Another Trump SCOTUS Nominee Could Make the Difference for the Second Amendment

Supreme Court 2A second amendment

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

Hope springs eternal.

If President Trump and Senate Republicans succeed in pushing through a replacement with the election looming, they will tilt the Supreme Court further to the right for years to come. Many Americans are concerned about how this could impact the Affordable Care Act and the federal legality of abortion. But for the gun industry, it’s all about the Second Amendment.

“The next U.S. Supreme Court justice could give the orphaned Second Amendment the home it properly deserves among our God-given rights, freely exercised by law-abiding Americans,” said Mark Oliva, public affairs director for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry group.

Gun companies believe the Constitution is being violated in cities that forbid gun ownership, including the regional handgun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C., and assault weapon bans in Chicago, Massachusetts and Maryland. These restrictions were implemented to reduce gun violence, but they also reduce sales for gun retailers and manufacturers.

This is why the firearms industry is obsessed with maintaining a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

– Aaron Smith in With Justice Ginsburg Gone, Gun Makers Hope For A Firearm-Friendly Supreme Court

comments

  1. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    What I find ironic is how leftists are so worried about the second, yet they seem to forget that they’ve pushed so far left away from the center that they have voted for and support “abortions” after the child is born, which is murder and also want adults to be able to have “sex” with children, which is called rape. Somehow though, guns are the problem…🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

    1. avatar Ron says:

      Maoist lefties have declared open war on the first amendment too.

      1. avatar Shire-man says:

        Makes it extra humorous to see all the “First Amendment Anniversary” agitprop pieces put out by the MSM over the last 24 hours that never occurred in years past.

        Like a final plea to be relevant, trusted and believed before the abyss swallows them.

        1. avatar Debbie W. says:

          An order to surrender your guns to a pos like VA gov. blackface goes in effect at the stroke of midnight. Will you keep your guns or surrender your guns? Something like that could happen following a USSC decision on the behalf of a sicko like jim crow Gun Control democRat gov. blackface. The answer to that tyrannical insane crap is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow so no, hell no and f-you.

          All this USSC selection is about is someone to fill an opening who does not want or desire to redecorate The United States Constitution with marxist manure. Protecting 2A Rights preserves freedom and prevents millions from one day coming down on rotten Gun Control Zealots. The kind of zealots who run around every day filling the heads of gullible do gooders with an agenda that is rooted in racism and genocide. Do sleazy Gun Control Zealots ever explain the origin of Gun Control to their followers? No they do not. So that leaves their useful idiots to assume Gun Control came from Gummi Bears.

          Americans exercising their Rights are sick and tired of threats coming from pompous democRat turds like gov. blackface who thinks he is a king. Sucks to be him if ever America gets fed up enough to cut loose on those carrying around a racist and nazi based agenda better known as Gun Control.

          TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

    2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      Hey, does everyone remember 40ish years ago when us then young whipper snappers poo pooed the old fuddy duddys and religious folks who claimed that the push for gay rights was just a foot in the door to normalizing pedophelia? Looks like that conspiracy theory panned out after all. Kind of makes one wonder about all of the other conspiracy theories.

      1. avatar Prndll says:

        Over the course of the Trump presidency, MANY ‘conspiracy theories’ have turned out to be quite accurate and true. Particularly in 2020. It just doesn’t get talked about so much. Instead, all we hear about is foolishness and BS.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Someone told you that pedophilia has been “normalized”? Nobody could be that stupid. Meaning your post is nonsense.

    3. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

      The pro abortion activists have actually argued that easy access to abortion reduces future crime because it encourages young, poor, unwed, Black mothers to abort babies that are destined to grow up to become drug dealers, gang members, robbers, rapists and murders.

    4. avatar enuf says:

      You are completely full of shit. Nobody supports the rape or murder of children.

      What are you? One of those “Q” fuckwits?

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Just like nobody wants to take your guns.

      2. avatar Dude says:

        “Nobody supports the rape or murder of children.” Biden voters do.

