12 thoughts on “Bring it on

  1. Pingback: We are just pawns | The View From North Central Idaho

  2. I’m heartened by the little things in this election cycle. Little things the MSM is hiding from viewers.

    In the video linked below a very liberal left filmmaker attending the DNC convention is shocked by the number of empty seats after Bernie’s folks walked out… very steamed. Seems as if enough of them are pissed off enough to vote against HRC. Hopefully enough will “hold their noses” and vote for Trump.

    Here’s the video
    https://youtu.be/zGRo1mH2_8w

    Looks like some black people are waking up too. At least in Philly and NJ. Here’s James O’Keefe going “undercover” outside the DNC. Lots of riled up Bernie supporters too.

  3. If they get their way and the SCOTUS forgets how to read, goes completely stupid, and ignores the plain text of the Constitution, what do you think will be the result?

    Do they actually think that 100 million firearms owners will just roll over and turn in banned firearms or submit to drastic restrictions that only allow us to have primitive break action single shot rifles?

    I think that would result in the Second American Civil War. I will not comply. If they can enrage a normal, decent, mild-mannered guy to contemplate the unthinkable, they are surely playing the game wrong.

    We booted English rule for less. We fought a Civil War for less. They don’t seem to want to understand the implications of their hoplophobia.

  4. It’s good to see this message from the NRA. It’s several decades later than it should have been, but better late than never.

  5. Anyone who read the dissent in Heller v. DC realizes that the Supreme Court is entirely capable, right now, of saying that yes, the 2nd Amendment is an individual, enumerated right, and then saying that yes, the government may infringe it to any extent, even unto total bans on firearm ownership, based on the mere say-so that perceptions of public safety require the ban.

    Such “logic” applied to the law is why the Constitution enumerated so many rights in the first place. Pity that plain letter law is so easily subverted.

    • The reality is that the plain English words of the law have been ignored just about from the time the ink was still wet. St. George Tucker documents many instances, and he wrote in 1802.
      A particularly blatant example is the concept of “scrutiny” (“strict” or otherwise). Translated to plain English, it means: “the government can infringe the Constitution so long as it comes up with a plausible sounding excuse”. Needless to say, this concept has no basis whatsoever other than the infantile “I waaaaaaant it!”
      I like the approach in H. Beam Piper’s science fiction story “Lone Star Planet” better and better. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20121

      • Yes. Rational Basis comes out too much like, “Any wild theory that doesn’t get laughed at too quickly will be upheld.”

        There’s no such concept in Contract Law. Substantial performance, yes, but not any sort of hierarchy of how closely the court hews to the line of literal and accepted meaning of the words of the contract.

  6. Pingback: The Hillary Standard | The View From North Central Idaho

  7. Every time, lately, the new and other orgs ask me for more money I have told them no let it happen let them try to take them. I hope they do it soon, too.

  8. It’s not the hill that gun rights live or die on.

    It’s the hill that domestic tranquility lives or dies on….

    “Gun rights”, an important subset of the right to self-defense, which is itself only an element of the right to life, will live, whether the gov’t respects them or not.

Comments are closed.