Supreme Court strikes New York gun law in major ruling

Did they? or did they send a message that cronyism in divieing out who could protect themselves was illegal.. hmm... Oh yeah, they said elitism must bend to the law. I get that stings if you were assured that only the rich could have protection...

 

So now every gun owner is a MAGA

 

No, that's not what he said.

 

Way to go SC...
Long Live the 2A!

 

It should be stated that those in Chevy Chase, MD are your voting block. Those are your allies, not ours. Move in their neighborhood and lead by example.

 

Then I suggest that you really don't understand the conservative messaging then. States do have rights, but they don't and cannot supersede the laws of the nation that have been granted explicitly to the federal gov. I know, details never ever stopped a liberal idea to punish the people...

 

Seems like a good plan to me... Anywhere in the state the sky can be seen is now a state specific area....

 

What will be great is when MD adapts their CCW laws to the SCOTUS ruling -- as they would then likly adopt reciprocity so I can be armed when I go to MD. I do a lot of hiking in MD. I was once recently hiking in MD a few years ago and passed two women on the trail. They told me I should be carrying a stick as a lot of people had been attacked in the area where I was hiking. Well, in WV where I live people do not have to rely on a stick for self defense against criminal.

 

Thanks, but I'm 100% used to intentionally false interpretations by the MAGA set.... If they couldn't do that, they'd all dry up and a slight breeze would blow them away....

 

What does “MAGA” have to do with the topic at hand? Did Trump create the 2nd amendment or something? Lol

This one is literally foaming at the mouth as he types to this news. Absolutely love it. FJB.

 

This is going to be a disaster. It is only hilarious because it is so ridiculous.

I am waiting for the day when a bunch of gun-toting yahoos in a large crowd all end up shooting each other because no one knows who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. It is inevitable - the fog of war.

This is going to kill a lot of people. And it again shows the US is a failed nation.

This has been on the books for 100 years. That makes this a liberal court.

 

Not what the Amendment says, you completely dropped the prefatory clause which makes the “shall not be infringed” relevant, until the prefatory clause is defined, which no Court or person has been able to do, the operative clause doesn’t count

 

Your comment made me wonder if there's ever been a case where someone used their gun to protect someone else. Would the principle of self defense apply in a situation where a criminal was shot while attacking someone other than the shooter?

 

Body autonomy. A basic human right conservatives want to regulate. Their cover is "the states should decide". It's hypocrisy.

 

So you're another one that suggest ONLY the criminals should carry weapons, gotcha

 

Way I read it, it does!

 

That is an old and lame “argument,” the law bidding gun owned, the majority of mass shooters were “law bidding” gun owners till they pulled the trigger

 

I didn't say that. But a free-for-all is insane.

I grew up on the Compton border. I know.

This will be a disaster. And it will destroy faith in the SC. It is completely out of line with the majority of the country.

Just another large leap forward in the death of the country.

 

Sad that you don't understand what the Second Amendment says about gun owners' rights.
Didn't pay attention in civics class?

 

I do recall that was the democratic position wasn't it? You must get vaccinated to work, travel,.. blah blah... And no, conservatives don't want to regulate it. They want to respect the unborn who have rights as well, or did you forget that part?

 

Yeah, we just saw nineteen trained and armed individuals with guns defending, problem is gun huggers see themselves as Clint Eastwood when Barney Fife is a more accurate portrayal

 

LOL! Your argument is the lamer one... We are not going to disarm the law-abiding because of what they haven't done.

 

So you think criminals will queue up and be vetted for CCW permits because otherwise they would not use guns to commit crimes? Explain this logic please.

I guess it was fine when people like Howard Stern and Donald trump could get CCW permits in NYC. Just not good when an average person can get one. Thus proving Orwell was right. To the left, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. People like Bloomberg have armed guards, probably exploiting Federal law that makes former law enforcement exempt from State and local gun laws. So it is OK for the rich elite to be protected by armed guards. Just not OK for the little people to protect themselves.

 

Why? Because you enjoy dead innocent victims instead? That seems to be the outcome if not the intent of your position. Compton has a different problem. Lack of nuclear family, too much single motherhood, and crippling cultural gang affiliation. Guns are just a symptom of those more basic problem.

 

I understand, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” until you can define what that “well regulated Militia” means you can’t go any further