Brett Kavanaugh’s Dangerous Views on the Second Amendment

Gabby Giffords Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court

courtesy nymag.com

“In nominating Judge Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice, the Trump Administration is once again showing brazen disregard for the people it claims to protect. Judge Kavanaugh’s dangerous views on the Second Amendment are far outside the mainstream of even conservative thought and stand in direct opposition to the values and priorities of the vast majority of Americans. America needs a Supreme Court justice who respects the Second Amendment but who also realizes reasonable regulations that reduce gun violence do not infringe on anyone’s constitutional rights. But that’s not the kind of justice President Trump nominated today.” – Gabby Giffords’ statement on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court

comments

  1. avatar Joe R. says:

    It’s alright, we can chuck the lot of them. We just need them to go firmly one way or the other.

    1. avatar BlazinTheAmazin says:

      I thought “dangerous views on the 2A” meant he didn’t believe Hughes should be repealed… haha shows you where my heads at.

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        That was my first thought too. That and the “Full auto guns were traditionally banned, so it’s OK to ban them some more.” BS.

  2. avatar DaveL says:

    “Dangerous views on the Second Amendment”, in left-wing circles, boils down to believing that it restricts the government in any meaningful way whatsoever.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      guess he picked the right guy!

      1. avatar Denny says:

        Nice 2 know we have another PATRIOT in SCOTUS ! RBG WILL B GONE BY PRES. TRUMPS 2nd TERM, YEA! & The LIBERAL COMMIES WILL Transform into ISIS, THINK About IT, ANTIFA, BLM, & The BRAIN WASHED MILLENNIUM FRUIT CAKES WILL DO THIER DIRTY WORK!!

    2. avatar nightstryke says:

      “Dangerous views huh?” That’s hillarious coming from the side of which incites riots , violence, and even threatens to assassinate the president. Hell I may have dislike, even hated Obama, but I didn’t say I wanted him dead. The effort that the left is showing lately is only proving the point of why you don’t vote for Socialists and Communists that are in the Democratic Party.

      1. avatar Stuart K says:

        This isn’t mentioned nearly enough.

      2. avatar KBonLI says:

        Our local Congressman Lee Zeldin (R), a major in the US Army who has served in the Iraq war has received death threats from a member of the “tolerant party” for daring to run again. Not just against him but his family as well.
        It has gotten to the point where if you don’t agree with their agenda, violence is threatened and sometimes executed.
        Trump could have nominated Jesus and it still would have had the same effect. I suspect that a Hillary nomination would have been acceptable.

        1. avatar This End ^ says:

          Really! How did you get the Phone Records of the Threats made? All Phone Records made by a US Congressman and US Senator are Protected by the US Secret Service! So what’s your source!!!

      3. avatar LAWRENCE Alimo says:

        WELLL SAID THE DEMOCRATS ARE ALL ONE SIDED MORONS…

    3. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      This. Or, more generally, according to leftists a “radical” rules according to law rather than leftist ideology (i.e., a “radical” actually honors their oath of office).

  3. avatar Macofjack says:

    Poor little snowflakes, melting all over the place! LOL

  4. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    Yeah- he’s dangerous because he said semi auto rifles are protected by the 2A and that registries are unconstitutional. That’s essentially all he’s ever said. Quite the radical. Hey gabby, shut your holes.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      He said registries were not traditionally and historically required. So they’re not constitutional. That’s not a valid constitutional argument, which is dangerous.

      The proof? He uses that same traditional and customary standard to find that licensing is constitutional.

      He doesn’t care about the Constiution or the Second Amendment, only whether an infringenent is inveterate. That’s not practicing(constitutional law; that’s just playing go along, get along.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Just how many holes does a sock puppet have.

  5. avatar Sasquatch says:

    My new litmus test on SCOTUS nominees. If Giffords opposes, I am in favor.

    1. avatar AGuyWithAG says:

      If Michael Bloomberg was nominated by Trump she would oppose the nomination.

      I don’t know the guy firsthand but I hear he’s pretty “originalist” to make up a word.

  6. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    I guess someone who believes in even old or new English “Shall not be infringed”. Or ” In common useage”. Must be unhinged and unsuitable for the job. Oooh booboo whooiii

    1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      Funny how that is the ONLY amendment with the “shall not be infringed” clause.
      Not stated for speech…voting…religion…
      Nowhere else is it explicitly stated: Shall not be infringed…nowhere.
      Doesn’t that make you wonder why they had to put it like that?
      Yes…we need to keep guns away from violent criminals…kids…mentally incapable…but we also need to keep most of those people from driving, voting and procreating, too. Just sayin’…

      1. avatar Cz Rider says:

        “Congress shall make no law” is pretty similar in intent to be fair. I think that wording could’ve helped a lot in the 2A actually.

        1. avatar MeRp says:

          I disagree; “Congress shall make no law” limits its scope to a single body, while “shall not be infringed” does not. Even if we assume that the Bill of Rights, or Constitution, only applies to government, or even only applies to Federal government, shall not be infringed has a wider scope in that it at least includes infringement by the executive and judicial branches. Meanwhile “Congress” specifically only includes the legislative branch.

        2. avatar Art out West says:

          To me, “Congress shall make no law…” seems stronger than ” shall not be infringed”, though I believe the framers had pretty similar thoughts about both. Free speech, press, religion, assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms are all foundational to our society.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          If “Congress shall make no law …” and “Shall not be infringed ..” refer to the same level of protection, then why is RKBA in a separate amendment at all? Why is it not simply included in the laundry list which is the 1st amendment? No, there is a different level of protection intended. So, which one is more strict? “Congress shall make no law” restricts the US legislature only, allowing states, counties, cities and towns, and all manner of other groups to assume the power to regulate those freedoms. That is NOT how 1A has been “interpreted”. “Shall not be infringed” clearly means “by anybody”, or “at all”, even “under any circumstances”, not allowing states, counties, cities or anyone else (the UN comes to mind) to restrict RKBA. And, that is NOT how 2A has been “interpreted”, either, although I have never seen anybody explain why not, at least which explanation did not rely heavily on “Of course, we all know, it’s just common sense” type bullshit. It is very clear, unless you are trying to find an excuse to ignore it.

