guns

[soberups]

Ah. So judges you disagree with are "activist judges" and don't know what they are talking about. Well, actually, by constitutional dictate that is what they do and at the level of Supreme Court Justice, their rulings aren't subject you your, my, or even Chad and Eric's right-wing spoonfed blather.

I do like to point out to my friends of both political leanings that the Court who ruled (correctly) in favor of gun rights ALSO ruled (correctly) in favor of gay marriage. I guess its only an "activist" court when it issues a ruling that you dont agree with.

 

[bbsam]

I do like to point out to my friends of both political leanings that the Court who ruled (correctly) in favor of gun rights ALSO ruled (correctly) in favor of gay marriage. I guess its only an "activist" court when it issues a ruling that you dont agree with.

That's why I think the Scalia Ginsburg debate is so intriguing. They are able to differ strongly and still be great friends. The country needs more of that.

 

[newfie]

Well we should probably at least listen to the reasoning behind the rulings rather than than through a Chad and Eric's filter.

You're not proposing the point that our supreme court is free of bias in their reasoning are you?

 

[bbsam]

You're not proposing the point that our supreme court is free of bias in their reasoning are you?

No. I'm suggesting that the Supreme Court holds considerable powers and we would do well to understand the reasoning behind their decisions. Maybe there is bias but there may also be strong court precedent.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

I do like to point out to my friends of both political leanings that the Court who ruled (correctly) in favor of gun rights ALSO ruled (correctly) in favor of gay marriage. I guess its only an "activist" court when it issues a ruling that you dont agree with.

Nice try.......but....... there is no correlation between gay marriage, gun rights, and an activist judge making a sound decision. Gun rights are specifically spelled out in The Second Amendment. Gay marriage is not. Only activist judge's opinions and feelings (that aren't based only any specific language in The Constitution) on the matter, combined with the ease of abusing their power, are they able to falsely interpret and twist The Constitution to reflect their agendas. If anything SCOTUS should defer to the 10th Amendment for gay marriage. But activist judges rule in favor of their opinions. Not The Constitution.

Lets get one thing clear about these judges. Yes, their opinions matter. But it's not supposed to be their personal, biased, agenda driven opinions that drives their decisions about Constitutional matters. It's supposed to be their opinions on what The Constitution ACTUALLY says and means that determines their rulings.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Well we should probably at least listen to the reasoning behind the rulings rather than than through a Chad and Eric's filter.

You are right about their filters. They know the laws and abide by them every single day and can easily filter out the BS that anti-gun/gun control liberals dish out about guns. People that aren't even qualified to make decisions pertaining to guns have, and still are, attempting to make purchasing and owning guns more restrictive then ever before. For example......right now we have to jump through hoops and pay a $200 "tax" on a rifle just because it's barrel is shorter than 16 inches. And that solves what "problem"? And we have to pay the same "tax" and jump through the same hoops to purchase a device simply because it suppresses (not silences) a gun. Again...what "problem" does that solve? We have powerful politicians that are scared to death of a rifle and call it an "assault rifle" because it looks scary when in reality it is no more affective than most of what they consider "normal rifles." These people are making stupid UNCONSTITUTIONAL decisions based on ignorance and fear. Chad and Eric know more about guns and the laws pertaining to them than most of the people that are anti-gun/gun control types. The one's that actually know these things are the most shameful because they still push on with their agendas.

 

[sailfish]

Get the 442. Taurus guns have terrible quality control and zero resale value. In my mind there is no need for a hammer on a snub nose anyway, they have low profile sights and were never designed for target or long range shooting. Airweight snubs have one purpose, that being close-range self defense with no feeding/extraction issues or manual safeties to worry about. The only thing an exposed hammer will do is to snag up on something when you are trying to draw it from concealment. Keep it simple and dead-nuts reliable, go with the 442.

I actually kinda got turned on to the 442 by chance. I set out for the blue 85 specifically, and I know the dealer personally and he gets me all kinds of deals like LE discounts and such. He showed me the 442 and told me they were on sale too so bottom line I'd be getting it for around $100 less than what they usually go for.

I already carry a stainless 85 and this thing is like half a pound lighter. Also, the trigger was better and the barrel is a hair shorter, which is kinda nice considering I keep it at 1 o'clock. Being sexy as hell doesn't hurt either. I know another 85 is what I wanted originally but this just seems too good to pass up.

 

[rod]

full auto starts about :48

 

[Babagounj]

http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/now-foster-parents-cant-have-guns/

The Second Amendment Foundation confirmed a lawsuit has been filed against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services for two residents “whose civil rights have been deprived under color of law.”

The suit explains that the state agency’s rules prevent citizens from serving as foster parents while “legally possessing functional firearms for personal protection.”

 

[Babagounj]

Actually the SCOTUS was in error about the gay marriage issue .
2 members of the Court’s majority opinion were under a legal duty to recuse and refrain from voting.
But they didn't thus a bias was shown .

 

[wayfair]

I'd rather watch like actual experts on constitutional law. I dunno...maybe Scalia and Ginsburg, wouldn't you? No. Of course you wouldn't.

do they even have any experience with firearms???? or are they too scared?

 

[Babagounj]

Actually the SCOTUS was in error about the gay marriage issue .
2 members of the Court’s majority opinion were under a legal duty to recuse and refrain from voting.
But they didn't thus a bias was shown .

What's the matter DIDO , are you under the impression that the SCOTUS can made new laws, too ?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Actually the SCOTUS was in error about the gay marriage issue .
2 members of the Court’s majority opinion were under a legal duty to recuse and refrain from voting.
But they didn't thus a bias was shown .

do they even have any experience with firearms???? or are they too scared?

According to Baba's logic, if they did own guns, they would need to recuse themselves from ruling on it because they would have bias.

 

[Babagounj]

Normal judges when they see a conflict recuse themselves to avoid that bias .
2 of the SCOTUS Judges did not , thus they presented a case of bias .

 

[MAKAVELI]

Normal judges when they see a conflict recuse themselves to avoid that bias .
2 of the SCOTUS Judges did not , thus they presented a case of bias .

What was the bias?

 

[Babagounj]

They had married gay couples prior to making their decisions on the case .
Thus they had to recuse themselves , a normal judge who had morals would .
But here we are talking about liberals . And everyone knows that liberals make up their own laws and rules because they have a higher self importance .

 

[MAKAVELI]

They had married gay couples prior to making their decisions on the case .

?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Normal judges when they see a conflict recuse themselves to avoid that bias .
2 of the SCOTUS Judges did not , thus they presented a case of bias .

There was no conflict. You just don't like the decision so you're grasping at straws. Move on like the rest of the country.

 

[bbsam]

do they even have any experience with firearms???? or are they too scared?

Um...they have experience ruling on constitutional law.

 

[bbsam]

They had married gay couples prior to making their decisions on the case .
Thus they had to recuse themselves , a normal judge who had morals would .
But here we are talking about liberals . And everyone knows that liberals make up their own laws and rules because they have a higher self importance .

So if a Justice has ruled in a death penalty case they cannot rule in another because they obviously have bias?