Supreme Court Makes ENORMOUS and SURPRISING Decision on Guns 

Me either. They are illegitimate at this point.

WELL PAID NRA DEFENCE COUNSEL : THE US SUPREME COURT

Who would? This MAGA SCOTUS has no legitimacy.

Do you own a gun or just a bunch of masks?

He still is a slave. Regardless of how many "gifts" he is given he is still doing Massa's bidding without question.

Very fine point, some might say that he deserves prison rather than slavery, but why quibble?

⁠@@AntNo100 I’d be happy with anything that removed this miscreant from his seat on the bench, which he clearly is unfit to occupy.

He still is to the white Christian nationalists who own him.

I know, he wouldn't be considered a person.

And, the guns were single shot muzzle loaders.

⁠@@craigkeller It says right keep and bear arms, that doesnt say of that generation of guns. It just says guns. But it says keep so yes we can own guns to

just ridiculous how the US suffers massive casualties due to being stuck in the age of muskets and sails when it comes to the constitution ... having lost far more people to guns in peacetime then other nations have during actual wars. Fairly literally you keep shooting your own feet by holding that outdated constitution in such high regards and preventing changes ... not that I object really, its entertaining to us and in the end keeping you (the competition) from developing too fast. Gun ownership wouldnt even be a problem, if you had solved your problems with inequality and education ... switzerland shows how its done. But as usual, you fail at developing everything and therefor simply have no rational arguments in favor of guns ... they clearly dont protect your people and it doesnt even take a foreign power to make that clear.

@@craigkeller -- And the press back then was what...? Hint: Your statements above are protected because the constitution has been deemed to include modern variations of the technology that was in existence when it was written. Also, the "pickle gun" which is commonly believed to be the first "machine gun" existed well before the constitution was written.

"To KEEP and bear arms"---keep means own, ya doofus

@user-pp4lx3bt1o Yes, that became obvious in the Colorado case.

Originalism would own Thomas a SLAVE.

he can share a cell with alito.

I guess joe can follow him, the bog guy.

@@pete3882 thanks for letting everyone know that you're an ignorant Trumpanzee mouthbreather.

In 3 letters, that sums up the reason for his opinion.

Yep, and I'm betting that "stuffer" would be enough for us average folks to buy a house. Without monthly payments.

and they probably celebrate it monthly or quarterly

Lol

Im guessing NRA did a whole lot better than Olivers oppulent touring coach.

He's the only one that understands how this can be used to infringe the rights of the rest of us, and the only one with the courage to try to stand up for the Bill of Rights. The rest voted the way they did because there is multiples as much funding the anti-2A side than the pro-2A side, much much more. And history teaches us when government infringes rights things get ugly, but people like you won't realize that until it is two late. Better to defend rights legally than actually have them infringed and fight to get them back.

He's a waste of skin.

He's is dirty and courpt

Bought by the gun lobby.

I wonder if it taste to good?,for the sunno cathlic

And oxygen!

but but.. he vacations in a walmart carpark.

@@mark-ish bwahaaaa .. yeah, you’re right so there’s that! 👏😂😁🫣🤭

@@mark-ish if only you and I could “afford” to stay at the walmart car park and not loose face🤷‍♀️🫣🤭😞🤭

❤❤❤!!!!!❤❤❤❤

Have you never heard of the 13th Amendment?

You mean the right wing MAGA members of the supreme court. There are three who don't fit that description. Generalization doesn't help your description.

inclusive of a weak inept chief justice.

Inevitable result of Vietnam, Reagan, , Iraq.... flailing idiocy of an Empire in decline

@blackbandit1290 - She didn’t say “all of the justices”, she said the court. Majority are right wing.

​@blackbandit1290 Yeah, because having a person who doesn't know what a woman is was a great choice. 😂

It's bold of Thomas and Coney Barrett believes that the founders would have had no problem with Supreme Court justices who are Black or female. If we're going to be originalists, I think we should go all the way.

An important question. Will it make spouses less likely to report because of risk to family income??

@@dorenecornwell6213 Spouses already are less likely to report because of risk to family income. Taking away the guns (even of a police officer) is not the only reason a police officer could lose their job because of their domestic abuse. However, too many police departments would probably give exceptions for "on the job" vs being allowed to take it home when it comes to this, because they often don't seem to mind their officers being problematic in that way. They even let officers who have a history of excessive violence on the job continue.