      2. avatar Model 31 says:

        We used to deal with violent criminals appropriately. That kept those people from driving, voting and procreating, too. After a generation of dealing with violent criminals properly, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some positive impact on mental illness problem as well.

      3. avatar Floyd Burdett says:

        I have to agree with Leighton Cavendish that “Shall Not be Infringed” is Much Broader-Reaching than “Congress shall make no law…”
        “Shall Not be Infringed” means Not by Congress, Not by The President, Not by a Department Head, Not by Regulations within a Department, Not by State Legislatures nor Governors, Not by County nor City Leaders, Not by local School Boards, etc… NOT by ANYONE..nor ANY Governing Body..!!

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          To bad they were too proper to state “future tyrannical assholes, BEWARE”. Now we have to.

          America’s a choice Fuckers, day-to-day. If you want to chuck this little bit, I might be inclined to chuck the rest, and beat you to it.

  7. avatar bryan1980 says:

    I like him already!

  8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Then how about we make similar reasonable regulations that don’t infringe on anyone’s constitutional rights and apply them to the voting booth and see how that flies?

  9. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    If the meat puppet is against him, I’m for him.

    Hey gabby/Mark, how about you let that cut under your nose heal.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I got money to bet that not only is that NOT a statement by Gabby Giffords, but she cannot read it, nor explain what it means. I don’t wish to be mean to the unfortunate lady, but her husband and his financial sources are pieces of shit, and should be ashamed.

    2. avatar Martin says:

      Was she able to say the whole speach in one pull of the string in her back

  10. avatar Leighton says:

    Get him confirmed ASAP and have another one or two in the wings
    Ginsburg and Sotomayor are next

    1. avatar How_Terrible says:

      Sotomayor is unlikely to go anywhere any time soon. However, Ginsburg is old enough to randomly drop dead any time now.

      1. avatar HP says:

        Sotomayor has some serious health complications from diabetes is what I’ve heard, I think that’s where the speculation that she either might soon step down or pass away comes from.

      2. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

        From yahoo in April:
        “The shoulder injury marked the second medical issue she has faced this year. The life-long diabetic was treated by paramedics for low blood sugar at her home in Washington in January.”
        Appears she is neglecting her diabetes.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          Not really. Low blood sugar is common with diabetics. She just gets extra attention (like paramedics) because she’s on the SCOTUS. If you know the symptoms it’s not a problem unless something prevents you from eating.

          The rest of us just drink a glass of juice or eat some Skittles or something because we don’t get that kind of special attention that comes with medical specialists.

          Really the only time low blood sugar is a problem is if someone is driving and happens to get pulled over by a hardass/dumbass cop who mistakes them for being drunk and locks them up. That kills people.

        2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          “…get pulled over by a hardass/dumbass cop who mistakes them for being drunk and locks them up. That kills people.”

          I hope you wear the bracelet or medallion that idents your condition to the central booking goons…

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Geoff:

          Depending on the cop/jurisdiction the bracelet doesn’t matter. Cops killed a few dozen people who had medical ID tags or tattoos here in Colorado before a lawsuit forced mandatory training on the subject and a change in the laws. They simply ignored the medical ID and charged DUI.

          Now if you claim diabetes they’re required to call EMTs to the scene to assess if that’s true or not. Pretty easy really but it’s not like departments hire the brightest bulbs.

          It’s another reason DUI shouldn’t be a thing but that’s a whole other kettle of fish.

    2. avatar MeRp says:

      Briar is also not far behind; he’s 79.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “Breyer”?

    3. avatar Joe R. says:

      If the Court [and I really don’t want to capitalize it] actually becomes more Conservative, and they get to whine in the background on their worthless dissentions, they might [shoot themselves in the mouth with a flare gun, if we’re lucky, but at least] get bored and quit.

  11. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    I think that, barring another wackjob murdering a bunch of people, the Progressive/Left/Democrats are going to drop gun control this next election cycle and concentrate on using Roe v Wade to get their base out to vote.

    The Progressive/Left/Democrats seem genuinely concerned this SCOTUS nominee is going to gut abortion laws given half a chance.

    just my observations so far, we’ll see

    1. avatar How_Terrible says:

      That would be a smart move. Gun control is a nice talking point for them, but it doesn’t really motivate people to go vote on election day. Whereas the threat of gun control does an excellent job of getting those of in the pro-gun community to the polls on election day.

      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        Yea… the left really wants to take our guns but what really fires em up is telling the feminists they can’t kill their babies any more.

      2. avatar Kevin (the other one) says:

        Yep, they keep me a single issue voter. Democrats will run a anti-ICE & Anti-gun campaign and they will lose horribly for it. The democrats still haven’t learned that bringing different groups of people together is how to win elections, not by dividing them.

    2. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

      We’re just about on schedule to have another “random” shooting event. The dems are gonna need one to get some traction against this SCOTUS pick.

  12. avatar Fit2Btyed says:

    Here, here! There, there! Everywhere, everywhere! Yesssssssssssssssssssssss!

  13. avatar Leighton says:

    Gabby:Photo ID and proof of citizenship is reasonable for voting…right?

  14. avatar TommyG says:

    Gabby Giffords: “This judge will overturn laws passed that shred the US Constitution and bring us closer to civilian disarmament, we must not let him get confirmed!”

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      . . . this anus recording was paid for by friends of George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Barry Soetero.

  15. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

    “…reasonable regulations that reduce gun violence do not infringe on anyone’s constitutional rights.”

    Citation needed, 2 lies for the price of 1.

    Regulations = Infringement, how could it be anything other?

