This election is far too important.... because the Supreme Court!

They know what the correct answer or is, but being authoritarian statists, and given their position and undoubtedly delusions of personal and public power, they would rather avoid the case than have to go against their desire to uphold State power.

Thomas was right, their actions show the 2nd as being a dis favored right.
 
Last edited:
President Donald Trump’s administration asked the court to stay out of the case and leave the convictions in place.
I think this is a good sign for Trump, not necessarily for gun rights at least in the short term.

Say that the NFA was tossed as unconstitutional. Going into the next election this action has gained the president exactly zero votes and has probably galvanized the left, so it hurts, and it hurts bad if there has been any mass shootings using any NFA devices.

If the case is not heard it doesn’t cost him many/any votes and doesn’t give the left a point to rally around. Gives him a higher chance of winning reelection, and he then has an ever increasing chance of appointing another conservative justice.

There is always an excuse not to do the right thing today and promise it for tomorrow, but at first blush, I don’t disagree with the calculus on this.
 
They know what the correct answer or is, but being authoritarian statists, and given their position and undoubtedly delusions of personal and public power, they would rather avoid the case than have to go against their desire to uphold State power.

Thomas was right, their actions show the 2nd as being a dis favored right.

That's some pretty good mind reading. Do you do parties?
 
If the case is not heard it doesn’t cost him many/any votes and doesn’t give the left a point to rally around. Gives him a higher chance of winning reelection, and he then has an ever increasing chance of appointing another conservative justice.
It may not cost him votes. His actions on the 2nd have been abysmal. Yes, there is the argument the alternative would be worse, but if we're going to have a democrat we might as well vote democrat.
 
The Supreme Court has refused to hear the case challenging suppressors' inclusion in the NFA....

https://apnews.com/0958862d44824d9596feb5ec097273be

Tell me again how the Supreme Court is the Conservative savior we've all been looking for.....

Well, they did not hear the case and rule against the suppressors. Hillary's appointees would probably have ruled against freedom rather than not addressing this particular question at this time.
 
Well, they did not hear the case and rule against the suppressors. Hillary's appointees would probably have ruled against freedom rather than not addressing this particular question at this time.

They let the lower court ruling against suppressors stand - they did rule against suppressors in refusing to hear the case.
 
It may not cost him votes. His actions on the 2nd have been abysmal. Yes, there is the argument the alternative would be worse, but if we're going to have a democrat we might as well vote democrat.

Your analysis of the situation is quite flawed. The Democrats of today are a far cry from the Democrats of yesterday. They are now Communists who want to destroy this country. The choice is really between an old-time Democrat who wants to see this country survive and a Communist who wants to destroy the country as Nikita predicted would happen. I will vote for the old-time Democrat (Republican) every time before I would vote for a Communist.
 
What I truly fear is the day that the anti-gun leftists are able to put aside their "orange man bad" attitudes and realize that their biggest ally in the war to ban all firearms are fudds and "republicans" like Trump.
 
It may not cost him votes. His actions on the 2nd have been abysmal. Yes, there is the argument the alternative would be worse, but if we're going to have a democrat we might as well vote democrat.
He’s not done well on 2a issues, but I don’t think he’s been as bad on that or any other issue than any of the D’s would have been. You will be perpetually disappointed if your personal ideal is the yardstick by which you judge the actions of others.
 
What I truly fear is the day that the anti-gun leftists are able to put aside their "orange man bad" attitudes and realize that their biggest ally in the war to ban all firearms are fudds and "republicans" like Trump.

You sir are 100% correct and i see some flat out trades coming up that the powers that be, think are non-important 2ndA items.

The only hope, and its limited is the Senate refuses to review or pass the upcoming laws.

I also think these items will be after the primary election.
 
We have to face it guys, the NRA claims a membership in the millions. But in my experience, the vast majority of gun owners could probably count their entire collection on 1 hand. There is a superminority of us who are the real "ammoholics" who feel that anything less than a trailer full of ammo and arms are rookie numbers. If you were to gather most "gun owners" into a room and ask general questions you will hear things like "It has a 15 round clip" and "Silencers are illegal" and "Machine guns should be banned". These people are the majority of gun owners. Heck, I have even had my own father, who does have a nice collection and got me interested in shooting say things like "open carry makes me uncomfortable" and similar fuddish things.

