Banning ARs Because They’re Semi-Automatic is Like Banning Books Because People Have Newspapers. Or Something

courtesy Getty

“Again this is all about precedent for me, trying to read exactly what the Supreme Court said. And if you read the McDonald case, and I concluded that it could not be distinguished as a matter of law that semiautomatic rifles from semiautomatic handguns, and semiautomatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States. There are millions and millions and millions of semiautomatic rifles that are possessed. So that seemed to fit common use and not be a dangerous and unusual weapon.”

“But the question is are they dangerous and unusual? They’re certainly dangerous — all weapons are dangerous — but are they unusual?” – Brett Kavanaugh to Diane Feinstein during his confirmation hearing

And…

“In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.

“In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns – the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic – are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semiautomatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller’s protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional. (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)

“D.C.’s registration requirement, which is significantly more stringent than any other federal or state gun law in the United States, is likewise unconstitutional. Heller and later McDonald said that regulations on the sale, possession, or use of guns are permissible if they are within the class of traditional, “longstanding” gun regulations in the United States. Registration of all lawfully possessed guns – as distinct from licensing of gun owners or mandatory recordkeeping by gun sellers – has not traditionally been required in the United States and even today remains highly unusual. Under Heller’s history- and tradition-based test, D.C.’s registration requirement is therefore unconstitutional.” – Brett Kavanaugh in his dissent in Heller v. D.C., (Heller 2)

Also…

“Gun bans and gun regulations that are not longstanding or sufficiently rooted in text, history, and tradition are not consistent with the Second Amendment individual right.” – Brett Kavaugh in his dissent, Heller v. D.C., (Heller 2) making a point the majority rejected.

One more for the road…

“The majority opinion next contends that semi-automatic handguns are good enough to meet people’s needs for self- defense and that they shouldn’t need semi-automatic rifles. But that’s a bit like saying books can be banned because people can always read newspapers. That is not a persuasive or legitimate way to analyze a law that directly infringes an enumerated constitutional right.” – Brett Kavanaugh in his dissent, Heller v. D.C. (Heller 2)

comments

  1. avatar Rokurota says:

    Confirm him.

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

      His position on gun rights is exactly what we need, bad…

      1. avatar NM says:

        Which is why there is so much opposition from the left to confirming him!

        1. avatar Robman says:

          Absolutely correct. This is the absolute root of the massive hysteria of the progleft types against him. He is GOLD on 2A issues, and his confirmation will be a massive, decisive body blow against the gun control lobby.

        2. avatar Mark H says:

          I firmly believe that the majority reason the Left is so afraid of him is due to his position on Chevron Deference. (look it up if you are unfamiliar). The Left loves legislating by Alphabet Agency Fiat. Kavenaugh believes that is unconstitutional. If it’s not in the law, they can’t regulate it just because.

        3. avatar jsallison says:

          Nope, this hysterical freak show is about abortion, plain and simple. Feinswein &c want to include other issues to muddy the waters, but this is about abortion, nothing else.

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

    “In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.”

    Our 2A rights will never be safe as long a mandatory gun registration is allowed.

    To me, that ranks right up there along with semi-autos and magazine capacities in importance.

    If we can get Kav on the Court, we have a solid shot at crippling Leftist gun control…

  3. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    IMO, even more so than the slim possibility that Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe, the filthy, subhuman Liberal Terrorists™️ are set to destroy Kavanaugh precisely because of his views on the Second Amendment. These feral leftists have adopted their scorched earth policy because for them, the ends always justify the means when it comes to the fulfillment of their Anti-American agenda. There is NO difference between falsely claiming rape, or murdering this man. Both are permanent.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      This is why it’s important to know not only what you stand for, but also what you stand *against*. The end does not always justify the means. In fact, the means tend to become an end in themselves.

      America’s so-called liberals are lucky that conservatives and libertarians actually do have principles that mean we stand *against* certain things. But if they keep pushing, they’re going to find out what it’s like to live by their own rules…and they’re not going to like it.

      Nobody is going to like it if that’s the way our whole society goes (which is why it’s so important to have principles that tell you what’s *not* allowed as well as what is desirable).

  4. avatar Evey259 says:

    I would dearly love to have a solid conservative majority on the court with none of that mealy-mouthed BS Kennedy provided. But after the last hearing, I’m not so sure the choice is Kavanaugh. Not because of the allegations brought forth against him, I’ve yet to see proof that they happened beyond Dr. Ford’s testimony. He looked seriously deranged while being questioned and extremely partisan. Now, don’t get me wrong, that latter part can be good, but if he just falls in line with Republican thought at large instead of deciding based on the constitutionality of issues, that is a big problem. Still, we’re here with him now and he should be confirmed as soon as possible. Before the midterm ideally, because the Democrats are playing the long game for a very clear reason.

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

      “…but if he just falls in line with Republican thought at large instead of deciding based on the constitutionality of issues, that is a big problem.”

      Did you bother to read his comments above?

      Free clue – Those aren’t mamby-pamby country-club Republican points of view, Kavanaugh is as close to ideal as it gets on 2A constitutional issues.

      Gun registration – no.

      Semi-auto bans – no.

