Hmmm... nominate anti-gun liberal justices like Breyer and Stevens and Souter? But I thought RINOs couldn't nominate anti-gun justices? Funny how that works... Just looked it up, btw, Stevens was also a republican appointment.ZARASTER wrote:In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house..." --
Justice Breyer, Dissenting opinion rendered in DC gun case, June 2008
In a 5-4 decision, Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg believe the above statement and stated such in their dissenting opinion in the DC gun case. It is not an individual right and you have no right to self-defense within your home if the government says so. Five Justices say otherwise.
The next president will nominate one, possibly two supreme court Justices. One liberal confirmation will swing the balance making the Second Amendment the right of the government, not your right.
If a candidate was anti-gun in the past, they are anti-gun now and will be in the future, regardless of their campaign rhetoric. A liberal president will nominate anti-gun liberal justices like Breyer and Stevens to the court. That's a fact. Make your vote count this fall.
So we have a gun banner and a backdoor registration, banner of all private sales, both purveyors of "reasonable restrictions." Or perhaps I'm reading you wrong, maybe you're advocating taking a real stand for the 2A (and the rest of the constitution) by voting Libertarian or something?
Oh. Guess not.ZARASTER wrote:I am going with McCain
By the way, which conservative justice is it that is on the brink of retirement? Seems to me there are no young liberal justices but on the contrary the conservative half is quite young. Call me crazy, but I do kind of like the idea of a somewhat split court, if it is going to be filled with republicans and democrats and not defenders of the constitution. As Liberty said, once the 1A is gone (and don't think they will limit themselves to that, no, Bush has been making a full on assault to the 1A, 4A, and 5A and that's just what I remember at the moment) the 2A will swiftly follow.
On the original topic, I find it amusing how Michelle Obama can drive through a rural area and come to understand (according to her) how those people might need guns, but living in Chicago and seeing something like this happen close by in Jerusalem would not lead them to the same conclusion. Of course they might see that the registered, single-shot .22s that Obama might be inclined to allow in rural areas probably wouldn't be all that effective against terrorists or gang-bangers.