So as we have seen with the "bump stocks are just toys anyway" and "no one needs a silencer" fudds coming out of the wood work...just wait until the left get their hooks behind a Trump like leader who realizes he can get their vote by passing "common sense gun control...and confiscation". I like about 80% of what Trump has done, and about 5% of what Trump has said. But he, and the republicans like him are no friend to the 2A. They are friends to votes. That is all.

It reminds me of that scene in Aliens when Ripley is confronting the company man and says something to the effect that she respects the aliens more because "at least they wont screw you over for a percentage". Sometimes, as much as I hate it, at least I can respect that an anti-gun politician is honest about their distaste for them and their desire to control them.
 
You sir are 100% correct and i see some flat out trades coming up that the powers that be, think are non-important 2ndA items.

The only hope, and its limited is the Senate refuses to review or pass the upcoming laws.

I also think these items will be after the primary election.


It is a game two sides play with our freedoms. One side wants to win elections by whatever means possible so they can deprive us of as many of our freedoms as possible. The other side just wants to win elections even if it means trampling on some of our freedoms. The left has generally been much better at playing the game because they do not mind getting down and dirty and because they have a goal in view. The right has been rather passive and without a clear goal. It just seems they want to keep from having people not like them and will give away our rights to keep from having things get messy. I was hoping Donald would be the one to get down and dirty, and he seems to be able to do so for numerous issues. The 2A does not seem to be a major item for him and seems to be considered to be just a bargaining chip when trying to make a deal. I wish that were not so.

It is not over until it is over. I hope I will not be disappointed when he is finished with his deals. I fear that I will be.
 
Last edited:
So much for the “conservative,” “originalist,” “pro 2A” Trump SCOTUS.

Terry
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
So much for the “conservative,” “originalist,” “pro 2A” Trump SCOTUS.
Terry
That was ruse from the get go.
He doesn't care about liberty not=r rights. He's also the one that financially supported the criminals Hitlery and Rangle. Also said he "loves eminent domain", because of financial gain by kicking citizens from their home with the gubmnt's gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
The Supreme Court has refused to hear the case challenging suppressors' inclusion in the NFA....

https://apnews.com/0958862d44824d9596feb5ec097273be

Tell me again how the Supreme Court is the Conservative savior we've all been looking for.....

The general media's news article is the typical caliber of nothing-burger coverage of a potential Supreme Court case. Nevertheless, the AP article cited ended with the prominent mention of the Virgina Beach shooter's use of a silencer.

Before criticizing the Supreme Court for refusing to take a case, it is usually better to read the ruling under appeal and then decide on specific reasons for criticism.

Some thoughts from my reading of the 10th Circuit's ruling, which make it abundantly clear to me why the Supreme Court did not take the case:
  • The NFA is based on Congress' taxing power and the Supreme Court was not going to rule that specifically-enumerated power is unconstitutional.
  • The defendants argued 2A covers a SBR without bothering to argue against Miller, which is still a valid SCOTUS precedent that says 2A does not cover a short-barrelled shotgun (a close enough analogy to an SBR for the court).
  • Silencers are accessories rather than "bearable arms" as discussed in Heller and are not covered by the 2A.
  • Regulating the commercial activity of making and selling firearms and accessories is based on the commerce clause and the Supreme Court was not going to rule that specifically-enumerated power is unconstitutional.
The 10 Circuit's ruling had an extremely interesting concurring opinion, which is quoted in whole below (emphasis added):
HARTZ, Circuit Judge, concurrence
I join Judge Phillips’s opinion in full. I add this comment solely to caution against overreading our holding regarding silencers. In determining that silencers are not protected by the Second Amendment, we explain that they are not “bearable arms.” We had no occasion to consider whether items that are not themselves bearable arms but are necessary to the operation of a firearm (think ammunition) are also protected.
 
Last edited:
We had no occasion to consider whether items that are not themselves bearable arms but are necessary to the operation of a firearm (think ammunition) are also protected.
Thought experiment. What if the sound suppressing feature were built in as an integral part of the firearm, not an accessory that can be attached and removed. Furthermore what if this functionality were built into the receiver or other integral mechanisms and not just a barrel function. In other words, make it necessary to the operation of that firearm.
 
The general media's news article is the typical caliber of nothing-burger coverage of a potential Supreme Court case. Nevertheless, the AP article cited ended with the prominent mention of the Virgina Beach shooter's use of a silencer.