@@junerussell6972good some of those mfs are the worse

Too true. I'm a domestic violence survivor, but fortunately. my abuser was not a "law enforcement" person. But some of my friends who are also survivors were married to "law enforcement" people. And they used their sources to find where my friends lived. Fortunately, each had a good person within the departments who would let them know when their exes had done that, so that they could find a safer place. It's also why my state's Address Confidentiality Program has a provision that people in the program have their information restricted even from the police. (When I was first in the ACP, everyone's information was restricted from the police. It caused a lot of problems if there was a traffic stop, since the officer couldn't easily access the information. I was once given a ticket in Bremerton by an officer who was so pissed that he couldn't get more info on me that he gave me a ticket he shouldn't have given me, lied to me that if I paid it right away rather than going to court it wouldn't be on my record, and then sent me in the opposite direction when I asked him how to get to the freeway from there, since I was lost and hadn't seen the speed zone sign that was hidden behind a large tree. He also made wisecracks about the existence of the ACP and the people, like me, who were in it.)

@@christinajay8696 Freakin control freaks. Disrespecting a cop (in his mind) way too often carries the death penalty or brutal beating. Taking a cop's gun when he's got a problem only makes sense. Get him the help he needs; but get 'em off the street. It's to PROTECT and serve the public.

Well, owning a gun maybe but firearms aren’t always used for that. It’s like saying archery is only for hunting. Archery is an Olympic sport. No, I’m not a gun lover but there are other uses for them that do not involve physical harm to others. It’s that guns evolved greatly since the 1700s and the morals, values and laws have lagged.

No, they are also used for hunting and sports shooting.

@@F16_viper_pilot Hunt me an animal without causing physical harm.

@@holdon4992 Show me a target I can use forever because it never gets physically damaged by a projectile and I will show you a target that never gets shot.

@@jrnichols It’s okay that you don’t like guns, and I guess you’re a vegetarian too, or maybe you’re not a vegetarian and you’re just virtue signaling from a place of hypocrisy. Either way, we have a second amendment that’s just as valid as the other 26. In fact, it was one of the first ratified in 1791, speaking to its importance to the founders, and is one of only 10 in the Bill of Rights (the very first 10 in fact that we’re all ratified in 1791, with all the others ratified in subsequent years), giving it special clout above the remaining 17. And while you may not agree with the second amendment, it really doesn’t matter, because it exists as part of the foundation of this country, so your opinion pales in comparison to the law and the position the states took as a whole when it was adopted.

Great post. Founding fathers got things going. No reason not to improve or update.

Yeah? So the rights of the rest of us should be infringed because some women are dumb enough to stay with violent men? The warning signs are always there, their friends and family try to warn them about being with certain men, but we've ALL known those women who say things like "he just does something for me" and stays with them despite all the warning signs. The neighbor woman across the street from me when growing up was one such woman, she lived with violent man after violent man, and one of the girls I went to high school with had that same proclivity.

Is my body my property? If so can I defend it as such?

If you were an Originalist than you would understand that the 2nd amendment was made for each town to have a militia because we didn't have national guard at the time. Any body can read the Constitution and twist the words to meet ones needs. Donnie thinks because he has a gag order he doesn't have 1st amendment speech when terroristic threat or threatening or defaming aren't constitutional or even speech.

We should get together! I've got the land mines, tanks and biological weapons. We could form a well-regulated militia!

@@bambiclark8861 Look up "parody" and "sarcasm" in the dictionary. @keithwald5349 is implying that the current interpretation is nonsense.

Aussie here. Not sure if you’ve ever watched Aussie comedian Jim Jefferies on Gun Control. He muses that people say you can’t change the 2nd amendment. His answer -yes you can, it’s called an amendment 😂

​@@scentialsfun fact. Jims death thrests peaked when he pulled that joke.

He defines himself as white? Maybe?

I assume he refuses to think it through. He certainly doesn't use logic in opinions.

Not really. This is a matter of rights. You are trying to use the infringement of human rights that was slavery to justify an infringement of rights now by being anti-2A. What irony.

@@Anon54387 It's applying Thomas's logic, showing how illogical said logic must be. He picks parts of the constitution he likes and dates he likes and calls that originalism. He doesn't refer to the whole, fully amended document. Ever.

Or he actually has a valid point. Give his dissent a read.

Only about 300,000 Americans own automatic weapons, they are limited to those that were in private ownership as of 1986. I bet you can't find the last time a crime was committed with one of those, it is very, very, very rare. That being said, a license to exercise a right is hugely problematic.

@@Anon54387 Yes, licensing would be difficult, the Federal Government in Canada tried to do this, but some parts were reversed when a different government came into power. Likely just strenthening required training and maybe an evaluation related to mental health and criminal past, would save lives. As a Canadian I also think it is crazy that people can carry concealed and unconsealed weapons in public places. This has made me reluctant to travel to states with poor gun laws.

