The fact that we are unwilling to take action after Columbine, Parkland, and, most of all, Sandy Hook, says that we don't care about the lives of children...only the profit picture of handgun manufacturers.
I didn't think anything could slow down SCOTUS's march toward, "While constitutional firearm regulation is theoretically possible, reality has yet to provide an example of such legislation." This case might turn out to be just such a speed bump. Fingers crossed.
They need to make up their minds. If we're going to blame all gun violence on mental illness, then we have to take guns out of the hands of unstable people. A person who has threatened to use their gun on someone isn't stable enough to own one, sorry. There are just no good reasons to own handguns, much less assault-style rifles, much less semi-automatic firearms. Very few people in this country actually have a good reason to own any firearm at all.
Back when I was a kid, and Carswell AFB was flying big bombers over every few minutes, a guy down the road from us started firing his weapons at them. He got into big trouble, boys, and this was in the sixties. Some nice men in uniform showed up at his farm to have a come to Jesus with him. I don't know what ended up happening, because I was a preschooler, but I remember the stories.
If Justice Thomas thinks that all laws must be analogous to those from before 1868, a state like California should outlaw the possession of any gun manufactured before 1868.
I'm sure that which ever billionaire is paying Justice Thomas to write his decisions would agree with that.
While the questions they asked sound positive I don't think we can get a real sense of how this may go until the full itinerary of the NRAs 2024 SCOTUS junkets is leaked.
Well, if you read Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs, he’s a big fan of this 17th century jurist (momentarily forgetting his name) who was a huge proponent of marital rape. When is SCOTUS going to bring that back, I wonder?
The fact that we are unwilling to take action after Columbine, Parkland, and, most of all, Sandy Hook, says that we don't care about the lives of children...only the profit picture of handgun manufacturers.
I didn't think anything could slow down SCOTUS's march toward, "While constitutional firearm regulation is theoretically possible, reality has yet to provide an example of such legislation." This case might turn out to be just such a speed bump. Fingers crossed.
They need to make up their minds. If we're going to blame all gun violence on mental illness, then we have to take guns out of the hands of unstable people. A person who has threatened to use their gun on someone isn't stable enough to own one, sorry. There are just no good reasons to own handguns, much less assault-style rifles, much less semi-automatic firearms. Very few people in this country actually have a good reason to own any firearm at all.
Is it fair to say that Clarence Thomas has no rights that I am bound to respect?
Are you saying you want enslave him?
He already enslaved himself.
Can he show me a law from the founder's era that says I can't enslave him if I wish to?
You can enslave three-fifths of him? That should get him to agree.
You might have to strike a deal with his owner, Harlan Crow.
Clarence is going to fuck this up for women everywhere, isn't he?
Ta, Dok. When I was 25, I lived with a violent domestic abuser. If he had had a gun, I'd likely be dead.
I think that the Founders were totally fine with guns in the Supreme Court. What, they aren't allowed? Heretics!
At the very least, no law expressly forbade the pointing of a flintlock rifle at Mr. Justice Bushrod Washington, so stare decisis applies.
SG Prelogar was very good . . . the thing blocking her from appealing to sanity is bruen!
[ bruen stands as one of the five worst SC*R*OTUS decisions in modern (since 1865?) times ]
So by Bruen logic, I should be able to fire a gun from a car or on a plane because those didn’t exist back then
Back when I was a kid, and Carswell AFB was flying big bombers over every few minutes, a guy down the road from us started firing his weapons at them. He got into big trouble, boys, and this was in the sixties. Some nice men in uniform showed up at his farm to have a come to Jesus with him. I don't know what ended up happening, because I was a preschooler, but I remember the stories.
Don't you let Clarence or Sam Alito hear you
Because John Roberts will let his boys do anything they want
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dYkiriPuUo
If Justice Thomas thinks that all laws must be analogous to those from before 1868, a state like California should outlaw the possession of any gun manufactured before 1868.
I'm sure that which ever billionaire is paying Justice Thomas to write his decisions would agree with that.
How about he and his wife get all their franchises removed?
The founders also didn't have laws against dumping your horse shit in the street.
Just sayin'.
Fuck Ted Cruz.
Should I get my masters in Early American History (And Medieval European Witchery) before or after I go to law school?
Why bother with a history degree when a SCOTUS robe apparently gives you seance powers?
both . . . before to be prepared . . . after to learn the changes SC*R*OTUS will have made in those histories while you were in law school.
Cynical me: The wingjustices are just making mouth noises so they can pretend they are making a Serious and Very Thoughtful decision
Optimistic me: Oh please, oh please, walk back the cray just that much, please! Also, shaddup cynical me
I dunno, you know? If the SC greenlights giving guns to abusers, women (and the men who give a crap) who vote R might finally cut that shit out.
We say that every time a gop majority does something terrible. Thus far, their women et al remain faithful.
While the questions they asked sound positive I don't think we can get a real sense of how this may go until the full itinerary of the NRAs 2024 SCOTUS junkets is leaked.
There wasn't even a word for domestic violence until the early 1970s. It was wife beating and it was totally acceptable.
Well, if you read Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs, he’s a big fan of this 17th century jurist (momentarily forgetting his name) who was a huge proponent of marital rape. When is SCOTUS going to bring that back, I wonder?
It was considered funny.
Ditto with children and animals.
Well, you didn't want them turning in to witches, now did you?
This case even getting this far is why we are fucked either way
I think it’s a good sign that after the 5th court of appeals ruling the Supremes took the case.
You’re right that any court ruled that domestic abusers should be allowed guns is fucked up.
They just kicked it down the road because they want SCOTUS to rule on it once and for all.