Patriot Mobile

Ginsburg’s operation for two cancerous lung nodules

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    No is faulting her ability or her drive. You cite material that has nothing to do with her position on the 2nd amendment. Answer a straight question, please. Does she think that the members of the forum here should without legal restriction assuming we are not felons have the right to keep and bear our own AR15 rifles with 30 magazines and pistol grips? Be honest, what is your position on our rights to own semiauto rifles and pistols with high capacity magazines. It really sounds like you want a harsher version of the expired assault weapons law to come back into force.

    .

    She is not a supporter of the 2a. No debate about that. However, that was never my point. I oppose the wishing her dead because she does not support the 2a.
     

    Ross7

    Virtuoso
    GCGF Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages
    2,638
    Points
    113
    Location
    NW Florida
    RBG has an impressive history to be sure. But she could have done even more for future liberal causes had she retired while Obama was president, like some on the Left thought she should. Vanity, hubris or for whatever reason, she now needs to hang on till she's 88 or maybe 92 to avoid having a conservative replacement in her seat.

    She is worth ten Brett Ks
    A little early to say isn't it, he just got on the bench. Unless of course you think he was a failed rapist, gang-bang leader, or both.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    She is not a supporter of the 2a. No debate about that. However, that was never my point. I oppose the wishing her dead because she does not support the 2a.
    OK, I really want her to leave, quit being a member of court and I really do not care what happens to her; I want her to go far and I will shed no tears to hear of her death. She has a good legal background should understand the constitution and so her position on the bill rights is reprehensible.
     

    Little Jack

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages
    4,957
    Points
    113
    Location
    Milton
    I like how the SCOTUS can discuss differences of opinion with your co-workers and still be friendly about it.

    I do the same at my workplace but the guy I disagree with doesn't have an 11% say about how the rest of the country lives their life.

    I'm all for expansion of Rights(that don't infringe on other's). Women, men, whatever. You want to smoke pot? Cool. You want equal work for equal pay? Great!! You want to marry the same sex? Someone who used to be the same sex? Someone who's going to be the same sex? Do it. (It's your opinion on what your God thinks about it. Either way I don't think your God is worrying about it. We can agree to disagree if that makes you happy... Or not. If you don't want to make a cake.... You shouldn't have to... Again.... My opinion..... Agree?)

    Anyway. I understand not wishing ill on someone, but when that someone wants to take away an "unalienable" Right.....I understand....

    ETA:. I should have said "if you want to marry a dude, playing a dude, disguised as another dude"
     
    Last edited:
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages
    2,232
    Points
    113
    Location
    Atmore, AL
    "Anyway. I understand not wishing ill on someone, but when that someone wants to take away an "unalienable" Right.....I understand.... "


    Thanks Nate - I feel a little better about myself now. I occasionally have bad thoughts about the Judges whose decisions I don't think follow the Constitution.
     

    Little Jack

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages
    4,957
    Points
    113
    Location
    Milton
    Whaaaaaatttt????

    But I thought you were a dirty hippy...... I'd have thought you wanted RBG to stick around.....oh wait...
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    She is not a supporter of the 2a. No debate about that. However, that was never my point. I oppose the wishing her dead because she does not support the 2a.

    So this would be out of line lol. Be more fitting for Senator Feinstein.
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    My position has absolutely no impact on RBG, I doubt her minion clerks screen Gun Forums. Every minute she sits on the Bench is a continuing threat to the Constitution. I don't care how she dies, the sooner the better. I'll gladly take the heat! Likewise I'm a gun owner and she can hope I die soon too. Just as I'm a one issue Voter, that's the same preference on SCOTUS Justices. Hell, she can't even stay awake to hear full oral arguements as far back as 2006!, but she'll vote on them! A few months ago, she said she had five more years to go on the Bench. I hope not. If I say I hope the other Left leaning Justices follow suit, you would know exactly who I'm referring to due to their well known bias!

    Interpret Laws AS WRITEN with the Constitution being the Supreme Law of the Land.
    Evaluate lower Courts decisions based on Case Law, origional evidence and Actions of Officers of the Court.
    Judicial Review of other Two Branches of Gov.
    I don't see any application for personal bias if Justices executed their duties as written. Every damn one swears they're not bias or political during confirmation then vote along the Party lines that appointed them with rare exceptions. Justice Chase was the only SCOTUS Jurist to be impeached (political bias of course), it didn't pass and he served for 25 years.

    Not politically correct, don't care either.
     
