Scalia wrote clearly and the majority of the court agreed that AND I QUOTE EXACTLY - "The second amendment is no different." after a lengthy example of First amendment assembly rights trumping govt action to curtail what even the many find distasteful or even outright hateful.
I've often wondered if the goal there was to cement the "permit process" for guns or to obliterate it for assembly. Either way, SCOTUS has already held that they MUST be treated the same. First, that REQUIRES at the very least STRICT FUCKING SCRUTINY (for all the whiners trying to pretend THAT pArticular question hasn't been answered). Second, it answers this piece's question - yes!
Wanna assemble? Get a permit. Wanna speak? Get a permit. Wanna write? Get a permit. Wanna go to church? Get a permit. Better yet, wanna NOT go to mosque? Get a permit. (All of these are "may issue", come with a hefty fee and of course proper "training" which also comes at a fee).
Now, of course even the RUBES along with the Fudds are going to scream bloody murder about this idiocy. They will, "authorized journalists" especially, will shout from the mountain tops how this permit structure totally defeats enumerating the rights..... Something we gun rights activists have been saying all along. They will holler POLL TAX, again, just what we "extreme right wing militia types" have been saying all along.
Make NO mistake, requiring "reporters" to submit to exactly what gun owners are subjected to will force the judiciary to address the question. And there is no putting the genie back into the bottle now. With admission of individual right, if not related to military service, to incorporation.... There is no way to now claim what gun grabbing bastards wish - that the Second Amendment is "different". But WHY? What's the final wall that boxes them in? Why, the final nail in the coffin called the obliteration of the "interest balancing approach".... Specifically referring to his the court admitted that it knew of NO other enumerated right that was subject to it!
I say again - Ted Cruz destroyed Diane "I'd confiscate them all if I could" fEinstein by pressing this point! She looked like a fool, tried to spin but HAD to answer and her billed died an instant death because of it (a bill she once succeeded in getting passed into law).
Folks, THIS IS the argument we should all be making. They have absolutely ZERO defense and A LOT to LOSE if they try to ignore it. Rather than play defense on guns we should play offense - unless the Second is adhered to properly, we advocate THEM being held to the standards THEY hold us to!
A very intelligent young lady-friend of mine (we'll call her "Annie" as in Oakley), commented on the I-594 situation last night. While relating to her what it was about and how it makes felons of non-background checked transferors, I brought up the example of people being out hunting when an innocent transfer happens. She said "So, luckily they're out in the woods." I replied "Yeah, but what if there's a left-wing . . ." (I was going to say "snitch nearby") when she interjected "left-wing drone, they fly around in circles, y'know."
Couldn't have put more leftist behavior and imagery in so few words myself.
I'm going to start calling these great little observations of hers on the irrational behavior of society (especially leftists) - "Annieisms".
First of all, you're expecting the modern day, average American to think. What a novel concept..And I believe it was Jefferson (Thomas, not George) that said "you'll never need the second amendment 'till they try to take it away"...Amen!...
"If they don’t understand the parallels between restricting peaceful protest and being photographed by the police, and building records on gun owners, then they shouldn’t be practicing law or pounding keyboards for a living."
I am convinced that they understand the parallels. They just could not care less.
You see, a totalitarian state isn't at all bad - for the elites! Do you think the Soviet mucky-mucks gave a thought to all the proles living in those dingy grey concrete monstrosities as they drove (or more likely driven) to their dachas in the country? Please! And the lower level party hacks put up with their shitty lives because they all aspired to be a party mucky-muck.
No totalitarian state can survive when its proles have freedom of any sort. The problem is that taking away rights from an armed populous is a perilous undertaking. Moving too quickly to impose "order" is a good way to wake up DEAD! So they HAVE to disarm the proles first. The tricky part is doing it WITHOUT sparking a revolution. Unfortunately (fortunately?) the lower level leftist drones/true-believers don't understand that. Their constant pushing for full institution of the longed-for socialist/statist utopia has a good chance of pushing those in charge to take precipitate action and spark a reolution which is likely to get many of the elites dead.
Police: Armored Military Vehicles Needed for ‘Constitutionalists’ with Firearms "We've got a lot of constitutionalists... a lot of people that stockpile weapons"
Shocking video provided exclusively to Infowars shows a Washington state sheriff’s deputy proclaiming that law enforcement officers need armored military vehicles because of “constitutionalists” with firearms.
8 comments:
Scalia wrote clearly and the majority of the court agreed that AND I QUOTE EXACTLY - "The second amendment is no different." after a lengthy example of First amendment assembly rights trumping govt action to curtail what even the many find distasteful or even outright hateful.