    I feel for her being a victim of an assassination attempt, but that doesn’t make her more qualified than anyone else to discuss Supreme Court Nominees.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Can she suggest any reasonable regulations which would reduce violence with guns? Because I haven’t heard of any. Background checks-not only do we already have them, but they never reduced violence with guns one whit. Waiting periods-1) are not reasonable and 2) will not reduce violence with guns. Magazine cap limits, one gun a decade, GVROs, all the proposed catch phrases of the day, WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING except to slide us closer to registration/confiscation, the actual goal. Which is not reasonable, and will not reduce violence with guns.

  16. avatar Pawl from Florida says:

    If Chuck Schumer was up for nomination , Gabby Giffords would be opposed to it. That is unless someone told her he’s on her side.

  17. avatar Aaron Standish says:

    It is possible to disagree with someone who’s been shot in the head while serving the people without being dicks about it.

    1. avatar Lookout Post says:

      What’s your excuse troll ? We are having a forum. Get back on the bus with Hogg.

    2. avatar DaveL says:

      shot in the head while serving the people

      It’s a cookbook!

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Convenient inside job.

        She was one of the few EVIL POS (D) willing to talk about a border wall, in a border state, and not just at election time.

        Very convenient.

        EXCEPT SHE WASN’T THE LONE VICTIM THAT DAY.

        BING SEARCH (bc google is the devil’s anus) Judge John McCarthy Roll and (maybe) “United States of America v. $333,520.00 in United States Currency et al” (Case Number: 4:2010cv00703 Filed: November 30, 2010) (for fun, see:http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread859428/pg1)

        Funny how many people get shot in the head (I mean, except for Ronald Regan who got shot under his arm in full Secret Service traffic when none of his detail coulda put rounds on-target with the POS ‘pawn shop’ special that Hinkley used [but that MFr has ALREADY BEEN RELEASED TO FUCKING “HOME STAY” WTF (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-hinckley-jr-man-who-shot-president-ronald-reagan-released-from-hospital-to-home-stay/). Hmmm? More Red on Blue violence is needed [I didn’t say called for, I said “needed”]] James Brady got shot in the head and was a Gabby Giffords prototype for a while). Vince Foster was [killed by indians] shot in the mouth. Seth Rich was shot two times in the back, but he was running away from a serious beating and the two perps caught on tape were better shots than runners.

      2. avatar dlj95118 says:

        …nice Twilight Zone reference!

    3. avatar jwm says:

      She is actively trying to remove my human and civil rights. She gets no free pass.

    4. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      She is a civilian disarmament proponent and socialist. Some might argue she was shot in the head while enslaving the people.

      While I haven’t heard anyone claim that the latter justifies the former, I would reject that either characterization grants her any special, politically untouchable status. What you describe as “dick” behavior is just usual political disagreement. You’re recasting it as something crass only because you’ve illegitimately exalted her and elevated her status.

  18. avatar Ken says:

    A ringing endorsement that he is the right choice,

  19. avatar Shire-man says:

    NPR this morning seemed absolutely horrified that he would enforce the laws and Constitution as written then spent half an hour berating some poor guy over a judge that wouldn’t rule based on achieving a desired outcome.

    The left is just putting it all out there now, aren’t they? Everything that was written off as paranoia or a grand “right-wing conspiracy” they’re openly embracing and admitting to and even running on.

  20. avatar Mr Lizard says:

    Best endorsement I ever read

  21. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

    Yes, agree with POTUS pick. As for Gun grabber giffords, what else is she going to lip flap about?

  22. avatar HP says:

    “Judge Kavanaugh’s dangerous views on the Second Amendment are far outside the mainstream of even conservative thought…”

    Please, stop, I’m going to swoon over this guy if the liberal tears keep flowing like this. 🙂

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      I am glad Giffords is the keeper of purity for conservative thinking. We wouldn’t know what to think unless a helpful non-conservative could tell us where the line was. I’m not opposed to him, definitely seems better than Bush/Rick Scott/Rubio type or Kennedy who he replaces, but I also don’t think Judge Kavanaugh goes far enough, what do you think about that Gabby?

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      In one manner of thinking it’s sad too feel this way, but I have to agree, that Kavanaugh causes such consternation on the left is a bonus.

  23. avatar MarkF says:

    We need much larger vessels to hold all those leftist tears.

  24. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Right versus the left. ” shall not be infringed—on the right….”
    ” Thou Art Unhinged—on the left!” See. Very simple.

  25. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Giffords once posed with AR-15s to get elected.
    Her space cadet husband still has one I believe.
    Think they both still own firearms.
    She is brain damaged and should be a restricted/prohibited person.

    1. avatar former water walker says:

      Yep…guns for me but not for thee. Watch them dig into Brett’s backgtound. “He hit on me 40 years ago!” 😩Seriously I believe he’s the best choice for gun owner’s. I hate baby murder but I doubt they’ll throw out Roe v Wade.

  26. avatar Anonymous says:

    Meh, her reasoning is faulty, and I don’t blame her for that. An actual bullet from a psychopath’s handgun, unmitigated by gun control that Gifford typically pursues, blew actual brains out of the back of her head. And it’s difficult to reason properly when you are missing brains.

  27. avatar MIO says:

    1/2 a literal brain Gabby

  28. avatar Mark Grace says:

    No he’s (Donald Trump) not! Donald Trump has only ONE Interest! Keeping himself out of Prison, everything else is superlative to his needs in keeping his in office as President of the United States.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      The clintons aren’t in prison. Trump has no worries on that score.

      1. avatar Mark Grace says:

        Public Law 112-257 – The Former President Protection Act of January 10, 2012.

        Guess who the author was? Trey Gowdy!

        1. avatar Kevin (the other one) says:

          I read the act, what does the secret service protection of former presidents and their children have to do with anything?

          https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ257/PLAW-112publ257.pdf

          Is this a tin foil hat “Trump is a dictator” kind of non-sense or something? You pointed to this act like it is something of importance, but it definitely is not.

        2. avatar Mark Grace says:

          Act also Protects President and Spouse from any Prosecution of Past Deeds done while in Office or in Government…

        3. avatar Kevin (the other one) says:

          It doesn’t say that anywhere in the text. Are you sure that you put up the correct act? OR that the information that you are saying is accurate because there is nothing in there that says anything like that in any way. I think you get your information from faulty sources, then you don’t follow up to find out if what you were told was accurate.