I don’t think the decision requires the person be “convicted”, merely accused. If that’s the case, then this is a bad decision because it goes against the foundation of the Constitution that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

​​@@F16_viper_pilot Everything is one extreme or another. Smh our society is a circus, we aren't evolving alongside one another. This party VS party mayhem will be the end of us. It's not sustainable alongside many other destructive cycles we see prevalent. Criminals literally celebrate gun laws, we also have a problem with shootings and the solution based logic isn't allowed to appeal. These political machines don't run on solution...They're perpetuated and fueld by the problems. We the ppl...we're supposed to forge solution TOGETHER. Respect to everyone here. ⚔️

Due process. Look it up. That's the concern here.

@@Anon54387 Exactly!

When you stay beyound your 'competent years', this happens.

Always has been. He was just the "token " welcomed because he was conservative and ripe for corruption. Anita Hill tried to warn us.

Justice Thomas is wrong about everything in my opinion but he nonetheless is one of nine people who shape how our laws are interpreted. I think many of his problems stem from his wife and her MAGA FRIENDS!

@@jameseden8486And his willingness to go along with them.

That's not what the 2nd Amendment says.

precisely. It's always about the individual right not the fact the FF wanted citizens to be able to riot.

A well informed Congress, being necessary to the wise operation of government, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed. So I suppose only those in Congress have the right to books. BTW, if one had to be in a militia that'd make it a privilege. They'd not have put a privilege in the Bill of Rights. They would not have called it a right in the 2A itself. And they said shall not be infringed. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 says that there is a right to such arms allowed by law. The Americans recognized this was wide open for government to abuse the right (simply outlaw all arms) which is why they changed it to shall not be infringed. In the Bruen case, the lawyer trying to uphold the Sullivan Act tried to claim that the right only applied to those in a militia. John Roberts asked him why, then, didn't they simply say the right of the militia. That lawyer had no answer to that. It says the right of the people, it does not say the right of the militia.

The 5th Circuit applied Bruen as instructed, and gets a rebuke. Sigh.

What did they do to corrupt judges? Big Money bought their way in through elections..We needed CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM before the 2000 election. Remember when that was a hot topic ? Big Money came in by controlling election campaign spending and they bought the Republican Party, legislators and then Supreme Court judges with a lot of help from good old conspirator Mitch McConnell. BIG MONEY BOUGHT THEIR WAY IN . A measly 9 people decided who the President was going to be in 2000 and we ended up with frat-boy Bush '43 & real boss Cheny. Big Money made a fortune in the Republican wars and Republicans and their Big Money pals made a fortune in deregulation. One big successful conspiracy. Downhill from then on and here we are. 🤐

Tarred and feathered…

Bush token black. Watch the docu on him- he was a child of abuse at the hand and mind of his nasty grandfather.

If he's that much of a threat why is he even out in society? Sounds like someone that cannot be trusted with a car, gasoline, a baseball bat, a kitchen knife, any number of things or situations.

I think people who believe in a perfect Constitution that never has to change are the same people who believe in the literal text of the Bible, that everything written in there was written by God and is perfect and unchanging. The question everyone should be asking themselves is: if the Constitution were written today, would it look exactly the same as the one that exist? Would the Second Amendment be written at all? Would women and people of colour be considered full persons? I'm Swedish and I feel disheartened when thinking about the time the US constitution was written, Sweden was ruled by a monarch. Today, while millions of Americans would lose it all if they get sick, Swedes get to enjoy publicly funded healthcare and education. While American schoolkids have to be afraid of a school shooting, Swedish schoolkids can focus on their education (and look forward to publicly funded college in the future, if they so choose). I get the feeling that Americans were so proud of their Constitution that was very good at the time, compared to Europe, so they rested on their laurels and didn't notice how other countries such as Sweden took their crappier constitutions and gradually made them better, and eventually surpassed the US one in many respects.

Sorry, but the words in the Constitution mean what they mean. To decide that the same words mean something different is to abandon rule of law, and to not keep limits in place on what government can do. The government should only be allowed to exercise powers we've granted to it, and should not be able to do things specifically prohibited to it in the Bill of Rights.

They sold out our rights to appease the left on this decision, but Churchill said that those who appease are just hoping the alligator eats them last. There is no appeasing the left, they are so power hungry that they'll keep pushing to infringe rights more and more and more.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

Seriously Harry needs to be out of the US during the election because even if Biden wins with a landslide Trump will lie and try and activate his MAGA followers to violence. Harry might be at risk.

​@@BklynNY471Harry, hang tough Seal Team 6 is on the way.

@@jpkatz1435 Harry, blink twice if you're ok.

I agree. Also, the evidence is quite clear on that women who live in households with firearms are far more likely to be killed by their intimate partner than women in households without firearms. For women, having firearms as available as they are in the US is a net negative. Many gun rights activists love to argue that women are safer in the US because of guns, despite the grim statistics. Far more women have been killed by guns than saved by them.