I've often wondered if the goal there was to cement the "permit process" for guns or to obliterate it for assembly. Either way, SCOTUS has already held that they MUST be treated the same. First, that REQUIRES at the very least STRICT FUCKING SCRUTINY (for all the whiners trying to pretend THAT pArticular question hasn't been answered). Second, it answers this piece's question - yes!
Wanna assemble? Get a permit. Wanna speak? Get a permit. Wanna write? Get a permit. Wanna go to church? Get a permit. Better yet, wanna NOT go to mosque? Get a permit. (All of these are "may issue", come with a hefty fee and of course proper "training" which also comes at a fee).
Now, of course even the RUBES along with the Fudds are going to scream bloody murder about this idiocy. They will, "authorized journalists" especially, will shout from the mountain tops how this permit structure totally defeats enumerating the rights..... Something we gun rights activists have been saying all along. They will holler POLL TAX, again, just what we "extreme right wing militia types" have been saying all along.
Make NO mistake, requiring "reporters" to submit to exactly what gun owners are subjected to will force the judiciary to address the question. And there is no putting the genie back into the bottle now. With admission of individual right, if not related to military service, to incorporation.... There is no way to now claim what gun grabbing bastards wish - that the Second Amendment is "different". But WHY? What's the final wall that boxes them in? Why, the final nail in the coffin called the obliteration of the "interest balancing approach".... Specifically referring to his the court admitted that it knew of NO other enumerated right that was subject to it!
I say again - Ted Cruz destroyed Diane "I'd confiscate them all if I could" fEinstein by pressing this point! She looked like a fool, tried to spin but HAD to answer and her billed died an instant death because of it (a bill she once succeeded in getting passed into law).
Folks, THIS IS the argument we should all be making. They have absolutely ZERO defense and A LOT to LOSE if they try to ignore it. Rather than play defense on guns we should play offense - unless the Second is adhered to properly, we advocate THEM being held to the standards THEY hold us to!
A very intelligent young lady-friend of mine (we'll call her "Annie" as in Oakley), commented on the I-594 situation last night. While relating to her what it was about and how it makes felons of non-background checked transferors, I brought up the example of people being out hunting when an innocent transfer happens. She said "So, luckily they're out in the woods." I replied "Yeah, but what if there's a left-wing . . ." (I was going to say "snitch nearby") when she interjected "left-wing drone, they fly around in circles, y'know."
Couldn't have put more leftist behavior and imagery in so few words myself.
I'm going to start calling these great little observations of hers on the irrational behavior of society (especially leftists) - "Annieisms".
-MadMagyar
First of all, you're expecting the modern day, average American to think. What a novel concept..And I believe it was Jefferson (Thomas, not George) that said "you'll never need the second amendment 'till they try to take it away"...Amen!...
The problem is this.
They care about what they want, and do not care a dilly damned bit what the constitution says.
They will even lie and state that the constitution says things it does not although proof abounds that the opposite is so.
To this, there is only one solution.
"If they don’t understand the parallels between restricting peaceful protest and being photographed by the police, and building records on gun owners, then they shouldn’t be practicing law or pounding keyboards for a living."
I am convinced that they understand the parallels. They just could not care less.
You see, a totalitarian state isn't at all bad - for the elites! Do you think the Soviet mucky-mucks gave a thought to all the proles living in those dingy grey concrete monstrosities as they drove (or more likely driven) to their dachas in the country? Please! And the lower level party hacks put up with their shitty lives because they all aspired to be a party mucky-muck.
No totalitarian state can survive when its proles have freedom of any sort. The problem is that taking away rights from an armed populous is a perilous undertaking. Moving too quickly to impose "order" is a good way to wake up DEAD! So they HAVE to disarm the proles first. The tricky part is doing it WITHOUT sparking a revolution. Unfortunately (fortunately?) the lower level leftist drones/true-believers don't understand that. Their constant pushing for full institution of the longed-for socialist/statist utopia has a good chance of pushing those in charge to take precipitate action and spark a reolution which is likely to get many of the elites dead.
Police: Armored Military Vehicles Needed for ‘Constitutionalists’ with Firearms
"We've got a lot of constitutionalists... a lot of people that stockpile weapons"
Shocking video provided exclusively to Infowars shows a Washington state sheriff’s deputy proclaiming that law enforcement officers need armored military vehicles because of “constitutionalists” with firearms.
http://www.infowars.com/police-armored-military-vehicles-needed-for-constitutionalists-with-firearms/
Funny/ironic/sad that "constitutionalist" has become a dirty word.
BadCyborg noted" "...a resolution which is likely to get many of the elites dead."
I cannot for the life of me conceive of a better reason to have one. :-)
Post a Comment