          ———————————————————————————————————————————————
          Summary:

          Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012 – Amends the federal criminal code to eliminate certain limitations on the length of Secret Service protection for former Presidents and their spouses and children. Authorizes the Secret Service to protect: (1) former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes, except that protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage; and (2) children of a former President who are under age 16.

          ——————————————————————————————————————————————-

          Actual text of the act as wriiten in law:

          Public Law No: 112-257 (01/10/2013)

          [112th Congress Public Law 257]
          [From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

          [[Page 126 STAT. 2413]]

          Public Law 112-257
          112th Congress

          An Act

          To amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate certain limitations
          on the length of Secret Service Protection for former Presidents and for
          the children of former Presidents. <>

          Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
          United States of America in Congress assembled, <>
          SECTION 1. <> SHORT TITLE.

          This Act may be cited as the “Former Presidents Protection Act of
          2012”.
          SEC. 2. ELIMINATING CERTAIN LIMITATIONS ON THE LENGTH OF SECRET
          SERVICE PROTECTION FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS AND
          FOR THE CHILDREN OF FORMER PRESIDENTS.

          (a) Former Presidents.–Section 3056(a)(3) of title 18, United
          States Code, is amended by striking “unless the former President did
          not” and all that follows through “warrant such protection”.
          (b) Children of Former Presidents.–Section 3056(a)(4) of title 18,
          United States Code, is amended by striking “for a period” and all that
          follows through “comes first”.

          Approved January 10, 2013.

          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY–H.R. 6620:
          —————————————————————————

          CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012):
          Dec. 5, considered and passed House.
          Dec. 28, considered and passed Senate.

        4. avatar Kevin (the other one) says:

          Just in case the actual document wasn’t good enough, here is a summary on Wikipedia of why the act was written in the first place and a timeline of previous presidential protection acts. None of them prevent a president (current or former) from prosecution.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Presidents_Act

        5. avatar Mark Grace says:

          How come Hillary Clinton “Isn’t” in Jail then and/or being Prosecuted. If you can give a Plausible Answer. One of Donald Trump Outlier Deeds in running how President, was the Prosecution of Hillary Clinton. She’s STILL NOT in Prison and/or being Prosecuted for Anything! Which means one of Two Things. Either she CAN’T be prosecuted for Anything or Donald Trump IS and WAS Lying about his ability to put her in Prison.

        6. avatar Kevin (the other one) says:

          Seriously? Do you really think that a president can imprison anyone they want? What country do you live in, because that isn’t America. The DOJ dismissed Clintons crimes, we all know this. Right or wrong that is what happened. It seems like you do not fact check your sources, so you come up with absurd non-sense that you can not defend…..then provide sources that do not in any way support your absurd claim. How do you still believe this non-sense even when it is shown that what you are writing is not factual? How is it that you stand by an absurd claim, instead of second guessing your inaccurate source?

        7. avatar Mark Grace says:

          Really? Honestly do you think Donald Trump “Hasn’t” tried! I bet it was the First thing he did sitting in the Oval Office on January 21, 2017! With “Sharpie” in hand and a Stack of Unsigned Executive Orders stacked on the desk just in front of him.

        8. avatar Kevin (the other one) says:

          Exactly. You come up with conspiracy non-sense that is not based on anything factual, just based solely on some imagined illusion that you have.

        9. avatar Mark Grace says:

          Or that YOU have and Follow without questioning.

        10. avatar Kevin (the other one) says:

          Your the one that makes absurd statements and doesn’t follow up to make sure the sources you quote are telling the truth. And your so manipulated that you keep making the same ridiculous statements even after being shown your evidence is false. But please continue on, its getting pretty amusing…..

        11. avatar Mark Grace says:

          As are you, Sir!

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Shouldn’t each of us place a high priority on staying out of prison? Many Democrats do not seem to think so, but making a statement like that seems like you think Republicans should ignore the law in the same ways people like Blago does, or Weiner, Clinton, etc. I’d prefer they stick to staying out of prison, thank you for your opinion.

      1. avatar Mark Grace says:

        Just to make it clear, I am a Republican. I just see it a Bit Closer and Clearer because I live in Washington DC. You probably get the Watered Down version on the 6 O’Clock News.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Look, guys, he lives in DC so he knows everything! You d!cks from the sticks don’t know a damn thing because you live in silly places outside the Beltway.

          When have I heard this bvllsh!t before?

        2. avatar Mark Grace says:

          And from what SH|TEHOLE do you call home!/?

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Mark. You’ve never explained why you feel trump needs fear prison. What charges do you think he’s subject to?

        4. avatar Mark Grace says:

          And if Donald Trump is SO Innocent, why is he Surrounding Himself with a WALL of Lawyers. To Stave Off any Prosecutions heading his way.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Well, you responded to my response, but failed to answer the question. You accuse our current President of being focused on staying out of prison, and I asked if you don’t think ALL OF US should be constantly focused on staying out of prison. I just turned 72, and have been so focused all my life, and do not apologize for it to you or anyone else. Whose bullshit have you been eating, while a “Republican” living in DC (whatever knowledge that is supposed to impart), that you insinuate something is wrong with attempting to stay out of prison? Don’t you?

        6. avatar jwm says:

          Mark. You ain’t a republican insider and you got shit on Trump.

        7. avatar Hay Nonnymoose says:

          Been a lot of assholes tell me that because they’re in DC, they know better than me. I’m a bit sensitive to that.

        8. avatar Mark Grace says:

          You’ll perservere and get over it in time, I’m sure off it.

        9. avatar Scoutino says:

          Washington, DC has a violent crime rate that is 193% higher than the national average.
          And you have the chutzpah to call any other place in US a shithole? How delusional are you?