        In California, a 24 year old can have “consensual” sex with a 14 year old without being registered as a sex offender. Who supported that? Democrats. You’re sick if you think a 24 year old having sex with a 14 year old shouldn’t be labeled as a predator. Gay or straight, it shouldn’t matter. They didn’t this under the guise of fighting for LGBTQ rights, by the way. What a joke.
        https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145

        All but three democrat U.S. Senators voted against the Born Alive Act. That isn’t just the murder of children, it’s the murder of innocent, defenseless babies. The vast majority of pro-choice voters are against late term abortion, and are horrified when they’re told that doctors actually kill viable babies that have been 90% delivered.
        https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/311/text

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Killing a child which has been born alive is currently murder in every state I know of, and is not the business of the federal government at any rate, I never heard of this bill you are so big on, suspect it has aspects which are hidden. How about some documentation of just how many infants are affected in a given year, seems like any woman who wished to abort would not carry a fetus for 9 months first. Sounds like your complaints are fictional.

      3. avatar rt66paul says:

        If you legalize sex with a minor, the minor is in charge, so if the minor is ok with it, sex with an adult is not rape. In Ca, the Romeo and Juliette law was for teens in love – not jailing an over 18 teen for having male/female sex with a younger teen(I think it was 6 years difference?). The homosexual community got into it and wants to make anal sex with a minor legal.
        So let us allow an older teen to whom your son looks up, have his first sexual experience a homosexual one. Many on the left feel that is ok. I would much rather see my son having sex with the girl next door or the school tramp, for his first experience. Of course, keeping it in his pants is preferred, but the Biblical Imperative(call it human nature, if you will) could force the issue.

    5. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You need to get off socialist media for your news, that is all bullshit.

  2. avatar Missouri_Mule Esquire Emeritus says:

    Amy Coney Barret “the .50 caliber nominee”?

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      It looks like it.

      She appears to strong on 2A rights, to the point that she believes only violent felons should lose their gun rights.

      Selling a pig without a license shouldn’t be grounds for being declared a prohibited person…

      1. avatar Missouri_Mule Esquire Emeritus says:

        She has some recent pro 2A record with a near 20 year history as pro written constitution.
        That said, I don’t trust anyone till the ruling is made.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “That said, I don’t trust anyone till the ruling is made.”

          We can thank the traitor Roberts for that.

          What does concern me is, if Roberts was threatened to vote Left, ACB could get threatened as well…

        2. avatar Pookie Numbscull says:

          Roberts has been compromised. I’m sure they have some kind of dirt on him, that or he’s senile, those are the only two logical explanations for his inconsistent understanding of written English.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          In Roberts case it could be as simple as ego. He wants to be seen as the great ‘voice of reason’. He doesn’t study each case to see if it passes muster. He looks for his ability to write a somber opinion on it.

      2. avatar Paul says:

        When I go to a used pig lot, I always double check for the pig dealer’s license. I sure don’t want to arrive at the revenue office, and be denied registration and license plates for my pig!

  3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    “If President Trump and Senate Republicans succeed in pushing through a replacement with the election looming, they will tilt the Supreme Court further to the right for years to come.”

    I’m not so sure about that one. It could go a number of ways.

    If Trump wins, we will have 4 years to get 2A rights recognized by the high court. Then, it’s likely a Leftist will win the WH. (Historically, voters are open to the opposing party taking control after a 2-term president.)

    The real dynamic will be control of both the WH and Senate at the same time. If Biden wins and we keep the Senate, we could keep an open seat on the court open by simply refusing to confirm Biden’s pick. Dirty pool, yes, but entirely constitutional. They would have to suck on it.

    If we did that, chances are solid the next time they control both the WH and Senate, the court would be expanded to insure the Leftists control the court. That means gutting the 2A is on the table for them.

    I’m beginning to believe that the high court being expanded will kick off this nation being split :

    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    We exercise the bail-out option…

    1. avatar Leigh says:

      And where would SCOTUS expansion end? The next time it turns R…pack the court the other way…ad infinitum?

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “And where would SCOTUS expansion end?”

        There’s no set maximum number.

        But I doubt it wouldn’t grow larger more than two cycles before the defecation hits the oscillating air-moving device…

        “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,…”

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Ah yes, the founders were wise enough that they were able to for see a exit clause, human nature being what it is.

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “…human nature being what it is.”

          In their case, inhuman nature… 🙁

        3. avatar Durrrr says:

          Geoff the Goof prefers the company of men, and if a man isn’t available he’ll settle for I Haz A Question.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        If Trump wins, as is likely, he should suggest the Dems go ahead and increase the size of the court, by 3, 5, 0r 192 justices whatever they like. When that settles down, we should be pushing for a Constitutional Amendment specifying 9 justices.