      Mag capacity limits – no…

      1. avatar D Y says:

        I believe he is saying that while being pro-2A is great, judges should be pro-Constitution, not pro-republican party line. Both parties have members that only believe in parts of the Constitution.

        Even if decisions dont go the way I want them to, if I knew the judges were basing the decision on the Constitution and framers intent, I’d be ok with it. The way the court is now, that is not reality.

        1. avatar New Continental Army says:

          It never has been and never will be a reality. SCOTUS always has, and always will be another political entity.

        2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Exactly !

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      “(By contrast, (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.) automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)”

      A probation on automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, is for a supposed originalist,also UnConstitutional,if ones first duty is to the Constitution as written.

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

        They aren’t banned. Taxed, and a limited number, but not banned…

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Correct,taxed and regulated out of reality for many,such was not the case prior to NFA in 1934.
          Then in 1986 saw fit to end new or continued production of any further supply,with the NRA’s blessing,having the effect of a ban while not out right banned.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “They aren’t banned. Taxed,…”

          A tax on an enumerated right is not an infringement, unconstitutional.

        3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          The power to tax is the power to destroy.

        4. avatar MarkPA says:

          There are so many problems with the tax-on-a-Constitutional-right argument that they are NOT worth emphasizing. First. How did it come to be that the poll tax was made UN-Constitutional? We the People passed a Constitutional amendment making it UN-Constitutional. It follows that if we want to make a tax on NFA weapons UN-Constitutional then we need another Constitutional amendment. Second, Congress and SCOTUS will never take a base-for-taxation off-the-table without a big fight. Why pick a fight with Congress (with SCOTUS backing-up Congress) over the power-to-tax which is their most precious power? Third, the $200 tax on an NFA transfer is cheap compared to what we pay in excise taxes on other guns and ammo. Of all the arguments to be made against the NFA, the fact that it imposes a tax is the least useful.

          In fact, we should argue just the opposite. We should argue that silencers should be moved from NFA to GCA so that sales taxes and excise taxes on silencers generate even more revenue than the $200 transfer tax generates. When silencers are sold OTC in high volume then wholesale prices will drop and gross sales volume will soar. The result will be – almost certainly – more revenue to states and the Feds.

        5. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          Any, rich citizen, can buy a real machine gun. I understand Steven Spielberg has an extension gun collection. In his E.T. film he had the FBI agents guns digitally replaced with hand held radios. This was for the VHS tape release of the film in the 1990s.

          During the Rodney King LA riots, he borrowed guns from Charlton Heston. Heston was a well known gun collector. Spielberg was publicly anti gun up to this point in time.

          Now after “Saving Private Ryan” he has his own collection of firearms. Which includes several machine guns.

      2. avatar Huntmaster says:

        It was traditional to have separate schools for black and white kids in many places in this country. So was riding in the back of the bus and segregated water fountains. In spite of their vileness, why were those traditions not protected?

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

          That is *exactly* how gun rights will be overturned by a Leftist SCOTUS in the future.

          We need to make sure those who follow us understand the stakes involves with allowing that line of ‘Progressive’ thought to take root and flower…

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yeah… you go gaslight a respected man. Blaming Kavanaugh for being upset is called “blaming the victim”. I want Kavanaugh because he was willing to call out the commie vermin for being commie vermin. Every Demokkkrat that votes against Kavanaugh needs to be stood up against a wall and shot.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        I want Kavanaugh because he paraphrased Thomas in his statement; that speaks volumea about all sorts of things. His opinions on gun rights tell the rest.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “His opinions on gun rights tell the rest.”

          As you understand it, what is Kavanaugh’s opinion on gun rights?

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

          “As you understand it, what is Kavanaugh’s opinion on gun rights?”

          I’m no lawyer, but his dissent on ‘Heller II’ seems to speak volumes – Banning a category of weapons (semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines), unconstitutional, gun registration, unconstitutional.

          That’s a pretty damn good start, considering we came very close to the prospect of Kagan II or Sotamayor II.

          Or RGB II.

          Do you *seriously* believe we would have done better under a justice selected by HRC?

        3. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Those that would deny the great peril a Garland would pose, or worse, anyone that filthy hatchet wound Clinton could conjure up, are simply being obtuse or are entirely ignorant. Not only did we stave off an existential threat to our Constitutional Republic, but the reversal of fortune has put the good guys in a position to preserve it for at least another generation. We MUST have Kavanaugh confirmed and then see the much anticipated and necessary death of that skank Ginsberg within the next 24 months. Of course, that can’t happen unless we keep the senate next month. Clean and oil em folks.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Those that would deny the great peril a Garland would pose…”

          There has been speculation that Obama did not really want Garland, but thought he would be the least distasteful. On top of that, the notion is that Garland was an intended sacrificial lamb (playing the long game that resulted in what we saw last week). The reasoning is that if Obama really thought his nominee could be confirmed, Obama would have nominated a very young, ultra radical jurist who would sit on the bench for forty or more years (Garland was 60+).

