Supreme Court dismisses second amendment case.

They should have defined every part of the constitution so that there is no room to interpret. That's why the US constitution is so short compared to other countries.

 

An impossible task.

 

so you don't want the Supreme Court to have the power to strike down illegal laws or laws that clearly violate the Constitution?

huh

 

I can think the 7th amendment is stupid for 1. Putting a monetary number and not also putting tied to inflation and 2. Allowing jury trials for civil suits, but that amendment is clear as day and I can not argue what it means.

 

I am not saying I do or I don't I am saying you can look at the constitution and you will not see anywhere that gives the supreme court judicial review.

 

So?

 

so the supreme court has no authority to decide if a law is illegal or unConstitutional?

bullshit

 

Quote where in the Constitution it says that?

 

A rate of approximately seven hundred individuals for every law enforcement officer.

And yet a wide variety of crimes, up to and including murder, are regularly committed in the city of New York without so much as a second thought. Indicating the presence of law enforcement is not a deterring effect.

How would such checkpoints work? What criteria would be used in determining which motor vehicles to search and which to not search?

 

Ultimately what can be done about such?

If the desire for real and meaningful change is actually real, rather than just hollow and meaningless rhetoric, then it requires a significant and involved degree of work to do such. It would require what may come to be the bloodiest and most violent coup in the history of the entire united states. Every single individual who currently holds some position of authority in government would need to be systematically removed from not only that position of authority all at the same time, but they would need to be removed from the equation, as doing otherwise would allow them to spread their message of what they believe is acceptable, to others who may also share their world view, and believes that the ends justify the means, regardless of what must be done to get there. Those who hold a particular viewpoint would quite literally need to be killed for having the wrong ideas about how the nation should work.

Once said individuals are removed from the equation, it would be an absolute necessity to completely dismantle government at all levels to ensure that all elements of corruption have been removed from the equation due to exposure to said corrupting influences, and start over fresh from the ground up, without drawing on anything that existed beforehand. It may be necessary to go back to drafting the united states constitution all over again, to address whatever shortcomings were present in the first version, to prevent things from so easily becoming corrupt again, and leaving you back where you started in the first place.

What would ultimately be necessary for achieving the desired results, is similar to the need of utilizing radical chemotherapy for treating aggressive strains of cancer. The disease is not cured by the physician simply removing the tumors and declaring it to be good enough. Absolutely every last trace, every last suspect cell, must be completely obliterated from existence to prevent the disease from coming back again.

Does anyone have the appetite for such an approach to eliminating corruption? Is anyone willing to kill hundreds of thousands, if not potentially millions of individuals, on the sole basis that they cannot and will not hold themselves to high moral standards of doing what is the right thing, simply to prevent corruption from becoming entrenched into the system of government once again? Does anyone possess the constitution of character to pursue true and equal justice to this degree? Or will such be considered too much work?

 

It's laughable to hear Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's threats suggesting that the Supreme Court is political. The law was clearly an insulting overstep of basic common sense rights. But fearing the Supreme Court ruling, New York relented and modified the law to suit gun owners(Plaintiff) reasonable position.
"Although the city had previously insisted that its ordinance served important public safety purposes, our grant of review apparently led to an epiphany of sorts, and the city quickly changed its ordinance," Alito wrote.

 

Quote where the Constitution mentions an Air Force and Space Force.

 

Right next to where it speaks of homosexual marriage and abortion.

 

it doesn't mention marriage, period.

 

That'd be the fruits of promiscuity and out of wedlock births which are funded by left wing pseudo compassion. It has nothing to do with guns or rights, but rather the abuse of such.

 

They did it right. They chose not to use their super majority and devided that all people should be free to practice their religion.
They intended the same with firearms but we have screwed that one all to hell. And that makes us less safe.

 

Tyranny and corruption are cornerstones of human behavior, we will never evolve out of it.
Humans haven't gotten better we are exactly the same as we were day 1.

 

I agree. Which is why the 2nd makes sense to me.
I am NOT looking forward to the day that the Left comes to take them.
At this point, I think anyone who still thinks it's not coming is not being realistic.

The moment we get a Democratic President and Democratic control of both houses, it's a done deal.
Certainly guns like AR15's will be outlawed, but likely all semi auto handguns and rifles as well. There'll be a ton of waling and complaining on forums, but the vast majority will quietly do as told.

I really wonder what all those who think it could never happen will do on that day?
My guess is all but a small handful will comply.

Reasoning: Love of family, lifestyle, savings and pensions, fear of jail etc will be more important than fighting and possibly losing it all over a right.

 

Probably true. But those that do not comply are well within their rights to defend themselves from confiscation.
And large swaths of the law enforcement community will likewise not comply.

 

I know.
Those who do not will probably see SWAT teams visiting.
There's also large swaths of law enforcement that will value their pensions, above our Rights. Keep in mind that many in Law Enforcement are also on the Far left.

Sheriffs for example who do comply will probably be arrested and jailed.
Democrats plan to make confiscation Federal. They'll give resistance hell.
I can't understand why Democrats who do value the 2nd would vote Democrat.

 

I can't speak honestly about this issue without getting my posts deleted or a ban. So i better stop.

 

Sorry to hear that.
Sign of the times.
Did you see where Google and YouTube deleted videos from Medical Doctors who simply
explained that the COVID-19 was not as deadly as initially thought?

They were said to be causing great harm to society.
The America we knew is gone.

 

Yup.

 

I will say this..... Anarchy is better than totalitarianism...

America would be better off with no government every man for himself than to have an "assault weapons" ban.

 

Yeah, but before this new law, I assume that people could carry in a park for example, just not in certain privately owned buildings.