Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Scalia: SCOTUS May Settle The Gun Control Battle Once And For All

Not me.
I disagree with him on many points, just not as many points as the scum either of the two heads of the same snake nozzles of the same douche parades in front of us.

On top of that, some of the points I agree with RPee my agreement is for different reason(s) than he's promoting.

There's a few points he's spot on, though.

He's definitely right nuke the fed reserve act and stay away and allow the mid east muslims kill each other off in peace.
Exterminate them here but the rest of the world? Who shives a git. Deal with it yourselves.

Not gonna be much moving ahead if it goes badly in the wrong direction...............

MM

So............. you think the Executive Branch should get to decide what is, and isn't, a tax?

THAT would give Obama a blank check with regard to restrictions on the 2A.

I hate to see a flaming lib get used to killing.

Another swing and a miss...

You go back and show everyone where I said that.

Don't make assumptions, try to comprehend what is written.

What's his beef with shoulder fired missles?

Hell, it's not like we'll be giving them to small children for birthday.
We need 'em for prairie dogs.

That's the point. It IS a TAX. Just because Obama says it's not doesn't make it so. If you read the majority opinion you will find that what Roberts did was actually pretty smart. He was able to get the liberal wing of the court to restrict congressional power under the commerce clause. LINK

You're asking a lot from old Cur.

I say we already know where we stand.
We've known for a couple hundred years.

We don't need to regroup and move ahead. We need to back up.
The very first bite taken from "shall NOT be infringed" should have resulted in a hangman's noose.

It's never too late to say I'm sorry.
I was wrong.
I'm fully repentant.
From here on out this is how it will be done.

JM don't even comprehend what he writes.

Don't expect him to understand what someone else writes.

Maybe his ex-wife was awarded the part of his brain that's used for critical thinking.

It was smart all right.

When this healthcare fiasco finally gets fully implemented, come back here and tell everyone how smart Roberts was...

Tell the small business owners I know how smart he is.

You might want to go get your GED form North Texas White Trash High before you talk about someone else's comprehension skills.

Just sayin'.

Laws can be changed by electing better representatives. Supreme Court precedent is another matter. Just because it is a bad law sold with lies doesn't make it unconstitutional.

TRH........... it's really NOT difficult for most folks.

I suggest you start with something easy for us ordinary folks , but challenging for you.

Walk and chew gum at the same time.

Why did you mention that Obama claimed it was NOT a tax if you think THAT should have no bearing on Robert's decision?

It's a simple question.

Cur is just mad because I got my GED before he did.

K, I understand your point about a law being bad, but not necessarily unconstitutional.

This court has ruled in an activist manner, Obamacare could have been struck down using several good arguments, but Roberts chose to uphold the law based on the right of congress to levy taxes.

That was left field schit for sure.

My point being, that if SCOTUS has the desire to change or modify current laws, they most certainly will find a legal leg to stand on in order to accomplish it.

IMHO, this is the worst court we've had in some time and certainly not one I'm willing to throw the 2nd amendment in and see what come out the other side.

I see your point but neocon 'r not doesn't really matter.

The problem with lawyers, judges (glorified lawyers), courts (places of worship services) and politicians is they have bar cards and those proudly displayed little cards signifying membership to the elite little club take precedence over anything and everything.

A certain amount of go with the flow is required to stay "in the business". Stray too far from the current tide, whether coming in or going out matters not, and you risk shame of demotion to a hinder pew like paralegal or excommunicated
all together.

It's a cut throat business.
Their pirate's code is more like guidelines than actual rules.
Parlays are held in secret.

The world of legalities is a dangerous one in which to dwell. They like blood and don't care who bleeds it. The nature of sharks and rattlesnakes, the temperature of their blood, the cold dark soulless look in their eyes, the scheming little gears turning inside their warped little minds... it all adds up to one thing and one only, the family den sight must survive. Individuals within the family are friend, foe, or food, on a minute by minute basis.

That deseves a simple answer.

-Because the thing was misrepresented from start to finish by the White House and Democratic leaders.

-To rule it constitutional based soley on the Congress' right to impose taxes, ignoring the argument that it restricts a persons freedom of choice, demonstrates to me that the Court was looking for a way to pass the President's plan.

What makes you think that exposing the 2nd amendment to this court won't possibly lead to a compromise where freedoms are lost.

It's a simple question.

That's the point. It IS a TAX. Just because Obama says it's not doesn't make it so. If you read the majority opinion you will find that what Roberts did was actually pretty smart. He was able to get the liberal wing of the court to restrict congressional power under the commerce clause. LINK
=============

Precisely. Many will see the wisdom behind all that Roberts accomplished with his ruling only as time passes and the problems facing this administration because of Robert's ruling actually kick into play.

By the end of this year or the 1st quarter of 2014, Roberts is going to become a lot brighter to many folks.

so anything the govt wants to make you do could be justified as constitutional by some manner. The auto industry is involved in interstate commerce, so I guess it's ok for .gov to force you to buy a GMC yearly.