        5. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Conversely, the Kenyan Menace would’ve nominated a young Liberal Terrorist™️ had he believed their confirmation was possible. Instead, he nominated an anti-gun, but otherwise “Milquetoast”, soy boy who was mostly non-controversial. Barack Hussein Al Bin Obama believed he most certainly would be confirmed it wouldn’t be his first preference, but understood it was better than anyone who the GOP would put forward, and having 3 nominees on the court would cement his presidential legacy as far as the courts are concnerned. That the domestic terrorists in the democrat party invoked his name during the judicial confirmation hearings expose their true agenda. It’s time those on the right understood that these people don’t just have differing political opinions, but rather, are the domestic enemies our Founders not only had in mind, but also warned us about.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’m no lawyer, but his dissent on ‘Heller II’ seems to speak volumes – Banning a category of weapons (semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines), unconstitutional, gun registration, unconstitutional.”

          Thanks. Wasn’t trying to elicit a legal opinion, but a personal observation. I think it is important to understand the “why” behind the decision. Kavanaugh seems to reason from a non-constitutional basis (history/tradition). From his decisions, I do not find a person who starts with the constitution, but with established unconstitutional infringements, then begins reasoning that which infringes historically is permissible because “precedence”. It seems that some “reasonable” restrictions on constitutionally protected rights are acceptable for Kavanaugh, if tradition and history show that those restrictions have stood the test of time, wording of the Constitution notwithstanding.

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

          “It seems that some “reasonable” restrictions on constitutionally protected rights are acceptable for Kavanaugh,…”

          OK, I see what you are getting at.

          However, what *specifically* enumerated right has zero restrictions or conditions?

          What rights are ‘pure’?

          It seems to me Kav’s ideas on ‘restrictions’ lies far further to the Right than the Left.

          Would we have been better off with an HRC selection?

    4. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Kavannaugh looked deranged? HA! Wow that is rich. I’d like to see you put up with a solid two months of the media waging total war on you and your family, and see you not get a little emotional when you get a chance to defend yourself. You’re the one who’s deranged, Evey.

    5. avatar Cz Rider says:

      I thought the partisan bent did him a disservice too, but I think it was driven less by political loyalty and more by the fact that one party in particular had been trying to destroy his professional and personal life for a week and a half. I’d have been pretty fired up against a group like thst too, I think.

    6. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

      He was pissed. The Democrats dragged his good name through the mud. If he came off as partisan, it’s because one party is actively conspiring to ruin his life. If you’ve watched him speak previously, under normal circumstances, he comes off as much more level headed.

    7. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      “Seriously deranged”? This is precisely how I would expect an innocent man to behave in light of the fraudulent, conspiratorial charges brought by the filthy, subhuman Liberal Terrorists™️. Smh. We aren’t engaged with people with differing political opinions. We are in battle with bonafide domestic enemies that pose an existential threat to our Constitutional Republic. These aren’t our friends, neighbors, co-workers, acquaintances, or even family. These are exactly who our Founders warned us about and proscribed remedies for eliminating. The time for a “winner take all, once and for all”, is……..NOW!!!! Clean and oil em, boys.

    8. avatar jsallison says:

      Dr Ford’s testimony does not constitute ‘proof’. Allegations unsupported by evidence, allegations denied by those she names as ‘witnesses’, is not ‘proof’. For any value of the word ‘proof’ that I’m aware of. This is a hit job by abortionists, plain and simple.

      1. avatar jsallison says:

        So “senator” Feinswine, how many babies have you aborted? It is a religious sacrament, nicht wahr? For the record you stupid fascist bitch?
        Yeah, I thought so you black-murderiing sack of dog squeeze.

  5. avatar Ark says:

    And we have hit upon why the Democrats are so desperate and hysterical to slow and derail the nomination by any means necessary: Kavanaugh represents the death of their gun ban dreams.

    1. avatar Laserbeam says:

      I can’t wait until The President gets to make ANOTHER nomination!

      1. avatar Laserbeam says:

        P.S. If you think the Left got deranged this time they’ll get absolutely apoplectic the next go round. Surely RBG can’t have too much time left.

    2. avatar jsallison says:

      I’ts so not about guns. It is always, and has ever been, about murdering blacks. Aka, ‘those’ people, check the racist bitch Sanger online.

  6. avatar D says:

    Demonrats are attempting to delay the approval process until after the midterms because the think that they can retake CongrASS and then determine the nominee by controlling the process

    1. avatar ollie says:

      The present Congress is still in power until 12:00 PM midnight on December 31, 2018. If the democrats sweep both houses of Congress in the midterms, the present Congress can still make appointments until that time.

      If the democrats got super-majorities of both houses, they could start impeaching everyone in sight and put Pelosi into the White House and have a seven liberal SCOTUS. It would be like USSR show trials of the 1930’s. Doubtful they will win that big. Imagine a SCOTUS with Obama. Holder, Slick Willie and Hillary to replace the conservatives.

      1. avatar D says:

        It would be death by corruption

      2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        A civil war that leads to the literal genocide of millions of leftists is a more likely (and preferable) outcome than your scenario.

    2. avatar Queens says:

      Sort of like what the republican assholes did with Gardner.

      1. avatar M1Lou says:

        You mean Merrick Garland? Who the republicans followed the “Biden rule” on?

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Sort of like what the republican assholes did with Gardner.”

        They were following Joe Biden’s dictum that Supreme Court nominees shouldn’t be confirmed during presidential elections.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Good ole “Two Blasts Biden” the Buffoon,firearms tactics and legal expert not to mention former vice president.

