A Hillary Supreme Court Means Goodbye to Second Amendment

[rangerrebew]

August 15, 2016
A Hillary Supreme Court Means Goodbye to Second Amendment
By J Marsalo

The July/August issue of Imprimis has an excellent article by Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt on “The Next Supreme Court Justice” in which he discusses important cases and issues that will be decided by the Supreme Court.

One important issue is whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry a concealed firearm outside your home.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/08/a_hillary_supreme_court_means_goodbye_to_second_amendment.html#ixzz4HP3zvXwB
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[Oceander]

That's what you get for nominating the one person who could not beat Clinton, ever, in a year where this election should have been - would have been but for the Trumpkins - a cakewalk.  If the Second Amendment is lost, then the only people who bear responsibility for that are the Trumpkins, who made a President Clinton inevitable.

[Crazieman]

I was told on good authority by people here that this was pointless scaremongoring.

[Oceander]

I was told on good authority by people here that this was pointless scaremongoring.

There is a risk there, of course, just as there is a risk that Citizens United could be overturned.  But that risk exists with Trump as well.  Trump is certainly more liberal than GWB, and GWB appointed C. Justice Roberts, who has been endlessly castigated for siding with the liberals on the Supreme Court.  So why on Earth would any half-rational person think that Trump's nominees would be any less liberal than GWB's nominees?

[rangerrebew]

End of the 2nd Amendment, hell!  If they can get rid of the 2nd Amendment by judicial means, it means the end of Constitution.

[HonestJohn]

I think this article was first published in 2008.

The authors just reissued it with a red line through Obama... and pencilled in the name Hillary.

[roamer_1]

LET 'EM TRY.

[Cripplecreek]

LET 'EM TRY.

Bingo.

Guns? What Guns?

[INVAR]

Anyone who gives authority to a court, a president or a legislature by submitting to edicts and 'rulings' that infringe upon, diminish or abolish an inalienable right - deserve to suffer for it.

They have no authority to impede, ban, infringe or otherwise regulate an enumerated inalienable right despite what the fear-mongrels would have you believe.

All they have is guns their agents will put to your head to force compliance to lawless dictates  - and we have the right to resist with deadly force.

[Cripplecreek]

Anyone who gives authority to a court, a president or a legislature by submitting to edicts and 'rulings' that infringe upon, diminish or abolish an inalienable right - deserve to suffer for it.

They have no authority to impede, ban, infringe or otherwise regulate an enumerated inalienable right despite what the fear-mongrels would have you believe.

All they have is guns their agents will put to your head to force compliance to lawless dictates  - and we have the right to resist with deadly force.

Ben Franklin warned the British during his testimony to parliament against the stamp act in 1766.

Q. Do you think the people of America would submit to pay the stamp duty, if it was moderated?
A. No, never, unless compelled by force of arms . . .

Q. What is your opinion of a future tax, imposed on the same principle with that of the Stamp Act? How would the Americans receive it?
A. Just as they do this. They would not pay it.

Q. Can anything less than a military force carry the Stamp Act into execution?
A. I do not see how a military force can be applied to that purpose.

Q. Why may it not?
A. Suppose a military force sent into America; they will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do? They cannot force a man to take stamps who chooses to do without them. They will not find a rebellion; they may indeed make one.

[Bigun]

If there is a line that Americans will not tolerate messing with the second amendment is it!

[Smokin Joe]

Anyone who gives authority to a court, a president or a legislature by submitting to edicts and 'rulings' that infringe upon, diminish or abolish an inalienable right - deserve to suffer for it.

They have no authority to impede, ban, infringe or otherwise regulate an enumerated inalienable right despite what the fear-mongrels would have you believe.

All they have is guns their agents will put to your head to force compliance to lawless dictates  - and we have the right to resist with deadly force.

When one considers the Constitution would not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights, eliminating any of those rights by judicially nullifying them or repealing the Amendment should void the compact. Those Rights, in particular, were held to be sacrosanct. Now, about the ninth and tenth...

[dfwgator]

It means a lot more boating accidents.

[INVAR]

Ben Franklin warned the British during his testimony to parliament against the stamp act in 1766.

"Suppose a military force sent into America; they will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do? They cannot force a man to take stamps who chooses to do without them. They will not find a rebellion; they may indeed make one". - Franklin

And yet today the federal government can now force a man to take health insurance who chooses to do without it.  They did not see rebellion and indeed there may never be one.

[INVAR]

When one considers the Constitution would not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights, eliminating any of those rights by judicially nullifying them or repealing the Amendment should void the compact.

Those Rights, in particular, were held to be sacrosanct.

Irrelevant.  The compact cannot be voided by the little people, because the Ruling Class has told us that 'the government is us', and as such, no one may opt out of being told what they must do, what they must fund, who they must provide for and what they must believe.

Had Those Rights been truly sacrosanct by this people - the moment prayer and Christian exercise was abolished in public places should have voided the compact.

Instead the violation and abridgment of the right of free exercise became the First Amendment, whereby most public skool edumacated mush heads will tell you that the First Amendment is the Separation of Church and State.

[Smokin Joe]

Irrelevant.  The compact cannot be voided by the little people, because the Ruling Class has told us that 'the government is us', and as such, no one may opt out of being told what they must do, what they must fund, who they must provide for and what they must believe.

Had Those Rights been truly sacrosanct by this people - the moment prayer and Christian exercise was abolished in public places should have voided the compact.

Instead the violation and abridgment of the right of free exercise became the First Amendment, whereby most public skool edumacated mush heads will tell you that the First Amendment is the Separation of Church and State.

That is an unfortunate result of so many never reading the actual document and understanding it.  Instead, they have everything 'interpreted' for them, a malady which has been extended to speeches in the past few years where commentators tell you what you were told as if you hadn't actually listened to what was said. If I need an interpreter, someone is speaking the wrong language.
For that matter, rarely have I seen a group of alleged professionals more sloppy with the tools of their trade than the anti-semantic press.