Anonymous wrote:Pro-death rightwing conservative Supreme Court made up an individual right to carry arms. They did this to get votes for their billionaire-fueled agenda. And enrich gun CEOs, too.

Gorsuch’s patron is rightwing billionaire Phil Anschutz.
Scalia died at a billionaire-funded gun junket, and Koch billionaires gave money to GMU to name a law school after him.
Roberts hobnobs with the billionaire-funded Fed Soc, which pulls in money from both Koch billionaires and Heritage billionaires.
Alito: same.
Amy Barrett was a little-noticed law prof, a radical at a conservative Christian law school, who got her first seat from Trump and her second seat from Trump too, both backed by billionaire-funded ads through JCN.
Kavanaugh: billionaires at Fed Soc, billionaires through JCN.

Is it any wonder this SCOTUS decides for billionaires 90% of the time?

These decisions put my kids at risk. And these mediocrities do it for power and to help GOP donors. It’s disgusting and un-American.

Anonymous wrote:Pro-death rightwing conservative Supreme Court made up an individual right to carry arms. They did this to get votes for their billionaire-fueled agenda. And enrich gun CEOs, too.

Gorsuch’s patron is rightwing billionaire Phil Anschutz.
Scalia died at a billionaire-funded gun junket, and Koch billionaires gave money to GMU to name a law school after him.
Roberts hobnobs with the billionaire-funded Fed Soc, which pulls in money from both Koch billionaires and Heritage billionaires.
Alito: same.
Amy Barrett was a little-noticed law prof, a radical at a conservative Christian law school, who got her first seat from Trump and her second seat from Trump too, both backed by billionaire-funded ads through JCN.
Kavanaugh: billionaires at Fed Soc, billionaires through JCN.

Is it any wonder this SCOTUS decides for billionaires 90% of the time?

These decisions put my kids at risk. And these mediocrities do it for power and to help GOP donors. It’s disgusting and un-American.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will erode them. DC will then try and find other ways to restrict guns while trying to stick to any Supreme Court ruling. New York said they won't ban gun ownership, you just aren't allowed to carry your guns anywhere. DC will try something similar. Maybe have a high price for a gun license, or other burdens.

It really helps if you have even a tiny bit of an idea what you are talking about before you comment on something. DC already has shall issue carry permits. The process is burdensome and expensive in a way that would never be tolerated for any other enumerated civil right. The scope of permits is highly restricted at the whim of non governmental agents in a manner that would never be tolerated in any other context involving public accommodations.

good?

No, not at all. The people who suffer the most from DC’s completely ineffective “let criminals roam free and punish everyone else” gun laws are minorities who live in terror in their own neighborhood because DC won’t get violent criminals off the street, but who until recently could not ordinarily have firearms even in their own homes as a last resort to protect themselves. The same people are prejudiced by the high costs of two full workday training classes and all of the fingerprint, background check, registration and other fees involved in applying for a carry permit. This is unsurprising, given that the genesis of gun control laws in the US was in the desire to disarm free African Americans in the South after the Civil War. But that doesn’t make it right, just or anything else positive.

BS. More guns, more killings. The self defense argument is an illusion.

The report, The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, cited by the notoriously anti-gun CDC, indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year. Hardly an illusion.

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will erode them. DC will then try and find other ways to restrict guns while trying to stick to any Supreme Court ruling. New York said they won't ban gun ownership, you just aren't allowed to carry your guns anywhere. DC will try something similar. Maybe have a high price for a gun license, or other burdens.

It really helps if you have even a tiny bit of an idea what you are talking about before you comment on something. DC already has shall issue carry permits. The process is burdensome and expensive in a way that would never be tolerated for any other enumerated civil right. The scope of permits is highly restricted at the whim of non governmental agents in a manner that would never be tolerated in any other context involving public accommodations.

good?

No, not at all. The people who suffer the most from DC’s completely ineffective “let criminals roam free and punish everyone else” gun laws are minorities who live in terror in their own neighborhood because DC won’t get violent criminals off the street, but who until recently could not ordinarily have firearms even in their own homes as a last resort to protect themselves. The same people are prejudiced by the high costs of two full workday training classes and all of the fingerprint, background check, registration and other fees involved in applying for a carry permit. This is unsurprising, given that the genesis of gun control laws in the US was in the desire to disarm free African Americans in the South after the Civil War. But that doesn’t make it right, just or anything else positive.

BS. More guns, more killings. The self defense argument is an illusion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will erode them. DC will then try and find other ways to restrict guns while trying to stick to any Supreme Court ruling. New York said they won't ban gun ownership, you just aren't allowed to carry your guns anywhere. DC will try something similar. Maybe have a high price for a gun license, or other burdens.

It really helps if you have even a tiny bit of an idea what you are talking about before you comment on something. DC already has shall issue carry permits. The process is burdensome and expensive in a way that would never be tolerated for any other enumerated civil right. The scope of permits is highly restricted at the whim of non governmental agents in a manner that would never be tolerated in any other context involving public accommodations.

good?

No, not at all. The people who suffer the most from DC’s completely ineffective “let criminals roam free and punish everyone else” gun laws are minorities who live in terror in their own neighborhood because DC won’t get violent criminals off the street, but who until recently could not ordinarily have firearms even in their own homes as a last resort to protect themselves. The same people are prejudiced by the high costs of two full workday training classes and all of the fingerprint, background check, registration and other fees involved in applying for a carry permit. This is unsurprising, given that the genesis of gun control laws in the US was in the desire to disarm free African Americans in the South after the Civil War. But that doesn’t make it right, just or anything else positive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will erode them. DC will then try and find other ways to restrict guns while trying to stick to any Supreme Court ruling. New York said they won't ban gun ownership, you just aren't allowed to carry your guns anywhere. DC will try something similar. Maybe have a high price for a gun license, or other burdens.

It really helps if you have even a tiny bit of an idea what you are talking about before you comment on something. DC already has shall issue carry permits. The process is burdensome and expensive in a way that would never be tolerated for any other enumerated civil right. The scope of permits is highly restricted at the whim of non governmental agents in a manner that would never be tolerated in any other context involving public accommodations.

good?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will erode them. DC will then try and find other ways to restrict guns while trying to stick to any Supreme Court ruling. New York said they won't ban gun ownership, you just aren't allowed to carry your guns anywhere. DC will try something similar. Maybe have a high price for a gun license, or other burdens.

It really helps if you have even a tiny bit of an idea what you are talking about before you comment on something. DC already has shall issue carry permits. The process is burdensome and expensive in a way that would never be tolerated for any other enumerated civil right. The scope of permits is highly restricted at the whim of non governmental agents in a manner that would never be tolerated in any other context involving public accommodations.

Anonymous wrote:It will erode them. DC will then try and find other ways to restrict guns while trying to stick to any Supreme Court ruling. New York said they won't ban gun ownership, you just aren't allowed to carry your guns anywhere. DC will try something similar. Maybe have a high price for a gun license, or other burdens.