Before criticizing the Supreme Court for refusing to take a case, it is usually better to read the ruling under appeal and then decide on specific reasons for criticism.

Some thoughts from my reading of the 10th Circuit's ruling, which make it abundantly clear to me why the Supreme Court did not take the case:
  • The NFA is based on Congress' taxing power and the Supreme Court was not going to rule that specifically-enumerated power is unconstitutional.
  • The defendants argued 2A covers a SBR without bothering to argue against Miller, which is still a valid SCOTUS precedent that says 2A does not cover a short-barrelled shotgun (a close enough analogy to an SBR for the court).
  • Silencers are accessories rather than "bearable arms" as discussed in Heller and are not covered by the 2A.
  • Regulating the commercial activity of making and selling firearms and accessories is based on the commerce clause and the Supreme Court was not going to rule that specifically-enumerated power is unconstitutional.
The 10 Circuit's ruling had an extremely interesting concurring opinion, which is quoted in whole below (emphasis added):

If a suppressor is an “accessory” and “accessories” are not covered by the 2A, then by that logic only box stock firearms as they come from the factory are covered by the 2A. That AR you built with those match barrel, match trigger, keymod “accessoriess” is not covered. If your gun came from the factory with a 10 rd mag then that 30 rd mag you’re using is an “accessory” and not covered. Seeing the slippery slope?

Terry
 
Thought experiment. What if the sound suppressing feature were built in as an integral part of the firearm, not an accessory that can be attached and removed. Furthermore what if this functionality were built into the receiver or other integral mechanisms and not just a barrel function. In other words, make it necessary to the operation of that firearm.

That ship has already sailed. Once something has been legally prohibited, simply incorporating it into the construction of an otherwise legal product does not invalidate the legal prohibition.

If a suppressor is an “accessory” and “accessories” are not covered by the 2A, then by that logic only box stock firearms as they come from the factory are covered by the 2A. That AR you built with those match barrel, match trigger, keymod “accessoriess” is not covered. If your gun came from the factory with a 10 rd mag then that 30 rd mag you’re using is an “accessory” and not covered. Seeing the slippery slope?

Nope.
 
It is a game two sides play with our freedoms. One side wants to win elections by whatever means possible so they can deprive us of as many of our freedoms as possible. The other side just wants to win elections even if it means trampling on some of our freedoms. The left has generally been much better at playing the game because they do not mind getting down and dirty and because they have a goal in view. The right has been rather passive and without a clear goal. It just seems they want to keep from having people not like them and will give away our rights to keep from having things get messy. I was hoping Donald would be the one to get down and dirty, and he seems to be able to do so for numerous issues. The 2A does not seem to be a major item for him and seems to be considered to be just a bargaining chip when trying to make a deal. I wish that were not so.

It is not over until it is over. I hope I will not be disappointed when he is finished with his deals. I fear that I will be.

I agree 100% with this...every word of it
 
Well, they did not hear the case and rule against the suppressors. Hillary's appointees would probably have ruled against freedom rather than not addressing this particular question at this time.

Some believe letting the left go too far, might not be a bad thing.

db42d82259e13cb074a44c20a79ed9aa.jpg
 
Tell me how 2 Hilary appointees would have been better.

Tell me, so far they based the performance of an ostensibly Conservative-majority Supreme Court, would they have been worse.

Too many people are still hung up on the rhetorical differences - the words and language that keeps the people rigorously fighting each other while both sides continue to use power and influence to enhance their own interests while increasing the debt each of the peasants owe (and our children, our grandchildren, and millions yet unborn will owe), increasing the size, scope, intrusiveness, and unconstitutional power of the government, and diminishing Liberty and the individual Rights of Man.

Is it the actions of a wise and Free People, having eyes to see not, having wars to hear not, or having brains to think not?

Judge people one their actions and the results of their governance - not the bullshit with which they continue to clog your ears.
 
Last edited:
Tell me, so far they based the performance of an ostensibly Conservative-majority Supreme Court, would they have been worse.

Too many people are still hung up on the rhetorical differences - the words and language that keeps the people rigorously fighting each other while both sides continue to use power and influence to enhance their own interests while increasing the debt each of the peasants owe (and our children, our grandchildren, and millions yet unborn will owe), increasing the size, scope, intrusiveness, and unconstitutional power of the government, and diminishing Liberty and the individual Rights of Man.