    2. avatar De Facto says:

      Gutting the entire Constitution is on the table for them. As a people we have not been this divided since the Civil War. We’re divided by culture, race, religion, and political ideology. Our politicians are making the situation worse instead of trying to restore peace – because all they care about is power. Trump is upsetting apple-carts left and right by putting the interests of the people first, but ultimately he’s one man. I think he is the last gasp of our dying political system, and we will not get another like him.

      A peaceful dissolution of the US, with people moving according to their political and religious beliefs would be the best answer. In order to have a shared Government you must have common ground with those you disagree with. We haven’t had that for at least 50 years.

      It was summed up best when our nation was founded.

      “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

      Remember. Our leftist subversives and politicians are well acquainted with Communist Mao’s teachings.
      “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” – Mao Zedong, Communist ruler of China & Mass Murderer.

  4. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

    We would prefer that black people are killed as babies (51% of black pregnancies are aborted) than killed as adult criminals by baby killing AR-15’s. Or as the Speaker of the House so eloquently put it: “Good morning. Sunday morning.”…. amazing… Her oratory and rhetoric about these pressing issues is truly Churchillian and unimpeachable.

    Eric Swalwell 2020

  5. avatar Leigh says:

    That’s assuming Roberts actually votes conservative…been wishy-washy sometimes.

    1. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

      Roberts? Wishy-washy? I completely disagree! He’s been absolutely 100% reliable!

      Eric Swalwell 2020

  6. avatar seatex says:

    My neighbor’s Dad, a Vietnam veteran, was showing me his .40 cal S&W M&P pistol, and then 5 minutes later saying he will vote for Biden because Trump made disparaging comments about vets.

    I told him that was fake news – Even John Bolton said he did not recall Trump making such comments.

    Since that went nowhere, I told him to kiss his pistol goodbye if he votes for Biden. He defended that by saying he didn’t think Biden could get that done, disregarding the entire point but admitting he would vote against his 2nd amendment.

    1. avatar Ron says:

      It’s unfortunate that there’s still so many people who just believe everything the news tells them. Especially when there’s epic megatons of information proving the media is a non stop lying leftist propaganda machine.

      1. avatar Joel says:

        Up until the daily press briefings, I personally believed the “fake news” hoopla to be overblown. I have always viewed all news articles with a certain level of skepticism, but believed there was at least an attempt at accuracy by the majority of the press.

        Then one day, I read a news article that said something to the affect of “Trump claims…….in press briefing..” and I remember thinking “I don’t remember hearing him say that?!?” So I went back and listened to the entire press briefing again. Sure enough, he did say the words attributed to him, but they had been taken out of context, and twisted to mean something completely different than what he actually communicated. Careful observation lead to the conclusion that this was not an isolated incident.

        1. avatar Paul says:

          Do you remember when it was impossible for the average American to hit “replay”? I love today’s computers and digital reporting. Today, you can go back, and examine what you saw and heard, to verify what was said, and what was not said. Of course, you have to be motivated to do so. MSM somehow gets away with false reporting, and millions of Americans never question what they have been told.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “careful observation lead to the conclusion”

          Joel (and everybody else), the past tense of the verb “lead” is “led”, not “lead”. There is a noun which is pronounced the same as “led”, and spelled “lead”, but it is the name of a metal. Puh-leeze, that is being fouled up 100% of the time.

    2. avatar De Facto says:

      Pass Biden’s speech to the troops, where he called them a dull bunch and then told them “clap you stupid bastards”.

      It won’t matter, since your neighbor’s dad likely suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome and lacks critical thinking skills. But try anyway.

      1. avatar napresto says:

        I watched that and it really just looked like one of Biden’s contrived and not especially funny “folksey” moments from before his cognitive function began to truly decline, not an actual attempt to insult the military.

        Basically a nothing burger a lot like the similar hit on Trump.

        1. avatar De Facto says:

          I wouldn’t say the two are even comparable. The accusations against Trump are unsubstantiated rumor disavowed by everyone with access to Trump and Trump himself. Biden’s gaffes are a matter of video record. It seems odd to me, that even though I’m a middle class American of no particular import, I apparently have a better sense of decorum than an elected official speaking in official capacity.

          Given the rather long history the Democratic party has of denigrating the armed services and holding them in contempt, I think it more likely than not that Joe’s sense of decorum was offset by his lack of respect for the people he was speaking to.

