Ketanji Brown Jackson on the 2nd Amendment

[aociswundumho]

Only 10 seconds, from 0.30 to 0.40



I don't think it means much, because acknowledging the right and defending the right when it comes under attack are two very different things.

 

[Rich2018]

Only 10 seconds, from 0.30 to 0.40



I don't think it means much, because acknowledging the right and defending the right when it comes under attack are two very different things.

As shown by the Conservative justices on the SC.

 

[aociswundumho]

As shown by the Conservative justices on the SC.

That's right.

It's almost as if the justices who decide the limits of government power are employed by the government.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

The "right" of every mouth breathing idiot to walk around everywhere with a gun isnt something I place a high value on at all. Nor do I believe thats what some guy in 1700 intended for 2022 America, nor would I agree with it even if it was in fact what was intended.

I, for one, would welcome some comprehensive bans and STRICT Gun Control. Our fabulous Gun Nuts have been allowed to run roughshod over more sane and reasonable citizens for far too long IMO, and a real effort should be made to reign that in IMHO AOC. I support it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Only 10 seconds, from 0.30 to 0.40



I don't think it means much, because acknowledging the right and defending the right when it comes under attack are two very different things.

Her answer seemed fine to me. What I would like to have her answer is how civil asset forfeiture or red flag laws (taking property without any criminal charge) do not violate the fundamental right to due process.

 

[tshade]

Only 10 seconds, from 0.30 to 0.40



I don't think it means much, because acknowledging the right and defending the right when it comes under attack are two very different things.

Let us know if it ever "comes under attack"--------give us a break

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Her answer seemed fine to me. What I would like to have her answer is how civil asset forfeiture or red flag laws (taking property without any criminal charge) do not violate the fundamental right to due process.

Prolly should ask a sitting Justice that question, and not someone who hasn't been confirmed.

Just one more example of FrEeDuMbZ$™ though.
Gnarlee American FrEeDuMbZ$™.
So awesome. No other place on earth has such abundant FrEeDuMbZ$™.

 

[Rucker61]

Prolly should ask a sitting Justice that question, and not someone who hasn't been confirmed.

The whole point is to make her a sitting justice. That's why all of this screening is going on, instead of just voting and asking questions later.

 

[Chase Morgan]

The "right" of every mouth breathing idiot to walk around everywhere with a gun isnt something I place a high value on at all. Nor do I believe thats what some guy in 1700 intended for 2022 America, nor would I agree with it even if it was in fact what was intended.

I, for one, would welcome some comprehensive bans and STRICT Gun Control. Our fabulous Gun Nuts have been allowed to run roughshod over more sane and reasonable citizens for far too long IMO, and a real effort should be made to reign that in IMHO AOC. I support it.

FINE work, as usual, PW 🏆

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

The whole point is to make her a sitting justice. That's why all of this screening is going on, instead of just voting and asking questions later.

I hope she's a gun grabber Rucker. She prolly is. 💯

 

[Rucker61]

I hope she's a gun grabber Rucker. She prolly is. 💯

Did you watch the interview?

 

[TurtleDude]

The "right" of every mouth breathing idiot to walk around everywhere with a gun isnt something I place a high value on at all. Nor do I believe thats what some guy in 1700 intended for 2022 America, nor would I agree with it even if it was in fact what was intended.

I, for one, would welcome some comprehensive bans and STRICT Gun Control. Our fabulous Gun Nuts have been allowed to run roughshod over more sane and reasonable citizens for far too long IMO, and a real effort should be made to reign that in IMHO AOC. I support it.

many of us welcome those who want to ban guns to actually start trying to take them from criminals.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Only 10 seconds, from 0.30 to 0.40



I don't think it means much, because acknowledging the right and defending the right when it comes under attack are two very different things.

She didn't actually answer the question. She responded exactly like a lawyer who doesn't want to answer a question.

 

[notquiteright]

many of us welcome those who want to ban guns to actually start trying to take them from criminals.

Many of us welcome more timely prosecution of criminal FFL holders and gun runners. I'd like to see prosecution of firearm owners who leave weapons unsecured so burglars can harvest 'clean' weapons for street crimes.... ✌️

 

[Glitch]

Only 10 seconds, from 0.30 to 0.40



I don't think it means much, because acknowledging the right and defending the right when it comes under attack are two very different things.

It also presumes that the individual is being honest. One thing we know for a fact, leftist filth are never honest about anything. It is a symptom of their psychosis.

 

[RF667799]

FINE work, as usual, PW 🏆

It was an eruption of fetid bait, not a reasoned argument or anything truthful. "Fine work", according to you.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

FINE work, as usual, PW 🏆

Awwww shucks Chase, the Peaceful Warrior is modest and doesnt look for or covet attention or recognition, you know that.
But I still thank you for the kind words.

 

[Rucker61]

She didn't actually answer the question. She responded exactly like a lawyer who doesn't want to answer a question.

...like a lawyer who wants to be on the Supreme Court. It was a dumb question, frankly.

 

[Rucker61]

Many of us welcome more timely prosecution of criminal FFL holders and gun runners. I'd like to see prosecution of firearm owners who leave weapons unsecured so burglars can harvest 'clean' weapons for street crimes.... ✌️

Define "unsecured" in current law.

 

[Noodlegawd]

...like a lawyer who wants to be on the Supreme Court. It was a dumb question, frankly.

I agree it was a dumb question, in the sense that there was no chance she would answer it honestly. And she obviously did not.

 

[Rich2018]

That's right.

It's almost as if the justices who decide the limits of government power are employed by the government.

Or the GOP

The judiciary is regarded as part of the government, but it should not be

The judiciary need to be, and seen to be, 100% independent from it.

 

[Antiwar]

Gunz. Duh.

 

[Antiwar]

It's almost as if the justices who decide the limits of government power are employed by the government.

That's what the Constitution is all about. They tacked on some poorly written amendments to get it ratified.

 

[Rich2018]

That's what the Constitution is all about. They tacked on some poorly written amendments to get it ratified.

The Constitution was ratified years before the BoR was.

 

[Antiwar]

The Constitution was ratified years before the BoR was.

^ True, but not very telling.


Quoting:

The first state to ratify the Constitution was Delaware on December 7, 1787, followed by Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut. Some states voiced opposition to the Constitution on the grounds that it did not provide protection for rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and press. However, the terms of the Massachusetts Compromise reached in February 1788 stipulated that amendments to that effect—what became the Bill of Rights—would be immediately proposed. The constitution was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, and, finally, New Hampshire.


Another quote:

On June 21, 1788, the Constitution became the official framework of the government of the United States of America when New Hampshire became the ninth of 13 states to ratify it.




First quote link:

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org