Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Amy Barrett: A Proven Pro-Second Amendment Jurist

https://www.ammoland.com/2020/09/am...o-second-amendment-jurist/#axzz6Z4d8pGin

“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislature imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward—legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.”

She also saw nothing wrong with the lock down....f her.

Good point.

So, that disqualifies her in your eyes?

Was the lockdown tried at the supreme court? Did not know that.

Is she on the supreme court? Did not know that.....

Is she better than ANYONE who the Ds would nominate?

How is she on the National issue? Immigration, etc.? I hear she adopted two hatians. Not a good sign.

bummer there must be a perfect nominee out there somewhere

There are no perfect people and President Trump has proven that.

I support him unconditionally and Amy Coney Barrett as well.

How is that a bad thing?

That's what concerns me about her, too. Not likely she places any value in the US remaining majority White.

Values foreigners over her own people. Not a good sign.

oh no gawd no anything but that

So, you'd be happier with a rampant bigot racist homophobe?

She upheld a bolognavirus lockdown in IL.

Anybody too stupid ta see through the bolo-19 bullshit is too stupid ta be on the SC.

https://cookcountyrecord.com/storie...-political-gatherings-to-combat-covid-19
https://archive.fo/Jusaw




Yes, critical thinking is the most important aspect for a Supreme Court nominee, and she has none.

Personally I don't understand why it absolutely has to be a female, but if it does how is she any better than Rushing or Bade? From what I've read either of those two would be a better choice IMO.

Rushing would have been my choice too. Supposedly her age (38) was considered to young and would have been seen as a liability at confirmation.

has to be a female because of the bullshit gender politics.

As for the other female judges, they may have more baggage. Not that it matters, left im sure, is typing up an anonymous letter right now to extend/delay the hearings.