    3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “and then 5 minutes later saying he will vote for Biden because Trump made disparaging comments about vets.”

      Oh, boy, do I have a clip of Biden for you to show him :

      “Video Surfaces Of Biden Calling Troops “Stupid Bastards” When They Won’t Clap”

      “I have incredibly good judgment,” says Biden. “One, I married Jill, and two, I appointed Johnson to the academy. I just want you to know that.”

      When nobody reacts, Biden adds “Clap for that, you stupid bastards.”

      He then calls the soldiers a “dull bunch,” adding “It must be slow here, man.”

      https://www.zerohedge.com/political/video-surfaces-biden-calling-troops-stupid-bastards-when-they-wont-clap

    4. avatar muckraker says:

      Show him the clip of sleepy calling Soldiers stupid bastards. Maybe he’ll change his mind.

      1. avatar muckraker says:

        Little slow on the draw I guess. :0)

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Sometimes instead of a sniper we get a firing squad. 🙂

      2. avatar seatex says:

        I want to, but also don’t really even want to talk politics with him anymore. He’s not being logical and has already convinced himself “Orange man bad.” But, I will show him Biden’s recorded comments, just the same.

    5. avatar RGP says:

      I know a Vietnam vet who will tell you (DIRECT QUOTE!) that “Brains were not a prerequisite for the job!”

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I suppose that’s fair, although my job required a college degree before you could begin training.

  7. avatar Josey Wales says:

    Now let’s all say a prayer that when the hissy fits, temper tantrums and unsubstantiated claims start rolling from the Dems, we don’t get another Jeff Blake performance (circa Kavanaugh) of caving into a bunch BS. I’m just glad it’s a female being nominated cause, as we’ve all been taught, all men are sexual predators. Hence no risk of that. So which Republican Senator is most likely to be the “Barrett Nomination Jeff Blake? I’m calling Romney. Any predictions??

    1. avatar De Facto says:

      They’re already starting to try and smear her for adopting a couple black kids from Haiti. Lindsay Graham said that after the Kavanaugh debacle “all bets are off” because I think it took that circus for him to realize that the good old boys club of frenemies, political horse trading and implicit codes of conduct was over.

      The left will invent something to smear her with. If the adoption smearing doesn’t work, they’ll make something else up.

      I hope she gets confirmed anyway. Her jurisprudence thus far is reasonable and sticks to interpreting and applying the law as written, not legislating from the bench. Who you clerk for is also important (let’s not forget Roberts clerked for Kennedy, that should have been a giant red flag for more than just me) and she clerked for Scalia.

      1. avatar Josey Wales says:

        @Facto…I never thought about the angle of “who you clerked for”…that’s high level thinking right there! Awesome take away!!+++

      2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “and she clerked for Scalia.”

        And apparently, she was one of Scalia’s favorites…

        1. avatar Josey Wales says:

          A female Scalia would be the “nuclear winter” for the left!! Grab the popcorn, pop open a beer and watch the meltdown happen in real time. I’m still calling for one of the R”s to cave to the crowd..just a question of who and for what reason. Just my humble opinion.

        1. avatar Darkman says:

          Judge Barrett faced everything the Left had when she was confirmed for the 7th Circuit Bench. Hopefully they will go Bat Shit Crazy on her this time. Knowing she can handle it. i believe it will harm the Democrats ability to attract the much of the average American Women’s vote.”Watkins (1961), the Supreme Court unanimously held that religious tests for state office-holding violate the religion clauses of the First Amendment. “[N]either a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion,’” the Court declared”. The previous court ruling is a basis to show any attempt to force or hold Judge Barrett to a litmus test on her religious beliefs can be considered Unethical at best and Illegal at worst. So let them bring it on. There is nothing better than allowing the Democrats to show the nation who they truly are. As repugnant as it is to have to see. #Trump/Pence 2020

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          The harder they go after her, the more it will piss us off, and motivate us to vote…

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Hey, her Haitian kids are black, right? How about we float the idea they weren’t adopted, they were enslaved!? Cool, huh? Watch for it, I no longer believe they consider anything off limits, or a bridge too far.

