I can imagine what Trump asked her: “Are you willing to sit there patiently while the Democrats hurl every vile insult at you that they can think of?” They’ll accuse her of adopting the two black Haitian kids only for political purposes, and of being controlled by Catholicism. She’s certainly smart enough to know that nothing she can say will make the Democrats happy, so she can reply with “that is incorrect, Senator.” A lifetime USSC seat is worth the three days of harassment.

Valid points. Restrictions on 2nd amendment? In constitutional carry states, for example Vermont, or Arizona, residents can carry concealed, no permits, no applications for permits, no registration, no permission required by beseeching, begging to some exalted asshole.

The restriction comes if they are a felon, or have demonstrated that they are a danger to society whether it be by a murder, rape, or robbery they committed, or they had a collection of kidnapped women in their basement.

First amendment? Similar, we can speak our minds no restrictions of permits, registration, etc., but if we shout "fire" in a movie theater that causes injury or worse, now we end up in prison. As for the military, it's been decided already, and we each signed a contract, myself I had a top secret clearance I waited two years to obtain, that contract said: "hush".

If your next question is, "Who decides these things?" leading us to the necessity of a "supreme court", well the court has shamefully been reduced to a whore house, a stacked court that we cannot trust, and they don't grant God given Natural rights anyway, so I prefer to leave them in the corner wearing a "Dunce Cap" and relegating them to matters that are not as powerfully important as our inalienable rights. Yes I see this may get tricky but so be it, I still say they are NOT to be entrusted with our most cherished and important inalienable ("unalienable" as per Declaration of Independence, "inalienable" per Merriam Webster).

I've had enough of those whores, get enough liberals and you get a liberal decision, get enough conservatives and you get a conservative decision, like I said, a stacked court of pandering whores and RBG was THE most egregious example. Enough is enough already.

For now? What I do is damage control, that's what you see here with my words, we've heard rachel maddow attack, ruthlessly attack, no pun intended, our second amendment rights, then this sick cunt (pardon the expression, I'm from NYC and if I'm breaking rules let me know, or offending let me know, but I checked the rules and I saw no prohibition) turns around and tells us our inalienable rights are not subject to a vote. Well which is it you sick cunt? As you can see I have great contempt for power mad control freaks like maddow, or killary, or anyone for that matter.

So my use of her serves two purposes, it negates her attack on our "inalienable rights" because like she said, they are not subject to a vote, and demonstrates her hypocrisy, reducing her credibility among rational people. We're at war, spiritually, philosophically, and now, it seems, we are on the brink of a dirty war all over the USA, and I feel I've fallen down on the job of doing what little, and it seems too little, what little I can do, and what I do is speak to the hearts and minds of anyone who will listen, and in whom my words strike a chord.

No matter who Trump nominates from whatever background they have the Dems will go after them. They could go after a trangender black person and they'd just call them a sell out.

You gotta admit it would be the ultimate if Trump chose a gay black Muslim transgender woman as the court nominee. Liberal's heads would explode as they attacked THE most sacred cow in their universe.

You do understand that that person would probably not be a texturalist, right?

A man can dream can't he... why spoil my wet dream???

Oh, and because I know I better clarify that, the dream being a gay black Muslim transgender woman who is rock solid pro-constitution and Bill of Rights who would cause liberal's heads to explode they'd be so confused at which to do, attack their sacred cow or praise their sacred cow.

Imagine such a person, Muslim Brigitte Gabriel, gay Milo Yiannopoulus, black Thomas Sowell, all conservatives, all rolled into one...

And for the record, I believe that jukk0u and I would even give such a person citizenship in Jukk0u-Land.

I just meant a radical Muslim wouldn’t support a texturalist for the court...

All your other adjectives are, potentially, non sequiturs...

Thanks for the clarification. Not here to argue what is or isn't an unalienable right, just wanted to know where you were coming from.

Bloomberg's sugar baby groups, EveryClown and Moms that Need Action have both issued statements saying ACB is a "gun extremist" so there's that.

Not here to argue because I suspect we generally agree, but merely to challenge your thinking to improve your argument.

You've just agreed that some reasonable restrictions ARE in fact necessary for the 1A and 2A. That cuts squarely against your "inalienable rights" position. Apparently the 2A then isn't without infringements... So then it becomes an issue of what is/are reasonable restrictions to these rights for a functional society.

You should reconcile this to improve your arguments.

PS - yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is only problematic if there is in fact no fire and it creates a dangerous emergency in doing so. Otherwise there are defenses to doing so.

Freedom without responsibility is just chaos.

[/quote]Not here to argue because I suspect we generally agree, but merely to challenge your thinking to improve your argument.

You've just agreed that some reasonable restrictions ARE in fact necessary for the 1A and 2A. That cuts squarely against your "inalienable rights" position. Apparently the 2A then isn't without infringements... So then it becomes an issue of what is/are reasonable restrictions to these rights for a functional society.

You should reconcile this to improve your arguments.

PS - yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is only problematic if there is in fact no fire and it creates a dangerous emergency in doing so. Otherwise there are defenses to doing so.[/quote]

Yes, I consider debate as the file I used to sharpen the blade rather than a matter of you and I arguing, we're not. Ultimately, though, it is a moot point, as we can see we're at a point where liberal democrats don't care about words, nor the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, they want what they want and they will do what it takes to get it no matter what it takes or how much violence it takes.

That's where the words of the Constitution become immaterial and now it falls to the teeth with which the Constitution was endowed. That would be us, us saying to the liberals and their plan of disarming America: "IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN"

Back to the matter of restrictions, I don't agree on the need for restrictions as much as I agree that our rights are unalienable until some dude goes off reservation and, for example, keeps and murders women in his basement like gary heidnik, or rapes and murders boys, like john wayne gacey, etc. etc.. At that point a person's humanity has left them and we alienate them from their right to own weapons.

Until such a time as when a person has left their humanity behind, we do like the Constitutional carry of many states, a person carries, no permission, no permits, they carry, until such a time as they've demonstrated their unworthiness.

Speaking of unworthiness, the court has demonstrated their unworthiness, RBG shouted it from the roof tops in her final year, we can no longer continue with the belief that the court will sort this out, there is nothing to sort out anymore, if anything it's time to do a lot of "unsorting" in regards to our unalienable rights.

I know it's a harsh disrespectful thing to say about our highest court in the nation, but it's not without justification that I say it, the court is now a political circus, it's a stacked court of whores that pander to their political biases, and as such, they are now worthless in my eyes, and at the very least, entirely untrustworthy.

I do not believe it is wise to endanger our most cherished liberties by leaving them in the hands of a stacked court of whores. The law of the land was stated in no uncertain terms over 200 years ago, and our cherished liberties are not subject to a vote, not by politician, not by political whores in robes such as the likes of RBG when she was breathing, not by anyone.

The way rachel maddow and her mad merry band of liberals believe that their right to abortion, their right to gay marriage are sacrosanct, unassailable, they need to understand that so too are the unalienable rights of the 2nd amendment and all other rights, even if they refuse to understand, they will know that we cherish our rights with the same ferocity with which they cherish their "right" to kill unborn babies.

Apparently she had another gun case she ruled on, hat tip to Dave Workman:

Damn. That is going to blow some liberal minds!!

Wow, that is an INCREDIBLE ruling and I absolutely love it. It demonstrates my exact belief on the 4th AND 2nd... incredible... One of my biggest complaints of the Conservatives on the Court is weakness on the 4A (they have eroded the 4A due to the war on drugs and further expanded warrantless searches exponentially), and it cuts against Terry v. Ohio (Terry Stops) too. Kudos to Barrett here!