        10. avatar Mark Grace says:

          Compared to what year and what city?/! Compared to Miami it’s about 0.1% higher, to Houston ~13% higher…

  29. avatar Wally1 says:

    Am I the only one that’s somewhat concerned that we are on the path to civil war? Not a dedicated prepper, but planning for the worst. Just glad I don’t live in the eastern U.S. or a large city when it comes. With politicians failing to honor the oath of office it can’t end any other way.

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “..Am I the only one that’s somewhat concerned that we are on the path to civil war?”

      Depending on where you spend your time on the internet we are either nowhere near crossing the Rubicon or we have already crossed it and the information just hasn’t made it out to the troops yet.

      The key to the whole ‘pending civil war’ debate is to keep training, keep stocked, keep alert, and keep your powder dry.

    2. avatar Alex Peters says:

      I wouldn’t be too concerned about a Civil War. These types of wars are triggered by large differences such as states’ rights, oppressive governments, etc. What you’re hearing in today’s news are very minor disagreements. Sure, the lefties try to make mountains out of molehills, but they’re still extremely minor. Civil Wars are not fought over nominated Supreme Court Justices, abortion, etc.

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        Not by rational people, no.

        But when a large chunk of the population have apparently become irrational … what then? I cite for my first example of this, the mainstream response to Maxine Waters’ call to harrass members of Trump’s government.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Huh? All I heard was Schumer and Pelosi telling her to STFU. Did I miss something?

    3. avatar Ralph says:

      Not civil war, Wally1, but a Communist revolution is already in progress, and so is a slow coup d’etat against the President.

  30. avatar Wiregrass says:

    Based on the Washington Post article on Hardiman being a 2nd Amendment extremist this past weekend, I was kind of rooting for him to get it. But seeing as Kavanaugh is getting the gun haters riled up just as much, I reckon he’ll be alright.

  31. avatar FantaSea says:

    In the picture above Giffords looks like a younger, more able-bodied Hillary Clinton.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Like Mother, like Daughter!
      Howdy Doody Clinton!

    2. avatar No one of consequence says:

      I see I’m not the only one who thought that.

  32. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Its Howdy Doody time!

  33. avatar Michael says:

    Folks, we’re winning. We haven’t won yet. We still have a ways to go. We can’t afford to alienate the undecided swing vote with these types of attacks. Please think twice before hitting the send button. Calling a person, shot while exercising her First Amendment rights, bad names is lower than anything the progressives have done yet. It’s like hitting someone after they have surrendered and are no longer a threat. It feels good at the time, but it still is reprehensible, ignorant behavior and gains us nothing. Please, if you need and want to vent, go for it, but not on any firearms related forum. We are all of us, left, center, progressive and right all still Americans, we have a God given right to speak our minds. How did you feel, after the Las Vegas shooting, about the quote…it’s ok, they’re only country music fans, so they’re all probably Republicans. We are going to successfully take back much of what has been taken from us. Let’s win clean. Besides, it’ll drive them off the cliff like lemmings. Go, lemmings, go. 30

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Lower than shooting up a Republican baseball practice? GTFO.

    2. avatar DaveL says:

      I think there’s a palpable difference between condoning the shooting of a person engaged in the exercise of their rights, and condemning that same person’s attack on the rights of others, however strong the language.

    3. avatar Lookout Post says:

      I’m sure that it must be boring between bus stops on the Hogg tour. Do you like being a serial troll ?

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      At least in theory, she has NOT surrendered, and most definitely INTENDS to remain a threat, thus she is fair game. Most of us believe it is her money-grubbing prick of a husband parading around an empty shell, who deserves our scorn, but that attitude means she doesn’t actually care who’s dressing her today, or why, so no harm, no foul. But no one here went looking for her opinion on anything in order to make fun of her, it is being pumped out regularly as though she was a great thinker *before* the shooting. All she needs to do is STFU.

  34. avatar Mort says:

    His views are only dangerous if you are a communist!

  35. avatar Grace12 says:

    So somebody expresses an opinion that is reasoned and thoughtful but contrary to what many believe here and that makes him a communist? Your response makes you an asshole.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      To which “him” are you referring who’s being called a communist?

  36. avatar Jim Wolfson says:

    A brain-damaged leftist.
    The perfect democRat.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Isn’t “brain damaged leftist” redundant?

  37. avatar m. says:

    gun control = ahole

  38. avatar FB says:

    What a weak response.

  39. avatar Rich says:

    Live with it Gabby 🤷‍♂️

  40. avatar Dr. Pangloss says:

    I will withhold judgment until we see Mr. K’s views on the unconstitutional National Firearms Act. It would behoove us all to work together to get that onerous law repealed as soon as possible (meaning now). Who wouldn’t want a ‘fun switch’ on his or her AR-15 and derivatives?

    1. avatar 16V says:

      In the best of all possible worlds…

    2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “Who wouldn’t want a ‘fun switch’ on his or her AR-15 and derivatives?”

      I think the best chance we have at restoring that to pre-1986 conditions is to attack the Hughes amendment as being un-constitutional. It’s clearly been legal over 70 years to buy a stamp for full-auto, there’s *zero* reason for the Hughes amendment, since there have been only a small handful of unlawful uses of MGs…

  41. avatar 33Charlemagne says:

    Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me!

  42. avatar Mister Fleas says:

    Like Trump, Brett Kavanaugh has the right enemies.

  43. avatar CZJay says:

    So she wants Antonin Scalia to come back from the dead?

  44. avatar Ironhead says:

    Dangerous to whom? To those that believe that after all conservatives or right leaning people are eliminated that the world will all be unicorn farts and cotton candy?
    We tried their way and obama made the US a laughing stock. Killary would have been even worse.
    As far as Gabby Giffords and her idiot husband…. i felt bad for what happened to her. Now i feel nothing but contempt.

  45. avatar char says:

    The article supports reasonable restrictions do not infringe on rights. I disagree, the reasonable restrictions are the definition of infringing on rights.

  46. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    MAGA

    I can’t think of a much better endorsement.

    He has literally voted against an assault weapons ban. If confirmed we will have two guaranteed votes to overturn assault weapons bans , as Thomas has also said he thinks they are likely a violation of the second amendment.

    It is highly likely that Kennedy was the reason we haven’t had any 2a cases. Although it’s possibly Roberts. If it was Kennedy , we should see an end to the gun control movement as we know it. This will be a day long remembered in the force.

    Hopefully RBG will retire (or expire ) before trumps term is up. And we can have a 6 vote court that even Roberts can’t swing in favor of the gun grabbers.

  47. avatar AlanInFL says:

    So, Ms. Potato Head saying the SCOTUS nominee is dangerous? The guy that shot her is more dangerous than all of us put together.

  48. avatar W says:

    “Dangerous?”
    Like in Carlos Danger?

    1. avatar Occam's Laser says:

      Perhapes “Dangeresque”?

  49. avatar Sam says:

    The only thing dangerous in America these days is the far-left-progressive Democrat party.

  50. avatar John Tate says:

    What about shall not be infringed is confusing? If the government “allows” something,they can disallow it.

  51. avatar MLee says:

    Ugh…Gabby on my screen talking more of her inane babble. I could have done nicely during my morning coffee having not seen her face, nor that of Dianne Feinstein, Shannon Watts and Nancy Pelosi.
    Bi—- just go AWAY!

  52. avatar Ralph says:

    According to the Centers for Disease Control, Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome has a similar etiology to Trump Derangement Syndrome. Both seem to be communicable, with the primary vector being the Mainstream Media.

    One can only hope that both TDS and KDS prove 100% fatal to those who have it.

  53. avatar FedUp says:

    Reasonably strong on the Second Amendment, but perhaps worse than worthless (like Alito and Thomas) on the Fourth Amendment.

    As Herschel says: http://www.captainsjournal.com/2018/07/09/its-justice-kavanaugh/

    So we shouldn’t expect him to side against a SWAT team, for instance, and in favor of a victim of home invasion by a SWAT team, as long as a judge signed a warrant and officer safety was paramount.

    Frankly, it sounds as if he is in the same mold as Alito, who never saw a police action he didn’t approve.

    And my opinion of the Giffords Anti Civil Rights Group: I wish that brain damaged oath breaker would just shut up and go away, and he can take his ex Congresswoman sock puppet with him.

    1. avatar Setnakhte says:

      This! Finally someone who is willing to look at bigger pictures rather than blindly engaging in partisan schadenfreude.

  54. avatar Bob999 says:

    “America needs a Supreme Court justice who respects the Second Amendment but who also realizes reasonable regulations that…”

    So, if she believes this, than she certainly believes it applies to all amendments, so…

    “America needs a Supreme Court justice who respects the thirteenth Amendment but who also realizes reasonable regulations that…”

    Hmm, it fits. This seems like a pattern for them. The Democrat Party was firmly against the 13th amendment. Prior to it, the Democrat Party went to war to prevent the passage of any amendment or law that outlawed slavery. So, now that we have easily connected these dots, I conclude that Gabby is a racist who would like to unravel the prohibition of slavery.

    Some may call my above conclusion a stretch. I don’t care. The left contorts and stretches crap all the time connecting dots that do not even exist; therefore, I think we ought to do the same. Besides, there is more evidence to prove that they want to bring back slavery than must of the BS they spew. I do know one thing that is still true: The left is crazily pushing this country to war in order to forcefully take away our constitutional rights. (We will not give up our guns, which makes their push to war and tyranny a crazy idea, but how do you convince a rabid leftist radical that.)

    1. avatar Bob999 says:

      Oh, is it me, or is Gabby sporting the Hillary Clinton look? Common Gabby, get your own persona!!! Pretty soon, she will dress up like Stalin.

  55. avatar Nanashi says:

    “America needs a Supreme Court justice who respects the Thirteenth Amendment but who also realizes reasonable regulations that reduce sabotage and espionage do not infringe on anyone’s constitutional rights. But that’s not the kind of justice President Trump nominated today.”

    I wish Kavanaugh opposed “reasonable restrictions” though. He unfortunately does not and is unfit for the Supreme Court as a result.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      There you go again looking for the dark lining of every silver cloud.

      So, what qualified jurist would you have nominated who could be confirmed?

      By the way, the GOA and SAF are okay with him, but we get it no one and nothing is ever good enough for you. You’re just here to complain.

      https://gunowners.org/statealert71018.htm
      https://www.saf.org/saf-applauds-trumps-nomination-of-kavanaugh-to-supreme-court/

  56. avatar Ryan says:

    This is where the world is heading unfortunately. Anyone who REALLY wants to know whats going on should definitely check this out, its a pretty scary warning from a history and religion professor. Pretty damn eye opening: https://ancientprophecy.weebly.com/

  57. avatar DK says:

    “Judge Kavanaugh might vote to strike down important gun safety laws that address modern dangers that did not exist at the time of the founding of the United States”

    Well the internet didn’t exist either, so I guess free speech in any other medium except spoken word and print on parchment is ok to censor by the government… What a stupid talking point.

  58. avatar Mark H says:

    More threatening to the left, Kavanaugh is not a big believer in “Chevron Deference”. The idea that when congress writes a vague law (arn’t they all) then the regulatory state can interpret the law however they want as long as it’s “reasonable”.

    So when the lefties take over again, and eventually they will (hopefully long long down the road after we have replaced RGB) make no mistake. They will try to use the EPA to ban lead ammo again. Kavenaugh and Gorsuch are two votes that would say “No actually congress didn’t give the EPA that power”

  59. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    I am so glad that I became a gun owner (until they fell into the lake.) I would never had read about or thought about Constitutional issues in the way I do now if I had not taken the plunge (into the lake trying but failing to retrieve them.) The point some of you have made about “shall not be infringed” being stronger and substantively different from “Congress shall make no law” is the first and only time I have seen this distinction made. It is SO important and is neglected in all discussions of the Constitution other than on gun blogs. I took a course on Constitutional law in graduate school and not a word of this distinction. We truly have been brainwashed.

