fool, who reign I consider one of the greatest threats this nation has ever faced. We need to take away their ability to elect fools.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 05, 2014 10:22 AM (bb5+k)

330 @326

And this is why arms control never works, the people can either make or steal their own. Been that way throughout history.

Posted by: Chupacabras at May 05, 2014 10:22 AM (5npD/)

331 Behold! The Horde waiting for a new thread! http://bit.ly/Q6Q0nm It is also a perfectly cromluent visual representation of the Horde reloading comments.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 10:22 AM (mf5HN)

332 No doubt. This is why I am of the opinion that Kennedy is wavering. Neither the liberal or conservative 4 know which way he will go.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 02:20 PM (gmeXX)

 

 

--------------------------------------

 

 

Here's hoping that Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg can keep breathing until we can get a decent prez in office.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 10:23 AM (I2drx)

333 Towns would often seek donations of cannons from wealthy citizens, also aspiring politicians with money would sometimes donate one to a town to get in their good graces.

Posted by: Lincolntf at May 05, 2014 10:23 AM (ZshNr)

334 Hmm, interesting. From an ideological standpoint, I'll go with that reading of the 2nd, but from a practical POV, I'm still not sure I want private citizens getting nuclear/bioweapons. Sure. But a) getting nuclear weapons (we'll deal with those first) is incredibly prohibitively expensive- at least as far as getting one that would be militarily useful. Suitcase bombs are great (in theory) for terrorism, but not so much for having an actual nuclear arsenal. I'm pretty sure even the super-uber-rich-billionaires would have a hard time buying and maintaining a nuclear warhead. So that's not really much of a consideration, is it? B) if the government can restrict those- what surety do you have that they could *not* restrict (say) an A-10, or an M1-A2? Or an F-22? Now, on to "biological" weapons- First, it is very hard to make biological weapons militarily useful. Again, there's a difference between using a weapon of terror/mass destruction and militarily useful weapons. Nukes aren't militarily useful because they're WMD, they're militarily useful because they can be used to target specific militarily viable targets. So, a private citizen is (again) unlikely to be able to even obtain, say, "weaponized" anthrax. Once they did obtain it, having a militarily useful delivery system is a whole different matter as well. Then we add on top of that how much more effective chemical weapons are than biological, and how much *easier they are to obtain.* I can buy bleach, ammonia, and plastic jugs at Walmart. And the only way to prevent "private citizens" from doing such a thing is to institute such an oppressive police state that doing such things would suddenly become necessary.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 10:24 AM (PYAXX)

335 No doubt. This is why I am of the opinion that Kennedy is wavering. Neither the liberal or conservative 4 know which way he will go. Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 02:20 PM (gmeXX) Reminds me of what that one commenter at Instapundit said about the Constitutionality of Prop 8. "Why don't we all just save a lot of time and ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks?"

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 05, 2014 10:24 AM (bb5+k)

336 Have you ever seen the police video of the guy who made his own tank out of a bulldozer. I think I remember that in the news...Colorado?

Posted by: HR at May 05, 2014 10:24 AM (/kI1Q)

337 Have you ever seen the police video of the guy who made his own tank out of a bulldozer. Leveled half the city before they were able to stop him. Only thing he didn't have was a turrent with a big gun. He did have small arm portals though. Are there blueprints available someplace for that thing? Asking for a friend.

Posted by: Republique De Banana at May 05, 2014 10:26 AM (thLL8)

338 @332 We'll have a 50-50 shot at least of appointing a justice with his head on right. Or we could just end up with another Souter or Oconner.

Posted by: Kreplach at May 05, 2014 10:26 AM (bd38m)

339 Reminds me of what that one commenter at Instapundit said about the Constitutionality of Prop 8. "Why don't we all just save a lot of time and ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks?" ---- That's a good one. Unfortunately it is probably all too accurate.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 10:26 AM (gmeXX)

340 ...I'm still not sure I want private citizens getting nuclear/bioweapons. Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at May 05, 2014 02:16 PM (NSh5j) I'd be more comfortable with you owning a nuclear weapon that Obama. Further, I would be a lot more comfortable with you owning a nuclear weapon if there were no restriction on me owning one. Mutually assured destruction. International policy for nation states but illegal for the citizens who's consent is required by those governments? I don't like the reality that makes mutually assured destruction a necessary policy, but it is reality. I agree that things would be simpler if nuclear and bio weapons did not exist. Living in a world where they do exist and pretending that you can create laws that govern their use is naive. Again, if people are going to ignore the age old ethical, moral, and legal restrictions on murder are not going to pay attention to laws governing what they can or cannot murder you with.

Posted by: Damiano at May 05, 2014 10:26 AM (j0wOO)

341 Easier to just steal a tank, which happened what, 25-30 years ago?

Posted by: Chupacabras at May 05, 2014 10:26 AM (5npD/)

342 Nood.

Posted by: johnd01 at May 05, 2014 10:28 AM (ukNFU)

343
   Spin it any old way you wish--the exercise of ANY inalienable right requires NO "permission" from a government entity.

     Period.

Posted by: irongrampa at May 05, 2014 10:28 AM (SAMxH)

344 341- Didn't think it was that long ago... Wasn't there video of it?

Posted by: nnptcgrad at May 05, 2014 10:29 AM (R+Jpg)

345 Have you ever seen the police video of the guy who made his own tank out of a bulldozer. Actually, you can build a decent tank out of a Lincoln Continental. http://tinyurl.com/lkc66bm

Posted by: Eric Stratton, Rush Chairman at May 05, 2014 10:29 AM (8ZskC)

346 *nudges the corgis* Go on. Around the corner with you.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 10:29 AM (mf5HN)

347 I think I remember that in the news...Colorado?

Posted by: HR at May 05, 2014 02:24 PM (/kI1Q)

 

I think but I can't locate  the video. 

Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 10:30 AM (m2CN7)

348 I think I remember that in the news...Colorado?

Posted by: HR at May 05, 2014 02:24 PM (/kI1Q)

 

found the video.  google up bulldozer tank rampage. 

Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 10:31 AM (m2CN7)

349 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 02:24 PM (PYAXX) All good points. I'm still figuring out where I stand on the issue. I start off thinking that all weapons should be legal, then I'm reminded of all the crazy people in the world and do I really want them to get more firepower, and then I remind myself that its not right to restrict everyone's rights just because of a few idiots, and then my head explodes from all the contradictions. I'll sort out my opinion at some point, and in the meantime, I'll keep gathering information and arguments. Thanks for adding to my stash of weapon-related factoids.

Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at May 05, 2014 10:33 AM (NSh5j)

350 A brief lesson is the evolution of arms and armor. Man make weapon. Another man makes defense against weapon. First man make a weapon capable of penetrating defense. Repeat. Here's the catch. Eventually, defense becomes impractical and/ or impossible. For example: sword>chain mail> bigger sword> plate armor> bigger sword> heavier armor... until the armor becomes so heavy and cumbersome that the wearer can no longer function in it. Sure, I can make armor that would be sword/ arrow/ catapult proof. Then my enemy would simply ignore me entirely because I can no longer move to impede him. If your argument is "well that weapon is excessive" my answer is "tell the guy with it pointed at me".

Posted by: Damiano at May 05, 2014 10:34 AM (j0wOO)

351 @17 DEAR GOD!! * runs away arms aflailing.

Posted by: Kreplach at May 05, 2014 10:34 AM (bd38m)

352 I think I remember that in the news...Colorado? Posted by: HR at May 05, 2014 02:24 PM (/kI1Q) http://tinyurl.com/58ywkf

Posted by: RWC at May 05, 2014 10:34 AM (fWAjv)

353 Then my enemy would simply ignore me entirely because I can no longer move to impede him. If your argument is "well that weapon is excessive" my answer is "tell the guy with it pointed at me". Posted by: Damiano at May 05, 2014 02:34 PM (j0wOO) If Germany ever produced or fielded the Ratte tank that would be a good example of clusterfuckery.

Posted by: RWC at May 05, 2014 10:38 AM (fWAjv)

354 I'm still not sure I want private citizens getting nuclear/bioweapons.

Well regulated means properly functioning means you gotta buy the PAL links and tie in to NCA for anything bigger than a Davy Crockett.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at May 05, 2014 10:42 AM (DL2i+)

355 Have you ever seen the police video of the guy who made his own tank out of a bulldozer. Leveled half the city before they were able to stop him. Only thing he didn't have was a turrent with a big gun. He did have small arm portals though. I'm ashamed to say I was rooting for the guy. I read that he had a fairly legitimate beef with the town; they had fucked him over if I'm remembering the right incident. Also I think it took him about 6 months to secretly build the thing and he razed his own business that the town was stealing via quasi-legal tax means. He went from Clint Eastwood payback hero to complete psycho public menace unfortunately and it was pretty difficult to keep rooting for him by the end. I laughed. I cried. It became a part of me.

Posted by: Daybrother at May 05, 2014 10:48 AM (Xc8+Q)

356 Authoritarian police state aside, a well stocked, secured underground bomb shelter is likely a better investment for those with limited means, given every doomsday scenario, since storm troopers are nothing compared to what epic blasts from space could do to obliterate life on Mother Earth. Dr. Paul LaViolette, etheric.com: Subquantum Kinetics, Advanced Aerospace Propulsion, Galactic Superwaves and the G2 Cloud encounter with the Galactic core. Isaiah 2:19 People will flee to caves in the rocks and to holes in the ground from the fearful presence of the LORD and the splendor of his majesty, when he rises to shake the earth. Luke 23:30 People will beg the mountains, 'Fall on us,' and plead with the hills, 'Bury us.' 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Revelation 6 15Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us"...

Posted by: panzernashorn at May 05, 2014 10:51 AM (gmrH5)

357 Have you ever seen the police video of the guy who made his own tank out of a bulldozer. I think I remember that in the news...Colorado? Posted by: HR at May 05, 2014 02:24 PM (/kI1Q) You're probably thinking of this guy in San Diego who stole an M60 tank from a National Guard armory and went on a rampage before the cops shot him. http://tinyurl.com/3bpb3h

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 05, 2014 10:58 AM (TIIx5)

358 A few years back I researched the definition of "arms" during the Constitutional period. Informal and not a lawyer. I was able to find several military logistics/procurement documents from the early 1800s where the definition of arms (personal weapons) was very clear and distinct from the defintion or ordinance (cannon, etc.). My non-legal assumption would be that ordinance (cannons then, howitzers, etc. today) were not covered as a right and ownership would then and today be a privilege. I posted on it at the time over at THR under a similar discussion. You can today own a howitzer, recoilless rifle or anti tank gun today, as a destructive device which I believe a privilege like owning an automobile and driving it on public roads. The question IMO then becomes automatic rifles and crew-served MGs as arms or ordinance. Keith

Posted by: Keith at May 05, 2014 11:23 AM (NYPPE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled.
271kb generated in CPU 0.1355, elapsed 0.3395 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2982 seconds, 486 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 16133
  • Files: 167
  • Bytes: 345.8M
  • CPU Time: 13:15
  • Queries: 402498

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0