  8. avatar Prndll says:

    You don’t have to like Trump. ‘Liking’ him has never been a concern. Too many people hang on every single word he says. Granted, his high level of power makes every word he says important. Trump is doing things that NEED to be done. Things that no one else would/could do. If it were not for the deranged lunacy on the left, I think he would end up being considered on of this nations greatest presidents. When it matters most, he takes care of business. As much as the bump-stock thing bothers me, it doesn’t hold a candle to everything else. My vote still goes to him and is as strong (if not stronger) than it was in 2016.

    1. avatar Joel says:

      As a Texas resident, I have enjoyed being able to vote my conscience without jeopardizing 38 electoral votes. So I didn’t vote for Romney, and I didn’t vote for Trump in 16’. Other individuals better represented my values, so I wrote their names in instead.

      However, after watching Trump do his absolute best to be the president he promised to be, and do the things he promised to do, as well as his performance during the last 6 months, I will happily and proudly vote for him this November. And I do not believe I am alone. Trump 2020!

      1. avatar Mercury says:

        Primaries are the place for the kind of voting you’ve been doing. Always vote for the nominee of the party that best represents your interests (or least misrepresents them, if you prefer to look at it that way.) This is not about “hold your nose and vote Republican,” this is about a central feature of our republic. Primaries are where individuals seek ideal representatives, and if you aren’t voting in them you may as well not be voting at all. Unless somehow, through that primary process, you find yourself looking at two candidates between whom you honestly have no preference whatsoever, you should vote for the one you prefer rather than functionally giving your vote to his opponent by voting instead for the would-be nominee you voted for / should have voted for in primaries.

        1. avatar Joel says:

          I vote in the primaries as well, but my preferred candidates haven’t been making the final cut on the national level. Texas has been reliably RED the last decade or so, both in state wide elections as well as in my county and local elections. In 16’, while I really wasn’t sure if Trump could win the presidency, I was confident he would win Texas.

          I am a big fan of the electoral college. It is one of the many brilliant institutions our founders created. Among other things, it allows a voice to both the middle of the road voters, as well as voters who lean farther to the right OR the left. When a President wins an election but loses the popular vote, (such as in 16’), it sends the message that they will have to lean a little more towards their parties natural bent to keep the voters satisfied.

      2. avatar rt66paul says:

        That is true for many of us Independents. Trump was hated before he ever ran for president, he has enemies everywhere. Some of his business practices, although legal, were suspect. He left many contractors holding the bag, bankrupting one company after another to keep his wealth to himself. No worse than other businessmen might do, but it never should have been legal in the first place.
        He has many faults, as most people do. That being said, he is what we have needed these last 4 years to undo some of the damage done post Nixon. Hopefully, he will continue the same over the next 4 years.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Well said, Joel! I am 74, and I do not recall a President during my lifetime who has tried so hard or as effectively, to keep the promises he made to the voter. President, HELL, now that I think of it, scratch that, “a politician during my lifetime”. He has earned reelection more than anyone I recall, in any position.

      4. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Whether you like him or not.

  9. avatar FormerParatrooper says:

    It is important that we vote, and vote for the proper reasons. It is a simple choice between returning to the walk back to being a Republic or the the slide to Socialism and then Communism. Choices in the voting booth are important and is more than the Party affiliation of the candidate. Research all of your choices, look at their records and then pull the lever.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      @FormerParatrooper. You hit the nail on the head. This election is about either Saving and Continuing to be a Republic or Continuing down the road to Socialism. Much of the Noise coming from the Fake News Media is intended to take people’s eye off “That Ball”. The old bait and switch of Look Here while They do That Over There. Allowing to Fake News Media to control the Narrative and the Socialist Democrats to define the Terminology has been the driving force in their bid to Redefine the Ideals, Morals and History of Our Nation. Continually pushing points of contention to divide one side from another as well as groups within each side has been their long term strategy for decades. The more turmoil they can create among the populace the more of their Agenda they can slip under the radar. When asked upon the signing of the Constitution. What have you given Us a Republic or a Monarchy…Thomas Jefferson replied: “A Republic if you can keep it”. Since that day (September 17, 1787 the most important duty left to the Citizenry has been the preservation of the Constitution and the Republic from which it was founded. It is the duty of the Citizenry to prevent it’s destruction from All Enemies both Foreign and Domestic. Including those
      Politicians, Judges, Bureaucrats, Media or Citizens who would effect it’s destruction. For without the Constitution there is no Republic. Without the Republic there is but Tyranny… Keep Your Powder Dry.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        “A Republic if you can keep it.”

        The 16th and 17th amendments to the Constitution, 100 years ago, proved that our forebears didn’t want it and couldn’t keep it. Those two amendments flat-out killed the republic as the framers envisioned it. All the shit we’re currently dealing with was inevitable when the ink dried.

    2. avatar gus says:

      remember the other day when it was told how all the politicians in someone’s county were democrats rebadged as repubs. and they did democrat stuff.

      or the LGTBBQ(cat walking on keyboard) satanist that got elected as sheriff, simply to prove a point that people didn’t know anything about who they were voting for.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      Dude, Dudette or Whatever the link does not exist. Fix it or Be Gone.

    2. avatar Paul says:

      spam link takes you to some tired old broad making a million dollars a day for doing nothing

  10. avatar Steven Sampo says:

    He chose Barrett last night

  11. avatar Koobearpug says:

    One thing I don’t see a lot of people talking about when they the second amendment is under attack is a discussion on the numerous amount of laws that stop you from defending yourself or property. Even if we can own guns, if everytime we go to use them in accordance with the original intent, you get charged with a crime and face 10’s of thousands or possibly into the 100k range in legal fee’s plus time served while waiting for your chance to defend yourself, then the second amendment is essentially nullified. Most Americans can’t afford that fight unless their case makes the new and people donate to their cause. All of that is only your first hurdle because then you have to defend yourself in a civil case if you get off on the criminal case. These are very real threats to the second amendment and they need to be talked about pushed through the courts. Also not a lawyer just an active duty military guy do if i said something completely off base legally i apologize.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      Not sure what state you live in, but in mine none of that applies. #VotesMatter.

  12. avatar 2a says:

    Think another 2 after the election. Maybe Breyer and hopefully Thomas so that we don’t get a ginsburg situation if Thomas stays on past Trump……so we also need to vote for, yes, every spineless, weak, cowardly, back stabbing Republican Senator….we can’t replace breyer without the republicans holding the Senate…so go out and vote to save the 2nd Amendment.

    1. avatar De Facto says:

      I have thought this as well. I heartily enjoy Thomas and his opinions (no nonsense, blunt, to the point, founded in law, not opinion) but I would far rather he and Trump seek out a worthy successor than discover him dead in bed with a pillow over his face 3 weeks into a Democratic Presidency.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Thank’s for the link!

  13. avatar enuf says:

    “Another Trump SCOTUS Nominee Could Make the Difference for the Second Amendment”

    It’s the word “Could” in that title that doesn’t make any sense. Change the “Could” to “Will” or “Shall” and you will be spot on target.

    This is where the usefulness of that idiot ends. The Federalist society has held sway over Traitor Trump’s judicial appointments from Day 1. Of course the new justice will be pro-Second Amendment. Has to be, Trump cannot afford to make any other type of appointment. Gun owner votes are simply too important to his re-election.

    This part is as good as a done deal.

    The Affordable Care Act and Roe v. Wade are different problems for the political right wing. The thing is, that Barrett is similar to Thomas when it comes to overturning SCOTUS precedents. Those two are willing to do so for relatively light reasoning without regard to impact of their decision. They have both said so.

    Not so the other seven justices. They have all spoken to a tougher standard on overturning past SCOTUS decisions. There is no certainty of getting a conservative majority on Roe V. Wade.

    The Affordable Care Act tho, much greater chance of that being overturned.

    Which would make heaps of money for insurance companies and kill more Americans.

    So, we’ve got that, and of course a solid set of pro Second Amendment votes, to look forward to.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      “Which would make heaps of money for insurance companies and kill more Americans.”

      Except health insurance companies made a fortune during Obamacare. Remember that time period when the economy was trash and most people were struggling? Obama even taxed the hard working middle class that made just enough not to get the subsidies, but not enough to be able to afford the now more expensive health insurance. What did Obama do with that tax money? He gave it to the ultra wealthy health insurance companies! This is why so many people were upset over the Obamacare disaster. The hardest hit were self-employed and small businesses.

      “Thanks to the insurance industry’s combination of record profits in recent years and increasing premiums, people on both sides of the political aisle have criticized the Affordable Care Act as being more beneficial to the insurance industry than consumers, though politicians remain deeply divided on what a good, viable alternative would entail.”
      https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/health-insurance-industry-rakes-in-billions-while-blaming-obamacare-for-losses-110116.html

      “kill more Americans”

      You’re like the internet troll version of CNN. The average life expectancy actually DECREASED under Obamacare. Democrat politicians were even caught on tape openly cheering the news because the hardest hit demographic was white men. It looks like the main culprit was drug (think opioid) related deaths. The ACA may have even helped to fuel this through the Medicaid expansion. This was another problem that Trump had to work on cleaning up when he came into office.

    2. avatar De Facto says:

      Oh Doug,
      The ACA was the worst possible combination of private insurance and Government. The average American was sold on it by “if you have your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor” and other lies and misdirections that were then proven to be lies and misdirections.. The average American’s premiums doubled, trebled, or worse, and the scope of coverage changed drastically for the worse in many cases. So if it is overturned, so much the better. The US would be far better served by healthcare reforms that would lower operating costs (such as limiting malpractice suits by ambulance chasers like John Edwards, for example) and addressing monopolistic powers (such as the sleazebag Martin Shkreli), to say nothing of the parasites on society that use the hospital as a revolving door hotel bed, breakfast and treatment center and never pay a cent thanks to bleeding heart legislation mandating their treatment – the local healthcare conglomerate in my metro area wrote off almost a billion dollars last year alone in unpaid medical bills by these types. It’s free for the parasites, but the rest of us are picking up the tab. The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but it’s less effective than a number of other first world countries. We should look to those countries and how their healthcare is run instead of continuing to line the pockets of lawyers, insurance companies, and predatory pharmaceutical companies.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        One of Trump’s original campaign promises, which got his campaign started, was to repeal Osamacare. It’s a damn shame he has not been able to do so, but he has certainly tried. Once the individual mandate has been sunk, we may finally get there, the absolute BEST result would be to go back and never pass it, but that is water under the bridge. Everyone should understand, whether Trump says so or not, any plan which protects pre-existing conditions cannot work. Just examine yourself. You can pay 10-12,000 dollars a year to protect you if you come down with a disastrous medical condition, you can pay that amount for 30 years! Or, you can NOT pay that for the next 30 years (~$300,000+) and then, if you come down with that disease, buy the insurance then. Own up, now, which would you do? That cannot work.

  14. avatar rt66paul says:

    The real truth here is before Obamacare, the indigent that got to the hospital in time were cared for on the government’s dime, and the government wants a third party to pay for it. Unless the government goes for a “single payer” system(the government), it is going to cost more and more for the working people and those of means, because managed health care is just that, managed for profit.
    Putting the government in charge is not in the citizens’ best interests, because it allows for manipulation by people with an agenda.
    The government wants to shift all healthcare to a third party, or just tell people they are healed and dump them out on the public(like was done to state mental health hospitals). Big business likes this also, this way they do not pay any part of the bill for group insurance for their employees and their families.
    The problem here is laws that say the hospitals have to take a patient, even when he can not pay. Mandatory insurance is a must to keep hospitals going, someone has to pay, there is no free lunch.
    All these laws do is shift the burden to others, which will always be the working class. Standards of care for those who can afford it and a basic standard of care for those that can’t are the real goal, but they don’t want to say that.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Any public program must absolutely refuse any tiny bit of coverage for elective procedures. I am sick of paying for some whacko to get his dick cut off. No facelifts.

  15. avatar rt66paul says:

    Our income tax structure also adds to the problem. Wages to a working doctor are taxed at a wage rate. When that doctor incorporates , he pays much lower tax on “investment income” than he did on wages in his profession.
    Wages and salaries for regular workers(under the current income tax laws) were never meant to be taxed. The law was meant to tax companies that hired workers and showed a profit.
    This means a company has to pay taxes second hand through increased wages, which gives the advantage to those companies who do NOT produce product, like investment houses. It hurts companies that employ many workers. Many companies and corporations were all for this, but it came back to hurt the working man since many of these jobs can go to other countries with different laws.
    This gives a tax break to a doctor’s investments(like an x-ray clinic) and punishes him for doing his job as a doctor, working for a hospital/group.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Paul, that is a whisky dream, you’re trying to pretend that all that was passed was corporate income tax, when there was very clearly a personal income tax, as well. The problem was not who was taxed, but how much. During debates the voters were told endlessly that no one could even imagine rates exceeding 3%. If someone had even MENTIONED 90%, it would never have happened.

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