    Last edited:

    Zeroed in

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    2,873
    Points
    113
    Location
    7th Inf Div Vet.
    Come on guys, she's someone's mother, well she's someone's great great grandmother. But still, I do not wish any ill-will towards anyone, just because they do not believe in what I do. But She really needs to Retire, like in yesterday. And yes, she should stay within how the laws are written w/o interpretation, and not what she "wants" it to say.
     

    fv22

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 28, 2013
    Messages
    1,061
    Points
    113
    Location
    GB
    Her time has come and gone, just like the rest of the commies. She's been around long enough as seen by her inauguration picture:


    Ginsburg Inauguration.png
     

    Attachments

    • Ginsburg Inauguration.png
      Ginsburg Inauguration.png
      173.8 KB · Views: 129

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    Lets be realistic about RBG. She plans on staying on the Court at least another five years. Her husband died in 2010, her "kids" are old/married so she's not giong to quit in order to take care of family. She is not going to be impeached.

    For anyone that would like to see her off the Bench, that leaves few option:
    1. Death
    2. Debilitating illness.
    3. Debilitating accident.

    There's no politically correct, kinder and gentler way around the issue. If you don't support her and want her out, you're limited on potential exit solutions to hope for. Logic comes in politically incorrect forms too: own it, don't concede your beliefs. LMFAO at the wrist slap "not to wish ill upon others" dropping the PC Card! AYFKM, still LMFAO.
     

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    If you had read her views, you would see that she is looking at the Founder's original intent. She was behaving like a strict constructionist, rather than like an activist judge. Here is what she said:

    She continues, "The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia...Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. And the states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment."

    Look, I disagree with her on the Second Amendment but if you are going to bash her views then at least get it right. She is a strict constructionist on this issue and Scalia was the activist judge.

    As for dropping PC - that is the problem with society today. Too many people eschew civility and the brag about not being PC. Being civil requires only a bit more intelligence and a fraction more time. We should all try it.

    Remember the famous quote "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/robert_a_heinlein_100989
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    This is a load of crap and why would you even repeat it as a form praise and justification for this witch.

    .Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. And the states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment."

    Jeb21 if she said that she is a liar because that is not the only reason and certainly not the major reason it was set up. She knows better and it is shame that you repeat it. Jeb you do need read some history. The 1st is for free speech and related issues. The 2nd is right after that and it is not accident as to where it is located. Regardless it does give people "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    That witch is an activist.

    The only legal way would be to change it is via an amendment and not by a bunch @#%$@ that got appointed to the supreme court saying that it does not mean what it says.
     
    Last edited:

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    Don't shoot the messenger, but the first four SC cases dealing with the Second Amendment were not favorable to us and these opinions suggest that RBG was right.


    One of the first rulings came in 1876 in U.S. v. Cruikshank. The case involved members of the Ku Klux Klan not allowing black citizens the right to standard freedoms, such as the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. As part of the ruling, the court said the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the Constitution. Ten years later, the court affirmed the ruling in Presser v. Illinois when it said that the Second Amendment only limited the federal government from prohibiting gun ownership, not the states.

    The Supreme Court took up the issue again in 1894 in Miller v. Texas. In this case, Dallas' Franklin Miller sued the state of Texas, arguing that despite state laws saying otherwise, he should have been able to carry a concealed weapon under Second Amendment protection. The court disagreed, saying the Second Amendment does not apply to state laws, like Texas' restrictions on carrying dangerous weapons.

    So the first case said that owning a firearm was not a individual right. The next two said the 2nd Amendment only affected federal, not state law and states could regulate firearms as they wished. All three of these decisions were made before the 1900 and all three of these decisions were bad for us. BTW RBG is not old enough to have made any of these decisions :) Now a non-activist judge would look at these decisions as precedent and would have to go through contortions to avoid being controlled by these prior rulings.

    The only other SC ruling before Heller was :

    U.S. v. Miller in 1939. In that case, Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for carrying an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines, which had been prohibited since the National Firearms Act was enacted five years earlier. Miller argued that the National Firearms Act violated their rights under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

    Again a bad ruling for us.

    Heller was a break from the prior decisions. Now the Heller court distinguished these 4 prior adverse cases and went through some other legal gymnastics to justify the opinion, but this opinion is the result of judicial activism. Scalia is a gun guy and wanted to protect gun rights so he found a way to do it. Pure and simple. He did a brilliant job in forming his argument but this was clearly an example of judicial activism.

    I personally, believe that for the constitution to have any future, we cannot tie ourselves down with the doctrine of original intent. We are dealing with issues now, that our Founders could not have even contemplated. The Constitution is a set of principles that must guide our actions and that is how it should be viewed. Strict construction of the constitution will only consign this amazing document to the trash heaps of history. (I read that somewhere- I did not make it up)

    So curse RBG for being against the 2A but get your facts straight. On this issue SHE is the strict constructionist not Scalia. Her position was legally stronger than Scalia's.
     
