Justice Sotomayor car jacking
- Thread starter ihhawk
- Start date
18 year old male pulled a gun on two US Marshals . Earned a prize.
Last edited:
I don’t think she’s wrong. I think the framers were speaking of the militia which served as a supplemental part of the military and was a recruiting tool for the military or provided patrols to protect their communities. In our modern age militia is obsolete due to our armed forces and police forces.
Hypocrites need armed protection too, it seems.
What's hypocritical here?
Do you Jackholes know we have an ***Official FAFO Thread***?
The CBS Evening News described it as a "non life threatening injury to the jaw". Hahahahaha! Don't tap your gun on the window of a U.S. Marshall protecting a supreme court justice.
Pulled a guy 💦 on to two Marshals? Sounds right up your alley, Squirt 😘
She’s wrong.
Noteworthy that the Supreme Court in the 1850s viewed the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, along with others in the Bill of Rights, and made no mention of militia.
If membership in an organized militia were a requisite of the right to keep and bear arms, I think Taney would have been assuaged that State legislatures could preclude blacks from keeping and bearing arms if they were citizens:
In the Dred Scott decision the court observed the rights of citizens:
‘persons…, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.’
If your legal theory were correct (gun ownership is tied solely to militia service) Taney would have nothing to fear with regard to former slaves being armed if they could only do so under the stipulations of the Congress or legislature. But he observed no such limitation. You can’t find it in the writings of the Founders a few decades prior either. It’s a whole cloth invention that requires ignorance of the history of the revolution and the Bill of Rights.
C’mon man, where in the second amendment does it talk about militias? Next you will try to tell me that it talks about regulation.
Vigilantes aren't "militias" or "police forces".
Your organization must have the dumbest fu#%*ng HR department on the planet.
Anyway, this thug who tried to carjack a sitting Supreme Court Justice chose extremely poorly.
The Roberts court has given us the road map on overturning the 2nd. We just need to use it when the chance arises
This phony judge who said the Second Amendment wasn’t written to protect a private right of armed self defense…while living behind a bunch of armed self defense providers, paid for by the taxpayers she sought to disarm…and your brilliant mind sees no hypocrisy there?
🤡
Yeah, you're just an idiot. There isn't any hypocrisy here, you've just stated it yourself.
Your notion of hypocrisy on this matter is based on your "feelings" rather than an actual analysis of Sotomoyer's legal reasoning on the issue.
Same Sotomoyer who said during covid “we have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators.” Another crazy ass leftist making up shit to match her agenda. A joke as a legal mind.
Today's SCOTUS has upended decades of precedence, although they all acknowledged the precedence of precedence in their confirmation hearings.
Go figure.
She doesn’t need one she has hired guns. You’ll go to the go to and drop to knees where you normally get “shot” from.
The rest of us do not have the privilege of hired arms against these criminals hence the needs for 2A as this clearly shows idiots/criminals illegally have them and unarmed law abiding citizens are easy pray for these low life scum.
She doesn’t need one when she has armed and highly trained security guarding her.
lol cuz slaves had any rights. Just because someone had an opinion 150 years ago doesn't mean it was right.
What was detailed were the rights of US citizens that blacks would have if they were not slaves.
When that ‘someone’ is the Supreme Court of the United States, and they recognize the ‘right of the people’ to include:
the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.’
The legal theory that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can only be exercised in conjunction with active service in the militia is a whole cloth invention.
If it were the case, the Taney court wouldn’t have acknowledged the second amendment ‘right of the people’ along with those of the first.
The rest of us need to vote for more restrictive gun access laws. Referring to the actual context of the Second Amendment.
In oder to disarm the lawful while the unlawful remain in possesion.
If you want to live in a civilized country not flush with guns, the only option is to move out of the USA.
And EVERY American citizen has multiple armed police officers assigned to providing them 24/7 protection too, right? Just like a Supreme Court justice?
Clown.
Just weird how all those countries with more rigorous gun laws have practically zero "car-jackings"....
