Supreme Court Strikes Down Blatently Unconstitional Gun Regulation

[Cougarbear]

This is a truly sick and ghoulish comment, made by a man apparently lacking a soul or moral compass, or any shred of humanity.

Like this comment …


Woodwork’s comment evidences a bizarre connection between violent fantasies, rightwing gun fetishism, extremist anti-abortion views and “ghoulish” attitudes toward pregnant women. In both cases we see that these lunatics have no concern for real women, or for their future children either.

Almost a fourth of real American women — our sisters and daughters — make the difficult and often painful decision to have an abortion. Decent men stand by their women when they get into trouble.

The sad hard truth is …
“If men could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament.”

Religious fanatics and ideologues like wordwork201 sometimes seek to hide their authoritarian and murderous impulses by pretending to be “libertarian” or by claiming respect for “small government” — but it is clear in this case we are dealing with an amoral nihilist who just wants state laws and power to control women’s bodies … even fantasizing about murdering pregnant women. These types want to punish women. They also want laws to jail or murder family planners and doctors who help women make their difficult decisions about when to bring children into the world.

Mothers being able to raise healthy children, waiting to create a loving environment with two mature parents to support them — this takes a back seat to such men’s violent fantasies and authoritarian impulses.

The creep woodwork201 claims to understand men like Thomas Paine — one of our most “enlightened” and “progressive” founding fathers. Do the quotes by him and Cougarbear sound even remotely like something Thomas Paine (or other prominent “Founding Fathers”) could have written more than two centuries ago?

You are so lost in all of this. 60 million unborn children have been blood thirsty killed because they were in the way. There is nothing more disgusting than that and that is mostly on Democrats. It's a sickness.

 

[miketx]

I've decided to start coming for your guns. Turn them in now to avoid late charges. Not kidding. 5th amendment.

 

[woodwork201]

Good job idiot. Why do you want rapists and murders to have guns? But Like I said, I never said anything about the 5th amendment. So you go right ahead and continue your retarded witch hunt, you get more stupid each day. This guy wants violent criminals to have guns. What a patriot.

I'm coming for your guns!

First things, first. You did say it. There was a conversation that the 5th Amendment permitted the government to take any right. You liked the post and followed up with your own impassioned statement that the government could strip the right to keep and bear arms from felons. If not using the 5th Amendment, that you thanked in M14's post, then how did you mean? Correct me by answering that question.

Next, it isn't a question of whether I want rapists and murderers to have guns. I want rapists and murderers swinging at the end of a rope or, at a minimum, in prison for the rest of their lives. That's how you deal with crime and criminals; you keep them out of society.

Do you think that not having a gun stops a rapist? Do you think a gun ban stops a murderer?

It doesn't matter what I want. I also don't want communists preaching the benefits of communism in America but, as a constitutional conservative and a patriot, I would give my life in defense of their right to say it.

The Constitution is the Constitution and it says what it says. It says, Shall not be infringed. Whether you like it or not, that's what it says.

Passing laws to violate the Constitution because you think there's good that comes from it but really just pretend to help doesn't actually help a thing. Remember they're rapists and murderers. Are you so fucking stupid that you think a rapist would say, "I really want to rape that woman down the street but it's illegal to have a gun so I can't do it"? Obviously you are that stupid.

If you support gun control that you like, even if you object to gun control that you don't like, then you are a gun controller.

If you support unconstitutional laws, even if it is because you believe (even if incorrectly) that it's for the greater good, then you oppose the Constitution.

You are an anti-Constitution gun-controller. It's OK. People have the right to oppose the Constitution and to support "reasonable" gun control. In fact they have the right to support total gun confiscations if they wanted to. So just own what you are and who you are.

At least the socialists and Democrats are honest about their hatred for the Constitution and guns. You should at least try to be as honest as are they.

 

[beagle9]

I never said there was a right to abortion in the Constitution. But Roe established that it was unconstitutional to outright ban the practice.

As such for most of YOUR LIFE the US Government has said it is a RIGHT of women to have access to abortion services.

The interesting thing (you wouldn't understand it because you are exceptionally stupid) is that Roe also hinged on the IMPLIED right to "privacy". In fact that has come up a lot in the conversations around Roe. The US Constitution does NOT provide a right to privacy so it has been "inferred" in a number of cases. Roe being one among them.

As such you would be interested to know that you may be opening a door here that you don't actually want opened. But you are so short-sighted and blinkered by your general lack of education that you don't realize what has just happened and how it may very well, one day, come around to bite you.

Remember: all your favorite justices who penned this decision may very well have come close to LYING before Congress. I have no doubt they parsed their words closely. Which is fun because they were effectively lying for God. Especially Amy Barrett. You know, Handmaid #675? LOL.

Settled Law doesn't mean much these days. Maybe that will apply elsewhere? We'll see.

For the meantime, though, enjoy your guns. Because you are SOOOOO pro-life you have a gun.