    Last edited:

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    Found this critic of Heller from some conservative judges:

    Heller was a rare triumph for Justice Scalia’s brand of constitutional originalism, but it was not popular among many well-regarded conservative judges.

    In fact, conservative jurists were quick to criticize Heller as lacking two supposed hallmarks of judicial conservatism: an unbiased review of the evidence about the meaning of the Second Amendment and, given ambiguity about that meaning, judicial restraint. Justice Scalia’s opinion, these judicial conservatives argued, deployed an unbalanced historical analysis, reached a questionable conclusion about a constitutional right, and failed to defer to the judgments of elected officials.

    J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a conservative Fourth Circuit judge, likened Heller to Roe v. Wade, and suggested that Heller was a “new” form of judicial activism based in “originalism.” Conservative Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner agreed in equally stark terms, writing that Heller reflected not conservatism, but rather “freewheeling discretion strongly flavored with ideology.”


    Again, I like Heller, it protected the 2A and it represented the first time, ever that the 2a had been used to strike down a gun law. But folks need to understand and appreciate the lengths that Scalia went to achieve this goal. He made a decision and then found a way to support that decision. That is judicial activism pure and simple.
     
    Last edited:

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Jeb the previous rulings you cite were often wrong. The Miller 1939 case is typical. They found short barrel shotguns were not weapons of the militia. They most certainly are weapons of war. IIRC there was no effective advocate for Miller who had already died in prison. The problem is once the court decides a case, right or wrong, it is effectively case law and bears the force of law relative to what happens after that decision made. Instead of reading that crap, read what the framers of our government intended.

    Bad case law is common. The separate but equal decision that allowed segregation made it very hard for the then lawyer Thurgood Marshall later a justice himself to by tortuous arguments in front of the court in the early 50's to overturn that law.

    This is what I and most people that real Americans believe

    What the Framers said about our Second Amendment
    Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

    "...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"
    — Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)

    "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
    — Tench Coxe, in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution� under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian� in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1).

    "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
    — William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
    — George Mason,
    in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
    [/QUOTE
    See the rest at: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Found this critic of Heller from some conservative judges:

    Heller was a rare triumph for Justice Scalia’s brand of constitutional originalism, but it was not popular among many well-regarded conservative judges.

    In fact, conservative jurists were quick to criticize Heller as lacking two supposed hallmarks of judicial conservatism: an unbiased review of the evidence about the meaning of the Second Amendment and, given ambiguity about that meaning, judicial restraint. Justice Scalia’s opinion, these judicial conservatives argued, deployed an unbalanced historical analysis, reached a questionable conclusion about a constitutional right, and failed to defer to the judgments of elected officials.

    J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a conservative Fourth Circuit judge, likened Heller to Roe v. Wade, and suggested that Heller was a “new” form of judicial activism based in “originalism.” Conservative Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner agreed in equally stark terms, writing that Heller reflected not conservatism, but rather “freewheeling discretion strongly flavored with ideology.”


    Again, I like Heller, it protected the 2A and it represented the first time, ever that the 2a had been used to strike down a gun law. But folks need to understand and appreciate the lengths that Scalia went to achieve this goal. He made a decision and then found a way to support that decision. That is judicial activism pure and simple.

    This is part of what Scalia used and certainly is not judicial activism, but one of honesty and learning the lessons of history.
    Instead, Clement looked to antebellum state court case law, and referred the Ninth Circuit to the interpretation of the Second Amendment from an 1846 opinion by the Georgia Supreme Court, Nunn v. State.3 The Georgia high court held that the Second Amendment protected the right “to keep and bear arms of every description” and was violated by a law prohibiting the open carrying of certain weapons.4 Clement argued that the Ninth Circuit should adopt Nunn’s view of the Second Amendment to strike down San Diego’s “good cause” policy.5

    Nunn, of course, is not binding precedent in the Ninth Circuit. But ever since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller used an originalist approach to establish the individual right to keep and bear arms,6 courts have incorporated historical evidence into their Second Amendment jurisprudence.7 This historical evidence includes Nunn and other antebellum state court opinions.8 As Justice Scalia put it in his majority opinion in Heller, “interpret[ations] of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment,” including in state court opinions, are “a critical tool of constitutional interpretation,” since they can point to “the scope [constitutional rights] were understood to have when the people adopted them.”9 Indeed, as Clement noted, the Heller majority itself favorably cited Nunn’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.10[/QUOTE https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/firearm-regionalism-and-public-carry

    What you are doing is parroting the line of the antigunners. I do not like saying things like this. But why are you pretending to be pro-gun and yet cite the arguments and machinations of our enemies.
    I will maintain Ginsberg is my enemy. She would put me and other good citizens in jail or have us killed to take our weapons away. If one has intelligence which Ginsberg has, I can not excuse her actions.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom