Ammo For Sale

« « Ok, then | Home | Gun Porn » »

The next SCOTUS gun case

Reason has some good commentary.

Meanwhile, the left is getting a case of the vapors:

It will also be the first opportunity for the Courts newest member, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, to begin building what promises to be a disastrous pro-gun legacy.

The author calls the fairly straightforward Heller case “radical”.

12 Responses to “The next SCOTUS gun case”

  1. Miles Says:

    Some proggie snowflake at the New Yorker believes Heller to be “radical”?
    I hope she collapses in hysterics to the point she becomes catatonic.
    Yeah, that’s harsh. It was meant to be.

  2. Sigivald Says:

    It was “radical”, in terms of precedents, no?

    Actually affirming a real, individual right to meaningfully keep and bear arms was a radical change at the Federal level, as I recall.

    (Heck, from a Leftist, “radical” isn’t an insult, right?!)

  3. Huck Says:

    I find it both amusing and disgusting hearing a Leftist call someone else “radical”.

  4. Tim Says:

    If you (understandably) occasionally get negative vibes from Mr. Trump, remember that *none* of this would be happening without him.

    The man single-handedly exploded both political parties & then dropped a hot, steamy, loaf on their fake platitudes.

    For that alone, he is easily the most consequential president in contemporary history.

    Adam was a liar, Moses a murderer, King David a serial adulterer.
    So DJT banged a couple porn stars? *Meh*

  5. rickn8or Says:

    “So DJT banged a couple porn stars? *Meh*”

    And as far as I’m concerned, the only person he has to answer to for that is the current FLOTUS.

  6. Lyle Says:

    Liberty is radical in light of the fact that brutal authoritarianism has dominated most of human history.

    So yes; any half-hearted support of anything that even resembles liberty is in fact “radical”.

    Republicans and Democrats on the other hand are, by the above standard, not “radical”. But I can say that, and actually defend it, only because I presented a context and definition of the word, which no one ever does in politics.

    In politics the goal is obfuscation and confusion. Clarity must be avoided at all times and at all cost.

    Words like “radical”, “extreme”, “common sense”, “compassion”, “Hope and Change”, “Make America Great Again”, “Racist!” etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. are used as alternatives to mentioning actual principles or calling attention to the war of evil against good. If all you can say about someone’s position is that it’s “radical” or whatever vague, never-explained dipshit term you can pull out of your ass, it’s because you have no argument, or because you wish to specifically avoid getting too close to the truth.

  7. Ron W Says:

    As usual, very well said, Lyle.

    I submit that the Liberty of the American Revolution was and is “radical” in comparison to and the opposite “extreme” of the “brutal authoritarianism (which)has dominated most if human history.” And there are now many in positions of power who are openly working to re-introduce and impose that “brutal authoritarianism” on us.

    God Bless the Republic! Long Live the Revolution!

    “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.” –Thomas Jefferson

  8. Lyle Says:

    “Disastrous pro-gun legacy” is a contradiction in terms. If we take it as it was presumably intended (“pro-gun-rights legacy”), it’s a bit like “libertarian Democrat” in that it makes no sense whatsoever.

    On the other hand, we could interpret it as meaning that a pro-second amendment legacy would be “disastrous to the leftist/authoritarian/criminal cause”. In that sense it is at the same time consistent, logical and true. Therefore we must go with that interpretation.

  9. Mike Says:

    We can’t count on the media to tell us anything that doesn’t match whatever their narrative is.

  10. JimB Says:

    The whole pistol license scheme in NYC is a scam. When I left, 30+ years ago, I had a NYC pistol license. It was limited to target shooting though I could carry it if I were afield hunting. Any other time it had to be unloaded in a secure container to and from a range. Full carry only went to the connected. I only hope the entire Sullivan law gets tossed and shall issue replaces it. With a uniform cost throughout the state.

  11. Ron W Says:

    @JimB, that’s why I call NY a slave State in accordance with the 1857 SCOTUS Dred Scott decision which kept black people as non persons and slaves lest “they be able to go armed everywhere they went”. A chief historical aspect of slavery is that slaves are not allowed to go armed while their masters, the ruling elites, have armed protection.

  12. pkoning Says:

    Sigivald, no, Heller is not at all radical in terms of precedents. Victim disarmers like to claim that the individual right to bear arms was never upheld before, but that’s a flaming lie. You can see this discussed at great length in the books of Stephen Halbrook and Neale Schulman.
    One notable example I remember is the Texas Supreme Court recognizing, back in the 1850s or so (before the 14th Amendment) that the plain text of the 2nd Amendment makes it apply not just to the Federal government but to the States as well.