Our gun rights are safe under Brett Kavanaugh

a reply to: JBurns

Don't count chickens before they're hatched.

Justices have a habit of going their own way, once on the bench.

a reply to: JBurns

Kavanaugh's apparent stance on 2A is one of the major reasons I was hoping that Trump would select him. While I don't expect that this Supreme Court will be in any hurry to strike down longstanding federal laws, I do think we're probably going to get a positive ruling relatively soon protecting the classes of firearms currently available at the federal level and generally striking down the state-level 'assault weapons' bans. Even if they only do that much, it would provide a much needed backstop against further erosion of 2A rights by setting clear limits on what the government can and cannot ban.

Our gun rights are safe under Brett Kavanaugh

They're never safe.

DON'T lull yourself in to a false sense of security.

Yeah but his track record on the 4th Amendment is miserable and appalling.

“The Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.” - B Kavanaugh

originally posted by: PageLC14
a reply to: JBurns

The only reason I knew he was picked is because I saw media coverage of all the protests outside the supreme court. I wonder if even half of those people protesting even know why they're protesting...

They didn’t. If you look closely, many of the signs had a blank underline so they could write in whoever POTUS selected. Mindless lemmings, the lot of them. I really wonder who selects their clothes for the day and meals. It’s pretty obvious they can’t make decisions without CNN, MSNBC, or the old guard Dem leaders giving them direction.

www.courant.com...


Yale, real close to Bush... Worked under Kennedy... Yup just another club member

Your gun rights have never been in jeopardy so no big deal.

Amen

The constitution was written to limit the rights of the government not the rights of the people. We should never give up a right once we gave won that right.

originally posted by: JBurns


Great to see we have installed justices that will interpret the Constitution as it was intended, and not based on their own opinion/political beliefs.

:

legit question here

since we agree the constitution is open to interpretation, how do you, not being a constitutional lawyer know how the interpretation was intended?

thanks

a reply to: TinySickTears

I'm not the ine you addressed but I'm an amateur historian and the Founders' writings have been published.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Many of the key players in putting the Constitution together left very detailed writings on their thoughts about what it meant. We're allowed to add our own thoughts to it, they'd not have it otherwise. Just as we're allowed to disagree with others interpretations, again, they'd not have it otherwise.

Their like are not amongst us today... We could use a Madison, Jefferson, or Washington right about now.

a reply to: seagull

If we had a Washington, Madison or Jefferson in today's world, they wouldn't be in politics.


Real values and ideals aren't welcome.

a reply to: JinMI

Oh, I think they would be.

Remember what they risked as the leaders of a rebellion against the preeminent global power of that age, or any age it could be argued...

Not just their lives. But their honor. The lives of their families would likely have been forfeit--certainly their fortunes. This wouldn't phase them in the slightest. My humble opinion, of course.

a reply to: JBurns

I really appreciate your response and totally respect your opinion regarding firearms, I am old enough to have lived in the UK when firearms were legal and now of course they are outlawed (it most circumstances), it has not had a detremental effect on the UK populace

Surely you do not belive that one day the US government will just start rounding up the population and killing them indiscriminately, it was my understanding that we the UK were the biggest threat to the US when the constitution was written, you have my promise that I will never invade your great country, and if your government do take this action then I will fly/swim or drive and stand by your side

again thank you for your polite response and I hope I have been equally polite

since we agree the constitution is open to interpretation,

Actually it's not.

Interpretation is codespeak for IGNORING the hell out of it.

Denial of due process.

Invasion of privacy.

Illegal search and seizure of private property.

The RIGHT to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness laid out in the 14th.

Institutionalized discrimination.

Of which gun control violates massively.

That's what people mean by interpretation.

Willfully violating civil liberty.

a reply to: carewemust

Memories .....

After the president nominated Brett Kavanaugh for a key court vacancy, Democrats sought to obstruct. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., resorted to name-calling. The New York Times chimed in to call Kavanaugh “unqualified.”

That’s what happened when President George W. Bush named Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003. He was not confirmed by the Senate until 2006.

Here’s What Happened the Last Time Democrats Tried to Deny Brett Kavanaugh a Court Seat

a reply to: neo96

Just cause you say it that does not mean it's true. Believe what you want