Listen you, what you all have done is taken everything to damned far, and it's come back to bite you all in your ace, so no one is regretting seeing you all get your just desert's for acting like the most deranged people on earth. Education eh ??? If you are part of the Dimocrat party, then I wouldn't even mention that you have been educated, because how does someone so uneducated on life especially concerning matters or ethical and moral behaviour's in general, have any type of education or call it that ?

 

[ChemEngineer]

Guns are not made to use on innocent, helpless unborn babies. They are used to deter or kill dangerous predators, who have been increasingly released by Democrats to go out and do more evil. When the evil works of Democrats come back to bite them in the rear, Democrats invariably try to lie their way out of what was certain to follow to thinking people, Republicans.

 

[beagle9]

I bet it's mostly made up of people who know the difference between the word "pole" and "poll".

Dam that Google spell correct... ROTFLMBO... Love the way it anticipates a word, and if you don't proof read afterwards oh well... You know what the statement meant or you couldn't have corrected me you ole spell check Nazi you.. lol

 

[schmidlap]

Background checks are unconstitutional.

Obviously, such an extremist, anarchistic claim is untrue.

Background checks are routinely conducted for private sector and government employment, housing, Class C driver licensing, etc. , etc., etc. Federal law requires that all states to implement state and federal criminal background checks that include fingerprints for child care providers.

41 States require some form of background check for firearm purchases. Permissiveness in accruing personal arsenals does not extend to homicidal crackpots.

 

[schmidlap]

Guns are not made to use on innocent, helpless unborn babies.

Unfortunately, they are eminently suitable for that application, depending on who is allowed to wield them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Background checks are unconstitutional.

This is a lie.

Background checks are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Indeed, in Bruen, the Court reaffirmed the fact that requirement such as background checks are lawful:

‘Kavanaugh quoted at length from the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 opinion affirming the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. “[N]othing in our opinion,” Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”’

In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law

This article was updated on June 23 at 4:06 p.m. The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry […]

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Dam that Google spell correct... ROTFLMBO... Love the way it anticipates a word, and if you don't proof read afterwards oh well... You know what the statement meant or you couldn't have corrected me you ole spell check Nazi you.. lol

Nah, I was just having fun at your expense. I actually figured it was a typo. Just fun to do once in a while.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Guns are not made to use on innocent, helpless unborn babies. They are used to deter or kill dangerous predators,

...and children
...and church goers
...and grocery shoppers
...and people watching movies.

When the evil works of Democrats come back to bite them in the rear, Democrats invariably try to lie their way out of what was certain to follow to thinking people, Republicans.

"Thinking people"? Of the amazing number of things you got wrong here this might be the most egregious.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

woodwork201 :
Background checks are unconstitutional.

This is a lie.

Background checks are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Indeed, in Bruen, the Court reaffirmed the fact that requirement such as background checks are lawful:

‘Kavanaugh quoted at length from the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 opinion affirming the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. “[N]othing in our opinion,” Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”’

In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law

This article was updated on June 23 at 4:06 p.m. The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry […]

www.scotusblog.com

THANK YOU C_Clayton_Jones ! At last a clear and concise report on the decision and dissents, with an objective presentation of some relevant history.

Your comment and the link clearly exposes the LIES and misrepresentations of lunatics like woodwork201 — who argue that “background checks are unconstitutional.”

Fools — and woman-haters — like woodwork201 want to permit the mentally deranged, abusers of women and criminals to assemble unlimited caches of all types of weapons (why not fully automatic weapons?) without any background checks. Their insane interpretations of the 2nd Amendment would of course outlaw registration and fingerprinting as widely practiced, thus hamstringing necessary anti-crime law enforcement efforts.

It makes you wonder if people like woodwork201 are fearful of background checks because they themselves are not a part of the “people” whose “right to bear arms” is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, but instead actually are part of the criminal class … who working people need police and courts and even guns to protect themselves from.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As you say, you and the link clearly expose the LIES and madness of lunatics like woodwork201 who argue that “background checks are unconstitutional.”

Mostly because it is an easy argument to make.
if a police officer , without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, detains you while walking doen the street and restrains you while he then checks if you have outstanding earrants, he violates the constiution.
Background checks are no different

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The argument that “background checks are unconstitutional” is “easy to make” only if one ignores reality, social and Constitutional history and “Common Sense.”

The comparison with walking down the street minding your own business and being stopped and harassed by police is artificial. One could say the same about debates about cops stopping motorists (disproportionately minorities) to ask for licenses, harass them, etc.

The proper analogy for “gun background checks” is the background checks given before drivers licenses are granted — which has nothing to do with “infringing” the right of “the people” to drive, but everything to do with protecting the public from drunks, or others who have lost their licenses for cause.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The argument that “background checks are unconstitutional” is “easy to make” only if one ignores reality, social and Constitutional history and “Common Sense.”
The comparison with walking down the street minding your own business and being stopped and harassed by police is artificial

Demonstrate this to be true.

The proper analogy for “gun background checks” is the background checks given before drivers licenses are granted...

You do not have a right to drive on public roads.. You do have a right to own a gun. Your analogy fails.

 

[woodwork201]

Obviously, such an extremist, anarchistic claim is untrue.