  60. avatar Rocketman says:

    I DISTINCTLY remember right after Giffords was shot that her astronaut husband was speaking at a news conference and was asked about the second amendment. He stated then that Giffords has a gun very much like the one that she was shot with. I’m almost certain he described it as a “Glock”.

  61. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    He does have the right enemies.

  62. avatar GS650G says:

    It saddens me to realize I have to put up.with gabby for the rest of my life. Soros will.be in th ground as well as Al and Jessie but gabby and the astronaut will.annoy me for decades.

  63. avatar TWP says:

    People who use brain damage victims as sock puppets are despicable.

  64. avatar Josesph says:

    Sorry Gabby, “…reasonable regulations that reduce gun violence…” do not exist. They never will because they only affect those who don’t commit crimes.

  65. avatar HoundDogDave says:

    “America needs a Supreme Court justice who respects the Second Amendment but who also realizes reasonable regulations that reduce gun violence do not infringe on anyone’s constitutional rights.”?What?
    Please… Name just 1 reasonable or even unreasonable regulation that reduced gun violence and did not infringe on anyone’s constitutional rights other than maybe felons not being able to possess guns.
    These people will not be happy until we will only be able to buy roundy ended knives (like they want in jolly old England now) and have to be licensed to own farm implements.

  66. avatar KBonLI says:

    This End ^ Google it. He made the threats at the local re-election headquarters. Like all you aholes he thinks that this is OK. The threats were made against his and any Trump supporters.

    1. avatar This End ^ says:

      And how is that Different from OPEN Threats made to Hillary Clinton and her Daughter, or Against Barack Obama and his Family. There ISN’T a day that goes by on “TTAG” where somebody ISN’T Threatening Someone else, usually by Creative Ways of Assassination.

  67. Doesn’t look like that Judge Brett Kavanaugh will becoming a Supreme Court Justice after all! A Financial Disclosure for Assets shows that Brett Kavanaugh is between ~$60-K and ~$130-K in Credit Card Debit. Which makes him a Supreme Court Liability not an Asset.

    1. avatar kevin (the other one) says:

      Why does credit card debt mean anything? What percentage of his yearly income does that amount to? That is the silliest reason I have heard yet as to why he shouldn’t be the next supreme court justice…..well second to Joy Behar’s reason, but still pretty silly.

      Is this Mark Grace using a different name? I noticed that you seemed to not mention his $500K government retirement pension.

      And you must not have read this part “In 2016, Kavanaugh reported having between $60,000 to $200,000 in debt accrued over three credit cards and a personal loan. Each credit card held between $15,000 to $50,000 in debt, and a Thrift Savings Plan loan was between $15,000 to $50,000.
      The credit card debts and loan were either paid off or fell below the reporting requirements in 2017”

      1. Means he can be easily Bribed. All other Supreme Court Justices have assets exceeding ~$1-Million USD (in the Black). While Brett Kavanaugh will be the First Justice to operating in the RED (in Debt) which makes him an easy mark to be able to Bribe…

        1. avatar Kevin (the other one) says:

          Again, you didn’t finish reading the part that’s said the debt was below reporting levels by 2017. Meaning the debt was either fully paid or mostly paid. Also it is a sad day in this country when someone can not be nominated to a government position because they are not wealthy. I support him more because he is not a millionaire…..and I am sure that you are fully aware that millionaires take bribes just as much as anyone else. Wealth does not equal honesty.

        2. He is a US Appeals Court Judge for 12-years and has ~$60-K to ~$200-K in Debt’s! You know how Implausible that sounds. Was he in Debt before he was a US Appeals Court Judge and IS and/or WAS working off the Debt by making Dubious Rulings in someone else’s favor. If so, it would go a long way in explaining some of his Out the Wall Rulings in the Last 12-years…

        3. avatar Kevin (the other one) says:

          How you post information from a news article, but somehow didn’t read past the headline I do not understand.

          The debt was due to season tickets to the Nationals Baseball games for him and his friends and some home improvements (its in the article). The article concludes with the statement that his friends payed him back for the money he spent on the season tickets, and that his debt was below reporting levels in 2017.

          I shouldn’t have to do your reading for you, this isn’t a bedtime story and you are not my child.

        4. Do you Charge between $60-K and $200-K on Season Tickets for a Game, without your wife standing behind you waiting for YOU to explain how you can accumulate that much Debt without an Explanation on how you Accrued it in the First Place…

        5. avatar kevin (the other one) says:

          Now your reaching for some imagined straw that isn’t there. The news article was nothing more than a biased smear to discredit him to those who didn’t read the whole article. I do not know his friends, nor do I know his wife or their spending habits….and speculation is for fools with large imaginations.Your trying to make something out of nothing, just like the news article.

        6. You have a WIFE that will Knowingly allow YOU to charge $60-K on Season Game Tickets on a Credit Card! That’s your claim? Who your “Stepford Wife”, and Who Constructed her…

        7. avatar Kevin (the other one) says:

          I’m not giving away my secrets to finding a perfect wife…….I may decide to write a book someday

  68. avatar haiki says:

    If there is one thing that explains why U.S. Court of Appeals judge, Brett Kavanaugh, is not qualified as a nominee for the United States Supreme Court, it’s his,.. a judge must be “independent,.. straight forward,.. must interpret the Constitution as written,..” and a long-standing adherence to text, attitude. Judge Kavanaugh only sees the Constitution in what he wants to see, his clear reasoning effort. Something that this former Supreme Court clerk should have learned before making judgment on the Second Amendment, is to study the Constitution. I will tell you why he has failed Constitution 101. Embarrassing, yes. It should be.

    My concern, under the circumstances, if Judge Kavanaugh is fit for the Circuit Court of Appeals.

    49 reasons why I took a second look at the Second Amendment. One wonders, how could Judge Kavanaugh have missed the obvious, with his long-standing adherence to text, if he would have read the Constitution?