      3. avatar pwrserge says:

        Sorry kiddo, you don’t get to pick SCotUS judges at the last second when you got voted out of the Senate. (and aren’t a legitimate president)

        1. avatar jsallison says:

          McConnell should’ve told Flake the very day he announced he wasn’t running again: “Well, bye.” and yanked him from every committee he’s a member of. Guess the GOP isn’t the ‘stupid party’ for nothing.

      4. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Oh please. The republicans did absolutely nothing to Garland. They didn’t drag his name through the mud, they didn’t abuse him or his family, they didn’t threaten him or his family, and they didn’t disrespect the constitution in the process. Garland didn’t get a seat, but he also didn’t get his life destroyed, and doesn’t have to look over his shoulder or worry about someone murdering his children the rest of his life. Because that’s what Kavannaugh is facing. You know what they did do? They simply refused to hold a vote. You know why? They had the majority. It’s that simple. You want Supreme Court nominees? Then win elections. This is and always has been a political process. Those who have the presidency and the senate get the justices.

      5. avatar barnbwt says:

        Precisely the same. And since Dems still aren’t the majority, they won’t be able to do anything this time, either.

        Deal with it.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          From @Queens:
          “Sort of like what the republican assholes did with Gardner.”

          From @barnbwt
          “Precisely the same”

          You may have just validated a false claim of equivalency. Merrick Garland was not interviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Garland was not subjected to horrendous nastiness of Republicrats. Garland was not accused of anything. It is one thing to not be offered a job interview; quite another to accuse and abuse the candidate.

          Refusal to interview, and politics of personal destruction cannot be compared in anyway.

  7. avatar New Continental Army says:

    After Thursday’s hearing and subsequent offensive by Graham I was pretty optimistic we were going to win this. However giving in to the week long delay the democrats wanted is way too risky. The vote should be held Monday. Another week and the democrats get to concoct all kinds of bullshit against him and then call for another hearing and more delays. Still, I’m honestly proud of the GOP for the first time in awhile, they not only have held firm on this but have gone on the offensive. If he fails, nominate Amy Barret as fast as possible and watch the liberals panic.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Amy Cony Barret would have been my first choice from the get go,she is not week on the 4 th. as the current nominee is.

      1. avatar M1Lou says:

        Agreed, he may be good for the 2A, but he seems to be all in on the government violating American’s 4A rights.

        1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          Now that Kavanaugh has had a throat full taste of what the government can do to an innocent man and his family, perhaps his views on the 4th will have evolved?

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Now that Kavanaugh has had a throat full taste of what the government can do to an innocent man and his family, perhaps his views on the 4th will have evolved?”

          Wouldn’t that be loverly?

        3. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          I believe that happened to Trump. He’s been a middle of the road democrat, with some soft conservative ideas his entire life. I believe he’s completely aware now of what the left has become because their poison was directed at him, his wife, his sons and especially his daughter. I think much of what he does, and righteously so, is in the spirit of revenge.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “However giving in to the week long delay the democrats wanted is way too risky.”

      Not just because the delay is a “delay”, but because the FBI investigation presents something else to protest. It will be rich. Dimowits will complain that either a week is not enough time, or the anti-Trump FBI was in cahoots with Trump and just gave him what he wanted, or the FBI investigation was too superficial to have meaning, or the FBI was incompetent and failed to investigate properly – requiring a new special prosecutor to do the real investigation.

      And so on.

      1. avatar Matthew the Oilman says:

        If I’m not mistaken, the F.B.I. doesn’t have the power of mind reading or time travel. All the F.B.I. would be able to do is the same as the Senate committee has done. I am astonished that many are willing to throw out the presumption of innocence. That alone should motivate any thinking human to vote against Democrats now and forever.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I am astonished that many are willing to throw out the presumption of innocence.”

          “Presumption of innocence” is a legal term, applied to matters regarding laws. In politics, very little is actually a legal matter. SC confirmations are strictly political, where there is no presumption of innocence, competence, appropriateness, fairness, morality. Politics is all about power; you have it, or you don’t. Nothing else matters (except getting more money and more voters, which is more power).

          For those of us who are mature enough to remember the Bork inquisition, the Thomas “high tech lynching”, Kavanaugh is merely the re-run of old movies. We know ahead of time neither the plot, nor the friction will change.

      2. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

        If I were Kavanaugh when questioned if I would submit to an FBI investigation:

        1) I don’t have the power to call for an FBI investigation but I will submit to and also take a Polygraph if this committee requests it.
        2.) I will not personally call for a FBI investigation as I believe it is a stalling tactic.
        3.) If I support an FBI investigation and no credible objective evidence is found that I did what I am accused of, I demand you and the other 9 Democrats pledge your support voting for my nomination.
        4.) If an FBI investigation goes forth, I would request they also investigate who is responsible for leaking these allegations to the press so the American people might judge if they were politically motivated.

    3. avatar Adam Warlock says:

      Trump is saving Barrett as RBG’s replacement. If Dems succeed in taking down Kav, then Trump will nominate her as a big FU to the Dems. She’s more to the right of Kav and a woman. So no sex scandals or crying about the nominee being anti woman. If ACB has a clean tax record and hasn’t hired any nannies under the table, then she has to be confirmed whether or not the Dems control the senate.