Is it the actions of a wise and Free People, having eyes to see not, having wars to hear not, or having brains to think not?

Judge people one their actions and the results of their governance - not the bullshit with which they continue to clog your ears.

So using the results of the actions that we have seen of every justice appointed by the left in recent history, as opposed to letting your bullshit clog my ears, it would be very safe to assume that two justices appointed by Hillary would have been even worse on gun issues.
 
Last edited:
So using the results of the actions that we have seen of every justice appointed by the left in recent history, as opposed to letting your bullshit clog my ears, it would be very safe to assume that two justices appointed by Hillary would have been even worse on gun issues.

As opposed to the actions of every Conservative justice appointed in recent history?

So in other words, the actual badness of the current SCOTUS treatment is immaterial because of the hypothetical badness that would have resulted?

I will grant you it is a reasonable assumption that they could have been worse, but this is why the GOP and "conservatives" continue to f#+k you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.... because you always rationalize that the alternative continued violation of your Rights would be less tolerable.

EDIT: Edited OUT the F word. Many of my posts don't last this long without going to the Basement or Tortuga, so I just assumed....
 
Last edited:
The general media's news article is the typical caliber of nothing-burger coverage of a potential Supreme Court case. Nevertheless, the AP article cited ended with the prominent mention of the Virgina Beach shooter's use of a silencer.

Before criticizing the Supreme Court for refusing to take a case, it is usually better to read the ruling under appeal and then decide on specific reasons for criticism.

Some thoughts from my reading of the 10th Circuit's ruling, which make it abundantly clear to me why the Supreme Court did not take the case:
  • The NFA is based on Congress' taxing power and the Supreme Court was not going to rule that specifically-enumerated power is unconstitutional.
  • The defendants argued 2A covers a SBR without bothering to argue against Miller, which is still a valid SCOTUS precedent that says 2A does not cover a short-barrelled shotgun (a close enough analogy to an SBR for the court).
  • Silencers are accessories rather than "bearable arms" as discussed in Heller and are not covered by the 2A.
  • Regulating the commercial activity of making and selling firearms and accessories is based on the commerce clause and the Supreme Court was not going to rule that specifically-enumerated power is unconstitutional.
The 10 Circuit's ruling had an extremely interesting concurring opinion, which is quoted in whole below (emphasis added):

This could have gone worse for us, if SCOTUS had taken the case, then ruled against us. The court uses the "rule of four": they will take the case if four of them--still not a majority--vote to take it. If @gc70 is onto something here, it could be that the conservatives didn't feel that this was the right case for expanding gun rights. So they took a pass, knowing that there are several potentially better cases working their way up.

The biggest loser in all this, though, is Jeremy Kettler, a distinguished combat veteran, who thought he was doing everything by the book, and is now a convicted felon by the same country that he fought to defend. He will never be able to hold another gun or pass a background check.
 
Last edited:
So in other words, the actual badness of the current SCOTUS treatment is immaterial because of the hypothetical badness that would have resulted?

I will grant you it is a reasonable assumption that they could have been worse, but this is why the GOP and "conservatives" continue to fuck you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.... because you always rationalize that the alternative continued violation of your Rights would be less tolerable.

Clinton appointed SC justices would have been far worse on the gun issue, there is no sense playing dumb on that point.

That isn't what I always rationalize. But picking Hillary over Trump, or sitting at home and letting Hillary win, or voting for some space cadet chance in hell 3rd party candidate, would have been completely moronic, there is absolutely nothing intelligent about that strategy. So yeah, that election was important.
 
Last edited:
I say that those people have never been in WAR

Like a great percentage of your posts here, you are incorrect.

I would argue that it’s a very small percentage that want it, and of those, many have probably never seen real war.

But there is a growing population of gun owners in general, and veteran gun owners in particular, who are resigned to the fact that it is inevitable, and would rather face the inevitability while they can bear the brunt of the cost, rather than Hope the price is paid by their children and grandchildren.
 
"We The People created the federal government – Congress, the presidency, and the U.S. supreme Court. All of them are our servants, created by us and limited by rule of law. Read this as often as you must; burn this bedrock of American civics in your mind! It is vital to doing your sovereign duty and to teaching your children.
Stop living and thinking like a hard-headed old Soviet citizen. Mere elections can never change things;" David M Zunigas book Fear the People
TacticalCivics.com
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom