SCOTUs has another gun case, and it should be interesting

[Into the Night]

Not according to Thomas’s Originalism logic, if the Founders didn’t consider threats to women serious, it doesn’t matter what you or anyone thinks is a “direct threat of violence” toward women

You don't get to speak for the dead.

 

[Into the Night]

Have to wait and see the majority opinion, to see how they rule that the right to a gun isn’t absolute, especially since there is no historical evidence to show the Founders banned weapons from those threatening women. Going to be interesting

The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution, and no ability to remove an absolute right.

 

[Into the Night]

I didn't mention threats. Try reading with comprehension

You're asking anchovies to read with comprehension????!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Into the Night]

That makes sense to me, but there are many you won't convince.

They'll tell you that the right to drive a motor vehicle isn't constitutionally guaranteed,
so the comparison is invalid.

A gun is not a car.

 

[Into the Night]

breaking this down in to its most simplistic terms does not make your argument. This guy already assaulted the woman, recklessly endangered people by firing in the air, DIRECTLY threatening a good samaritan who tried to intervene, and repeatedly violated a court order while repeatedly threatening the girl in question...........how many laws were broken and this guy was still free? the government failed everyone here.

This is the key point. Why is this loser still walking around free??

 

[Into the Night]

I am one she won't convince. I have no intent on paying insurance on the guns I don't use, especially when they are locked up.

Yep. she keeps throwing that automobile insurance shit out, but it ain't gonna stick.

It is unconstitutional to require the purchase of insurance or any other product.

 

[Into the Night]

If this court has any Constitutional integrity, they will opine that there is an absolute right, up to and including machine guns, because there is no historical evidence to show 'weapons of war' shouldn't be in civilian hands. This whole 'govt is supposed to protect us' bullshit needs to be tossed aside and force people to take responsibility for their own safety again.

Bingo. The best defense against a mass shooter is to shoot back. The best defense against an attacker is to shoot back.

 

[Into the Night]

Our Supreme Court. Heads still stuck in the 18th century.

Irrelevant. The Constitution has no date of expiration on it.

 

[Into the Night]

Of course it isn’t, not saying it is, but if the SCOTUS rules here that those threatening violence can be denied a gun aren’t they confirm that the right to own a gun is not absolute, that it can be regulated?

It cannot be 'regulated' (limited). It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any gun.
The right to weapons is absolute. There is NOTHING the court nor any oppressive government can do to take that away.
The right of self defense is absolute. There is NOTHING the court nor any oppressive government can do to take that away.

 

[Into the Night]

Appears the whole issue at hand went right over “stone’s” head, let’s try it again

In Bruen, Thomas, authoring the majority opinion, wrote that NY could not make a person show proof of why he needed to carry because going back to the Founders there was no example of anyone being barred from carrying guns, pure Originalism, telling us what the Founders thought, kinda like you do often

And now they have a case infront of them where one with a history of domestic violence is being denied a gun due to the safety of his female companion. So if the Founders never even considered women as full citizens, and the thought at the time was that husbands owned their wives, meaning domestic violence wasn’t considered threatening, wouldn’t they have to rule that this dimwit can not be denied a gun?

If they don’t, aren’t they flat out contradicting themselves? Admitting gun rights are not absolute and can be regulated? And your supposed perspective into the Founders thinking of two hundred dred years ago is sketchy at best?

You don't get to speak for the dead.

 

[Into the Night]

Bet you anything they won’t, being 100% political, after their decision on abortion the last thing Roberts wants is his Court being seen as inconsiderate of women, turning the Court back to the time of the Founders and their views on women

You don't get to speak for the dead.

 

[Into the Night]

Here we go with the “freedom” crap again, how many times have I told you freedom is an abstract concept, not a bumper sticker cliche, rights are based on reason not desire, didn’t you ever notice you gave up the freedom to drive on the left handed side of the road for a reason

A gun is not a car.

 

[Into the Night]

But the “Colonial era case” set the precedent regarding who can possess guns, and it is the argument you see gun advocates professing endlessly. If they decide in favor of public safety, which is the common sense solution, they somewhat contradicted themselves, and verified that it is not an absolute right, public safety would be a consideration

WRONG. It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any gun. Weapons are an absolute right. Self defense is an absolute right.
Disarming citizens while crooks still carry guns is NOT 'public safety'.

 

[Into the Night]

Ah, no, the case infront of the Robert’s Court is about denying a person with a history of threats of domestic violence from possessing a gun

If you are going to exchange at least know what the issue under discussion is

It is unconstitutional.

 

[Into the Night]

Yet you brought up Rahimi who doesn't have a history of threats, but instead actual acts of violence and public endangerment using a firearm.

Why is this loser still free walking the streets? Doesn't a felony like these require jail time??

I'm well aware of the case.

What the Biden DOI is arguing is that anyone the state or federal government deems "irresponsible" can be denied constitutional rights. Garland's thugs are trying to leverage the openly felonious acts or Rahimi to deny civil rights to those who have committed no crimes.

Bingo.

Should SCOTUS rule the way you want, it could be bad news for Hunter Biden, BTW.

Nah. He's above the law, right?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

SCOTUS has no authority to interpret the Constitution.

You're totally insane, Milquetoast,
but that's not the problem here.

You're also totally stupid.

Interpreting the constitution is their specific job.

I can't be wasting my time with you.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

So how does Thomas and Scalia decide

I doubt Scalia will decide anything.......he's dead.......

 

[Into the Night]

You're totally insane, Milquetoast,
but that's not the problem here.

You're also totally stupid.

Interpreting the constitution is their specific job.

I can't be wasting my time with you.

The Supreme Court has no authority to interpret the Constitution. You are denying the Constitution again.

 

[RB 60]

So what happens to the auto you have that you registered for, and took obtained a license to use, if you let your auto insurance expire? Especially if you are out driving it and get into an accident where a person in the other car is physically injured?

And that is how it will work

Don't worry, it ain't happening.

 

[Bigdog]

So how does Thomas and Scalia decide given there is no historical evidence of barring people from owning guns due to the possibility domestic violence against women?

So you base your whole argument on the narrative that women NEVER commit Domestic Violence.

What if she simply claims to be trans or non binary for a day?