      1. avatar jsallison says:

        NazzofastGuido. You’re still assuming a certain amount of ‘honor’ exists in the democrats on the judiciary committee. I say you’re assuming facts not in evidence, ever.

  8. avatar Mad Max says:

    “Heller and later McDonald said that regulations on the sale, possession, or use of guns are permissible if they are within the class of traditional, “longstanding” gun regulations in the United States.”

    So, he’ll bring back mail order for rifles without an FFL and handguns will be for sale at the local hardware store?

    The long-standing ruling from the 1840’s cited in Puruta by the 9th Circuit basically said that a traveler carrying a concealed firearm for the purposes of self defense was protected by the 2nd Amendment (no permit needed) but, if the traveler was carrying the concealed firearm for the purpose of commiting a crime, then the act of concealed carry was a crime and not protected.

    That would be National Constitutional Carry. I’ll go for that.

  9. avatar Sal Chichon says:

    Confirm him.

  10. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    If he is confirmed the left will demand he recuse himself from every case that involves gun rights, because they spit in his face and kicked him while he was down.

    He has shown that they won’t intimidate him. I believe he will refuse all demands that he recuse himself from gun cases.

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    I dissent from ya’lls opinion…murdering babies is why leftards hate Kavanaugh. Mighty myopic to think it isn’t. 2A is in the mix obviously but their unholy grail is sacrifying children on the altar of Baal…

    1. avatar Weapon Of War says:

      Well said indeed.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Or a combination there of.

    3. avatar New Continental Army says:

      That could be. At this point honestly I hope he IS part of ruling the strike down abortion for no other reason then just to enrage leftists and hopefully get a few more of them to off themselves. I used to be a moderate on the abortion issue until the last two weeks. Now I want it *completely* banned for *no* other reason than to hurt liberals. They’re calling down the thunder and now we’re going to bring it. I hope it’s banned by SCOTUS and Kavannaugh is the deciding vote, simply as punishment to all the leftwing fascist moon worshipping psychopaths.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “At this point honestly I hope he IS part of ruling the strike down abortion…”

        Striking down abortion as a constitutional right does not end abortion run amuck. While the SC may overturn Roe v. Wade (I expect Kavanaugh will use history to support his dissenting opinion), that act does not make abortion illegal anywhere. Abortion law will fall to the States (where it should be). And even then, the issue won’t be resolved permanently. There will be votes, and repeals, and appeals, and again the matter will reach the SC to make it a constitutional right again.

    4. avatar Ralph says:

      Nailed it, FWW. It’s all about abortion.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Nailed it, FWW. It’s all about abortion.”

        Mainly targeted at a specific group. Hint: the group is not the fastest growing demographic of future Dimowit voters.

        1. avatar jsallison says:

          Dig around a bit and see what the composition of the neighborhoods around Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood offices consist of. They are still trying to make sure ‘those people’ don’t reproduce.

    5. avatar thunder says:

      agree, roe vs wade is front and center for most lefty IMHO

    6. avatar arc says:

      Yep. R v W is the leftwing test for office. If you will butcher babies, and strip life, liberty, and happiness from life in the womb, there is no low in the direction of your rulings or vote.

      Guns do come in second place though. Not a fan of his stance on privacy / 4A rights, but maybe if we pick up some seats in November, Trump will nominate someone better.

  12. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Remember the dem/lib mantra “…if it saves just ONE life it is worth it.”?
    Well…except for abortion…where they conveniently redefine life .
    Imagine if a fetus-like thing was found on ANY other object in the universe.
    The scientists (liberal and conservative alike) would be howling and getting drunk declaring it the most important discovery EVER.
    just sayin’…

  13. avatar Sam I Am says:

    To be quite clear, at this point I want Kavanaugh confirmed (but if he withdraws, I want the next nominee confirmed).

    However…..

    Let’s also be clear about what we would be getting: not a 2A absolutist; not an absolutist about anything. Re-read the full article. Note that “precedence” is written once, “history” twice, and “tradition” ten times.

    In short, Kavanaugh is comfortable with the idea that if a constitutional right has a long trail of being ignored or violated by government, it is perfectly fine. Kavanaugh does not start with the words of the constitution, and then reason downward to the issue at hand; he starts with a non-constitutional concept, and reasons upward to find permission in the constitution that is not specifically delegated to the central committee (federal government). Actually, he doesn’t even reason upward. He looks for justification that avoids even reaching the meaning of the constitution.

    While I am in favor of confirming Kavanaugh, he is not Scalia 2. Not at all.

    Buyer beware.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I don’t care what he is. After the left defamed him and made a mockery of due process in an attempt to stop him, I want him rammed down their throats and I wand Ford in a deep dark hole in GITMO until we get out of her who coached her to perjure herself.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I don’t care what he is.”

        That’s what people said about Chief Justices Warren and Berger. Conservative Republicrats who went hard left and paved the path we are on.

        Again, I am not opposed to Kavanaugh on the SC, just recognizing his theory of jurisprudence is what it is, not what I think it should be.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Right now allowing Kavanaugh to fail is an unacceptable option. It would legitimize this tactic of 11th hour defamation that the DNC has used to destroy his life. If he isn’t confirmed, this will be used as a tool against every conservative at any time, for any reason.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If he isn’t confirmed, this will be used as a tool against every conservative at any time, for any reason.”