    “This is a strong political movement, the Second Amendment,” Trump said. “And there can be no other interpretation … I mean, give me a break.” ———— Trump (letter) 7/29/18 explaining Second Amendment “people” by substituting the word “individuals.” “..which ensures the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.” ————————-

    The NRA has no claim to the Second Amendment, here is why.

    Since others believe and cultivate something I do not see, neither logic or theory I can understand, I have been forced to study and relate my reading of the Second Amendment. In the making of our United States Constitution I have 49 plus reasons that help to explain my understanding of the Second Amendment. ———————–

    The United States Constitution emphasizes it’s intent and unquestionable purpose of the Second Amendment with the words in it’s Preamble to the Constitution, “We the people… provide for the common defence…” ( Merriam-Webster; belonging to, or serving the community).—————–
    The Constitution of the United States was established and formulated as a result of the Articles of Confederation. Article 6, reflects part of that vision, “..nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace,… but every State shall always keep up a well- regulated and disciplined militia,…”———————-

    If, as some may argue, that the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning, is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms. The only way to describe one’s right as a private individual, is not as a “militia” but as a “person” (“The individual personality of a human being: self.”).—————–

    Articles of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to “person/s.”
    “If any person guilty of…
    “..and no person shall be capable of…”
    “..nor shall any person…”
    “..shall be protected in their persons..”
    “..nor shall any person holding any office…”
    “..granted or surveyed for any person, ..
    “..Congress shall name three persons..”
    “..list of such persons each party shall..”
    “..and the persons whose names shall..”
    “..nominate three persons..”
    “..provided that no person be allowed to serve..”——————

    “Person” or “persons“” is mentioned in the Constitution 49 times, to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a Constitutional legal standing as to a “person”, his or her Constitutional rights. (Articles of Confederation 11 times.)————————-

    Whereas in the Second Amendment, reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there are reason?. The obvious question arises, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey same legal standard in defining an individual’s right to bear arms as a “person”? ——————-

    “Person” is one as described by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as a “citizen”. “A person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to its protection.”——————

    Merriam Webster “militia”, “a body of citizens organized for military service : a whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.”———–

    In the whole of the U.S. Constitution, “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references, there is no mention of person or persons. One reference to “people“ in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons, in describing a “militia”. “People” is mentioned a total 9 times. ————————-

    It’s not enough to just say that “person(s)” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times. But to see it for yourself, and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every “person” be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person”. ——————–
     
    “..No Person shall be a Representative..” (Article 1 Section 2)
    “..whole Number of free Persons,..” (Article 1 Section 2)
    “..three fifths of all other Persons…” (Article 1 Section 2)
    “..No person shall be a Senator…” (Article 1 Section 3)
    “..And no Person shall be convicted…” (Article 1 Section 3)
    “..no Person holding any Office…” (Article 1 Section 6)
    “..Names of the Persons voting for…” (Article 1 Section 7)
    “…of Such Persons as any of the States…” (Article 1 Section 9)
    “…not exceeding ten dollars for each Person…” (Article 1 Section 9)
    “…And no Person holding any…” (Article 1 Section 9)
    “…or Person holding an Office of Trust of…“ (Article 2 Section 1)
    “…and vote by Ballot for two persons,…” (Article 2 Section 1)
    “…List of all the Persons voted for,…” (Article 2 Section 1)
    “…The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President…” (Article 2 Section 1)
    “…and if no Person have a Majority,…” (Article 2 Section 1)
    “…the Person having the greatest Number of Votes…” (Article 2 Section 1)
    “…No person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen,…shall be eligible to the Office of
    President” (Article 2 Section 1)
    “…Any Person be eligible to that Office….” (Article 2 Section 1)
    “…No Person shall be convicted of …” (Article 3 Section 3)
    “…except during the Life of the Person attainted….”. (Article 3 Section 3)
    “…A Person charged in any State…” (Article 4 Section 2)
    “…No Person held to Service…” (Article 4 Section 2)
    “…The right of the people to be secure in their persons,…” (Amendment IV)
    “…and the persons or things to be seized….” (Amendment IV)
    “..No person shall be held to answer…” (Amendment V)
    “..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense….” (Amendment V)
    “…they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,…” (Amendment XII)
    “…the person voted for as Vice-President,…” (Amendment XII)
    “…all persons voted for as President,….” (Amendment XII)
    “…all persons voted for as Vice-President…” (Amendment XII)
    “…The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, …” (Amendment XII)
    “…and if no person have such majority,…” (Amendment XII)
    “..the persons having the highest numbers …” (Amendment XII)
    “… The person having the greatest number of votes…” (Amendment XII)
    “..and if no person have a majority,…” (Amendment XII)
    “…But no person constitutionally ineligible to the Office of President…” (Amendment XII)
    “…All persons born or naturalized …” (Amendment XIV Section 1)
    “… any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,” (Amendment XIV Section1 )
    “…nor deny to any person within …” (Amendment XIV Section1)
    “…number of persons in each State,….” (Amendment XIV Section 2)
    “…No person shall be a Senator or …” (Amendment XIV Section3)
    “..and such person shall act accordingly….” (Amendment XX Section3)
    “…of the death of any of the persons from…” (Amendment XX Section4)
    “…case of the death of any of the persons from…” (Amendment XX Section4)
    “…No person shall be elected to the office of the President…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
    “…and no person who has held the office of President,…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
    “..to which some other person was elected President…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
    “…shall not apply to any person holding the office of President…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
    “..prevent any person who may be holding the office of President…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
    ————————–
    The President was elected on 13 of these references. Of which 11 are Amendments, conditioning a “person,” unlike the Second Amendment, to the role of the President of the United States.——————-

    Finally, another reason and need for…. “A well regulated militia, …” exactly, because we fight among ourselves.————

    Just another thought on the subject.————- New laws are created every day. Now is that time to make a new law to satisfy gun owners.

  69. avatar Michael says:

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.

    1. avatar Michael says:

      The federal government was only empowered to deliver the mail and guard the borders. Until they can manage to get those two things right they shouldn’t be allowed to do anything else. 30

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email