Background checks are routinely conducted for private sector and government employment, housing, Class C driver licensing, etc. , etc., etc. Federal law requires that all states to implement state and federal criminal background checks that include fingerprints for child care providers.

41 States require some form of background check for firearm purchases. Permissiveness in accruing personal arsenals does not extend to homicidal crackpots.

My statement is neither extremist nor anarchist. I'm a firm believer in the rule of law and in our Constitutional Republic - not the Constitution part of that.

That private companies do background checks does not have anything at all to do with the constitutional question of background checks to exercise a constitutionally protected right. That the Federal Government requires background checks for things not protected by the Constitution has nothing to do with background checks for keeping and bearing arms.

I assume, based on your post, that you also want background checks to register to vote and again to vote, right? Background checks before writing a letter to your Congressman? In fact, background checks to get a trial by jury or an attorney?

Because if the government can require a background check and then, based on the outcome of that check, take away your rights, why couldn't they, or wouldn't they, do it for every right in the Constitution or not in the Constitution?

 

[woodwork201]

This is a lie.

Background checks are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Indeed, in Bruen, the Court reaffirmed the fact that requirement such as background checks are lawful:

‘Kavanaugh quoted at length from the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 opinion affirming the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. “[N]othing in our opinion,” Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”’

In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law

This article was updated on June 23 at 4:06 p.m. The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry […]

www.scotusblog.com

You're an idiot. That the Supreme Court has never invalidated a thing does not make it constitutional or unconstitutional.

If Congress passed a bill, and the President signed it into law, saying that it was a crime for a person to advocate for a person with a uterus to have the ability to choose abortion, and that crime was punishable by hanging to be carried out the next morning, would that law be constitutional until the Court got around to overruling it? Could we constitutionally hang a bunch of pro-choicers until the law was overruled?

 

[woodwork201]

This is a lie.

Background checks are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Indeed, in Bruen, the Court reaffirmed the fact that requirement such as background checks are lawful:

‘Kavanaugh quoted at length from the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 opinion affirming the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. “[N]othing in our opinion,” Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”’

In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law

This article was updated on June 23 at 4:06 p.m. The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry […]

www.scotusblog.com

Neither Kavanaugh nor Scalia ruled that those things were constitutional. They said that the current decisions did not address the constitutionality of those issues just as overturning Roe and Casey did not overturn gay marriage.

But, Scalia was wrong when he advocated in and out of the Court for gun control. The Constitution is quite clear, saying "shall not be infringed".

I'm glad to hear, though, that you'll be supporting the Court Dobbs decision because whatever the majority writes is absolute and, regardless of what the Constitution really says, is constitutional.

 

[woodwork201]

THANK YOU C_Clayton_Jones ! At last a clear and concise report on the decision and dissents, with an objective presentation of some relevant history.

Your comment and the link clearly exposes the LIES and misrepresentations of lunatics like woodwork201 — who argue that “background checks are unconstitutional.”

Fools — and woman-haters — like woodwork201 want to permit the mentally deranged, abusers of women and criminals to assemble unlimited caches of all types of weapons (why not fully automatic weapons?) without any background checks. Their insane interpretations of the 2nd Amendment would of course outlaw registration and fingerprinting as widely practiced, thus hamstringing necessary anti-crime law enforcement efforts.

It makes you wonder if people like woodwork201 are fearful of background checks because they themselves are not a part of the “people” whose “right to bear arms” is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, but instead actually are part of the criminal class … who working people need police and courts and even guns to protect themselves from.

Idiotic post.

I have many guns,several purchased in the past year. I've been background checked many times.

And we all know the woman haters are the Democrats. By definition, as you very well know and have been reminded many times, rapists and criminals don't obey the law - not laws against rape and not laws against having a gun. Gun laws are useless except to disarm the law-abiding. What you want is for women to be disarmed and easy targets for rapists.

Democrats are the party of rape. Their leader, Joe Biden, is an accused rapist and they won't even investigate. He's an accused child molester and they won't even investigate.

Democrats have destroyed title IX and women's sports. They have infiltrated women's prisons with men and rapists. They have opened the borders and invited millions of women and children to cross the southern border where 80% of them are raped or molested. Do you understand that? 80% of the women and children crossing the border opened by Biden are raped or molested!

80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S.

80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S.

www.huffpost.com

And you want women in America disarmed? You are a woman hater, rapist protecting, piece of leftist shit.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Yes, in South and Central America almost no women can legally terminate an abortion (even when raped). Irregardless of the gun situation in their country they are very often severely abused by “god worshipping” men in and outside their own families. No wonder many risk hell to get themselves and their children to the U.S.A.

I breath easier knowing the gun fanatic and obvious partisan demagogue woodwork201 — who thinks even raped women should have no right to terminate pregnancy and who generalizes that Democrats and others who defend womens’ rights are “women haters” & “rapists” — has been “background checked.”

Has his sanity or emotional stability been questioned? Is that why he has been checked “many times”? Let’s hope all those background checks weren’t as superficial as most usually are!