          Agree. However, even if Kavanaugh is confirmed, the defamation tactic will not be abandoned, or even mitigated. The tactic is the natural evolution of warfare on the part of leftists/statists/authoritarians/Dimowits.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          The point is that we can’t afford to give them more precedent. Selling Moore down the river over unproven legal acts decades ago was retardation of the highest order. That put the blood in the water.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The point is that we can’t afford to give them more precedent.”

          “They” will continue to behave this way, no matter what we do, or who the nominee.

          “We” need to keep our expectations in check, because we will be disappointed from time-to-time.

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

          “…the defamation tactic will not be abandoned, or even mitigated.”

          Oh, yes, it can be mitigated.

          A ‘Speak now or Forever hold your Peace’ law.

          If anyone has information or allegations about a judicial nominee, they have 30 days from the date of the nomination to make those allegations. No more last-second ‘surprises’…

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Oh, yes, it can be mitigated.”
          “A ‘Speak now or Forever hold your Peace’ law.”

          Defamation is not restricted to nominations, it can be used to drive people out of positions. The law you propose will likely be seen as suppressing free speech. If government can determine how much time you have to express a claim of character, it can determine the venue, and just about everything else. Point being, nothing will convince the jackals that politics of personal destruction is toxic to them.

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

          “The law you propose will likely be seen as suppressing free speech.”

          Yep, it could be.

          We can use the Left’s own tactics against them in getting it declared constitutional.

          Something along the lines of – “While recognizing the necessity of free speech, a balance must be maintained… etc.”

          *snicker* 😉

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Something along the lines of – “While recognizing the necessity of free speech, a balance must be maintained… etc.” ”

          The radicals have already declared that speech that makes someone uncomfortable, challenges opinions, or shames a person is violence, and violent speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Maybe we can carve out some space in that argument.

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

          “The radicals have already declared that speech that makes someone uncomfortable, challenges opinions, or shames a person is violence, and violent speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”

          Yep, the Leftists really thought they were being ‘clever’ in concocting that one from whole cloth.

          Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’ Rule #4 – “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

          And laugh at them in their face while you do just that… 😉

        10. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Clean and oil ya’lls rifles, folks. We’ll be needing em soon.

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      This

    3. avatar Beltway Bandit says:

      I actually know Kavanaugh. I have for 30 years. You are exactly correct. He may become Souter but he’s what we have.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Souter is one of the reasons I hammer beware of expectations. If I remember correctly, Souter was considered a reliable constructionist, until he assumed a seat on the SC. Also, Warren, Berger, Roberts. Seems they all wanted to prove they were “fair” by being unfair.

        1. avatar Geoff “Mess with the Bull, get the Horns” PR says:

          There’s one big-assed difference here –

          No one tried to destroy the reputation of Souter during the nomination process.

          If we get Kav on the court, I think he may be inclined to dispense some vengeance from the bench. And Thomas, having experienced similar treatment during his process will be inclined to join him.

          The Leftists have tread on very dangerous territory with Kav…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “And Thomas, having experienced similar treatment during his process will be inclined to join him…”

          Is retribution in law a theme POTG really want to endorse?

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

          “Is retribution in law a theme POTG really want to endorse?”

          The Left seems to have no problem with it. What goes around, comes around.

          “Welcome to the new age, to the new new age..”

        4. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Exactly. Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. POTG should know that. Adapt to the new rules. No need to stand on obsolete ceremony.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Adapt to the new rules. ”

          Oh, I am a long time Jim Malone fan.

  14. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Can’t wait to see the confirmation processes to replace Ginsberg and Breyer in Trump’s second term.

    It won’t be a circus. It will be a violent revolt. There will be SWAT teams and Jersey barriers surrounding the Capital.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      We can only hope. Maybe the commies will finally give us an excuse to do a proper purge.

      1. avatar Michael B says:

        It seems that we’re heading in that direction, doesn’t it? Buy guns and ammo. And then buy more.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Correct ! The Kavanaugh hearing is just a warm up/pre game show compared to what will transpire when ole Commieberg passes or retires,it maybe the start of civil or Revolution 2.o.

  15. avatar pwrserge says:

    Ford is as much a “survivor” of “sexual assault” as I am a “survivor” of “eating a three cheese pizza”… Except for the fact that the cheese pizza was a larger threat to my life than a figment of Ford’s imagination was to her’s.

  16. avatar el Possum Guapo Herr Standartenfuher" they think we're making pizza's" Oberst von Burn says:

    So according to the Heller ruling, if the firearm in question has not previously been banned and is in common use that firearm in question is legal under the second amendment. That’s bullshit

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “So according to the Heller ruling, if the firearm in question has not previously been banned and is in common use that firearm in question is legal under the second amendment. That’s bullshit.”

      You may be looking at this backward. If an infringement of 2A (or any constitutionally protected right) has historically and traditionally been permitted, it remains permissible because of tradition and history.

  17. avatar BluesMike says:

    I hope everybody wrote their senators like I just did. We need to start writing and calling constantly. I’ll be calling as well. Remember that contacting senators has been effective in the past and can be for this as well.

  18. avatar Wally1 says:

    I was on a hunting trip during the hearings, with no cell or internet access, (I did get a nice bear).
    When I got back home, I started to watch the outcome. It reinforced that the democrats are just not bad for America, they are evil. How are these unsubstantiated accusations not slander and libel?.
    If you are a student of history, this is a example right out of the German pre-war (WW2) propaganda playbook. Character assassination of everyone that doesn’t buy into the ideology, with no actual proof of anything! That did not end well, neither will this!.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      The Democrat party’s official hero used the war time WW2 German playbook, down to the concentration camps. Why does this surprise you?

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Gobels would be proud of the Democrats,they learned his lessons well.

  19. avatar Nanashi says:

    “(By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)”

    And this is why I don’t trust him

    1. avatar Michael B says:

      “Shall not be infringed” could not be clearer. The right of the people to overthrow a traitorous government — such as we have now — wouldn’t be possible if that very government limited our rights to own weapons that were the equal of, if not superior to, the government. It’s all gotten turned on its head. Of course the idea was that those in government truly served the people, and upheld the law of the land. If they failed and betrayed us, then they could be overthrown. We were never to have a standing army. That was the death knell of freedom.

  20. avatar Michael B says:

    His stance on guns alone, is why the communists will do anything, fabricate any story, defame him, threaten him and his family — anything to prevent him from being on the court. There is no morality with communists — and make no mistake, the Democrats are full-fledged communists interested only in destroying the Constitution and this country. Freedom in any form is the arch enemy of communists.

    1. avatar Rocketman says:

      Someone once asked V. I. Lenin could he explain communism in just a few words. Lenin then thought a moment and replied “No private property rights.”

    2. avatar Guardiano says:

      Former water walker already said it: the overwhelming majority of anti-Kavanaugh zealots don’t even know his stance on guns. This is all about their unquenchable thirst for the blood of unborn children.

  21. avatar Dan Boyd says:

    Overturn the 86 Full-Auto ban!!!

    Freedom is dangerous and that’s ok.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Overturn the 86 Full-Auto ban!!!”

      Full auto weapons have traditionally been tightly regulated. That means “precedence”. That means it’s all good.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Precedent on regulation does not translate to precedent on banning. Regulating a thing being constitutional does not follow that banning a thing is constitutional.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Regulating a thing being constitutional does not follow that banning a thing is constitutional.”

          How is “banning” accomplished? Via legislation, which becomes law, which spawns regulations. “Banning” is a form of regulation. The issue is not “regulation” vs. “banning”, but that traditional and historical infringement of constitutionally protected rights sets precedence for further, or expanded infringement.

      2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        “Overturn the 86 Full-Auto ban!!!”

        “Full auto weapons have traditionally been tightly regulated. That means “precedence”. That means it’s all good.”

        However UnConstitutional.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Full auto weapons have traditionally been tightly regulated. That means “precedence”. “That means it’s all good.”

          “However UnConstitutional.”

          Indeed. Hence, “Buyer beware”.

  22. avatar Rocketman says:

    He got it almost exactly right. If you look at the original intent of the founding fathers like James Madison they wanted the civilian population to have arms comparable to what the military was using at the time. Since the military are currently using weapons like the M-4, M-16, M-240 and M-249, it’s fair to conclude that these full-auto weapons should be made available to the general public without restrictions. Fat chance though.

  23. avatar Matthew the Oilman says:

    All politics is a bell curve issue. I agree that all weapons available to the military should be available to the public at large, that is a extreme point. When arguing issues it is best to stay in the 70 percent range and slloowwllyy move the curve in our directions . We didn’t get here over night and it is a project of many years to get us back.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      That has been the Commiecrat playbook to the Infringements we now find ourselves with.

  24. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    The Supreme Court seems to change its mind on the Second Amendment as fast as most people change their socks. And of course the Founding Fathers wrote it in such vague and confusing terms to be honest it can be interpreted in a variety of ways which was the intent when it was written. It was written the way it was written to give the people in power a way out. In other words if their power was threatened they could ban guns from civilian use by claiming you could not own weapons unless you belonged to a State Controlled militia. As time went on the White’s who were in a genocidal war against the Red Man began believing that the individual had a right to own weapons and back in those times the government who was not under threat lets things ride the way they were.

    As time moved on and weapons became more destructive the Supreme Court finally heard a case in the 1930’s when a man was arrested with a sawed of short barreled shotgun. The court ruled that the local law that banned them was constitutional because they erroneously claimed the shotgun was not a military weapon and only military weapons were protected under the Second Amendment which again refers to the part of the Amendment about Militia’s. The “way out” was now being used by the people in power. Years later under the anti-gun Reagan Regime Reagan used the excuse to ban full auto weapons was because they were military weapons and not suitable for sporting use and once again the Supreme Court changed its mind. Clinton was quick to capitalize on this new philosophy as well when he passed his semi-auto restrictions because he said they were not suitable for sporting use and once again the courts agreed.

    As we move on in time Scalia made the decision that people did have the right to own weapons as a constitutional right but after his death and with all the mass shootings now the Supreme Court is once again ducking the issue and letting stand gun ban after gun ban in state after state. California has went so far as to completely trash the Scalia ruling and has banned concealed carry as well as open carry and once again the courts seem to be going along with this.

    Another point is that often when a person is appointed to the Supreme Court it in no way means the person will rule as he once did or as he claimed he would when getting confirmed. President Eisenhower once appointed a Conservative who when in power voted more with the Liberals than the Conservatives and Eisenhower made the statement this appointment was one of his greatest mistakes. In other words nothing is certain and the Conservative Justices do not always rule in favor of gun owners especially if there is a majority of public opinion wanting them to vote the other way as public opinion often exerts great pressure on them.

    If Kavanough is not confirmed an a more middle of the road Conservative is appointed to the bench the Second Amendment will once again be subject to the mood and whim of the Court and with all the mass shootings that seem to now be the norm it does not look good for gun owners even if Kavanough would be appointed because even if he remains true to his former pro-gun stance he is only one man on the court and the rest of the court could very well over rule him or simply take the cowards way out as they usually do and simply refuse to hear any Second Amendment cases letting lower court gun bans stand.

  25. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    I remember watching the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. History is repeating itself. Democrats are just as evil today as they were back then.

    This is not about abortion. That is a fig leaf. This is only about guns. Thomas is also very pro gun.

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

      I imagine Thomas was *steaming* watching those hearings, remembering what they did to him…

    2. avatar Guardiano says:

      This is absolutely about abortion. The left isn’t hiding anything anymore. If they were that concerned about Kav’s stance on guns they’d say it.

  26. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    P.S.
    Brett Kavanough is as anti machine gun as many on TTAG and the rest of the gun community are anti Bump Stock.

    I don’t like it. I can’t afford a real machine gun. But I still want Kavanough confirmed.

  27. avatar strych9 says:

    Ranting incoming…

    Viewing this confirmation, and the Left’s reaction to it, through the prism of any one issue such as abortion or the 2A is myopic at best.

    The Left doesn’t hate this guy nor do they champion to woman who made allegations against him. Both are pawns caught in a nasty political fight that is far larger than any one issue.

    The major issues here are as follows: The Left wants power and has derived a significant amount of that power so far from “winning” in the court system. They have done this in a number of ways but the main one is a two pronged assault that involves filing fuckloads of lawsuits which, we might argue, clog up the court system.

    The reason this is double pronged is because as the lawsuits wend their way through the system they eventually get to the point where they might be granted cert by the SCOTUS. Some of them are and up until now the Left has had a somewhat decent shot at having the court come down on the Left’s side of the case. On the other hand lower courts having, for some time, been somewhat more liberal leaning have tended to side with the Left and the SCOTUS in many of these cases has not granted cert because 1) They don’t want the case or 2) they don’t have time for the case. This has allowed the Left to have situations where they have won by default because the lower court ruling in their favor simply stood.

    A more conservative SCOTUS might take cases where the Left would really prefer the court not to have taken the case because the Left knows the SCOTUS is more likely to rule against them and on top of that the court is more likely to rule against them not just on guns or whatever but on just about everything where the Left wants power and until recently has been able to grab and hold on to it via bureaucratic BS or via choking up the court system. An overall shift in the SCOTUS and therefore the outcome of cases before the SCOTUS and therefore the dreaded precedent that Nash worries about so much is what terrifies the Left at this point. They see the WHOLE of their power “slip slidin’ away”.

    Further, the reason that viewing this as being about, say, abortion, is stupid is that the court overturning Roe is highly unlikely. In order for that to happen someone (or some entity) with standing would have to launch a valid case that would have to make it to the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS would have to accept it and then find for one or the other sides in that case in a way that overturns Roe v. Wade. That combination of outcomes is highly, highly unlikely if for no other reason than that even a very conservative court wouldn’t want to touch Roe with a 10 foot pole due to the problems that would potentially cause. Like the ATF banning bump stocks, this is a can of worms the SCOTUS doesn’t want to open up.

    Sorry, about that. /end rant.

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

      “The Left doesn’t hate this guy nor do they champion to woman who made allegations against him.”

      Do you read the comment sections in your local newspapers? That hatred is real.

      They may be Leftist dupes, patsies, rubes, what ever, but that hated is very, *very* real…

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I do read it. It’s childish bullshit because they don’t have any other way to “focus” their anger.

        The truth is they lack the English skills to articulate their true feelings. So they attack Kavanagh with words because they lack the ability to truly engage on an educated adult level. These people barely have an English education never mind a few decent philosophy classes under their belt.

        If you talk to these people it’s rarely personal, it’s about what the guy stands for, not the guy. In this case they make it “about the guy” because he is the one up for the nomination and has become “what they need to defeat”. Attacking him is what delays the process and stalls for time, that’s why they’re doing it.

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

          They’re not just attacking him. His *kids* are going to feel the effects of this.

          And kids can be far worse than adults in cruelty…

  28. avatar Chris. says:

    “ that’s a bit like saying books can be banned because people can always read newspapers.“

    Which is exactly the point of course. If we could get a ban on ‘books’ to stick, it would give that longstanding precedent to attack ‘newspapers ‘.

    They already try this reach. “Machine guns” are ‘defectors banned’ and semi-autos are similar therefore they can be banned too.

  29. avatar Sora says:

    Give this man a medal.
    I saw this attack cartoon on Kavanaugh, “I believe in the right to choose…. Semi of Full Auto!”

    And I was like, “DAMN RIGHT!”

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