Quote from: TboneAgain on August 14, 2014, 08:34:34 PM
Um, he's a girl. Catherine C. Blake is a girl.

Looks like a classic "Pat".

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 15, 2014, 04:43:33 AM
Looks like a classic "Pat".

One has to wonder, has this justice even ever seen these guns? Have they seen them fired? Have they shot them themselves?

I mean come on, shouldn't they actually KNOW something about the weapon, before making a ruling as to whether or not it's an "unusual" weapon or not?

Seems to me that to make a ruling without actually seeing one, without either seeing one or firing one yourself is irresponsible.

To say nothing of a complete lack of impartiality, and judicial ethics, these lib justices engage in.

When they sit on the bench making rulings from on high, about something they know not the first thing about, and which is based upon furthering one political agenda or another.

This is a serious problem within the judiciary today.

Far too many justices think they are there to impose upon us all, their own political world view. Far too many think they are there to create laws.

Rather than making rulings based upon nothing but the FACTS (evidence) and the existent law. Leaving the creation of laws, to those whom we the people have elected to do so.

Namely the legislature.

Quote from: PeterR on August 14, 2014, 09:53:10 PM
I wasn't aware the words "unusual and dangerous" appeared anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.  I guess they've worn out that "regulated militia" argument.  But, they could be buried somewhere in that General Welfare clause where the Libs find so many hidden "rights".

Stupid liberals attaching emotional trigger words to inanimate objects, as if the object itself is somehow sentient.
They've managed to label Co2 as a pollutant, why not give guns rights not to be owned, they have "feelings" too, ya know.
Oh, did I mention just how much I despise libs?

Quote from: keyboarder on August 15, 2014, 03:23:39 AM
My iron frying pan is suspect as it has been known to ring a few bells.  Well, I ain't getting rid of it.

...hmmm .... well, my popcorn popper has been known to launch a few unpopped kernels now and then...those little tiny projectiles can do some random bodily harm.  Nahh...not getting rid of it either!

Quote from: suzziY on August 15, 2014, 06:17:34 AM

...hmmm .... well, my popcorn popper has been known to launch a few unpopped kernels now and then...those little tiny projectiles can do some random bodily harm.  Nahh...not getting rid of it either!

I just had my waffle maker sighted in.

Quote from: daidalos on August 15, 2014, 05:06:02 AM
One has to wonder, has this justice even ever seen these guns? Have they seen them fired? Have they shot them themselves?

Of course the answer is a blanket "no".

Progressive judges are dedicated to a group of simple beliefs, and will shade every action and decision toward these things:

-Gun control (criminalization of guns)
-No fault, no limits abortion
-Eradication of religions / churches
-Maximum state welfare / legislation
-Maximum taxes / redistribution
-Minimum self reliance / liberty
-Eradication of the military for national purposes, but a militarized internal security apparatus

I mean, it's all there in marx, alinsky, machiavelli, cloward-piven.  But they've all internalized each and every tenet as beliefs to live by.

They've also been very savvy; rule each and every time to help one or more of these beliefs take hold.  Incremental, long-term.

The sad thing is that the progressives have created a hive mentality where 50-100 million people are doing this daily.   While conservatives haven't even gotten started developing a response.  Only been happening for 35 years already.   Hope we get our shit together soon.

So, let me get this straight.   Grenades are now being used by the Mexican drug cartel along the border and yet "they" rule that AR-15's are dangerous and unusual.  Silly me ...liberal logic always seems to befuddle me.

Simple equations -

Cartel grenades against Americans = good

Guns that protect Americans = bad

If you don't know that this is Obama's basic world view, you've been asleep for 7 years.

AR-15 are "Dangerous and Unusual"? Does this womyn realize it fires a .223 cartridge? Didn't they used to give those to children? You know, to familiarize them with weapons. As another poster used to say: "Gun control gives every 100LB woman, the right to fist fight with a 220LB rapist". Feel free to explain why feminists, think every place with more than one male, is a seething pool of rapists; but they're against woman having any means to protect themselves.

Quote from: TboneAgain on August 14, 2014, 08:34:34 PM
Um, he's a girl. Catherine C. Blake is a girl.

Why do all libs look alike, or completely look like what I expect them to?

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 15, 2014, 04:43:33 AM
Looks like a classic "Pat".

Yeah, or maybe a "Lynn" or a "Kim" or a "Jackie."

This judge should be hauled before the justice department for dereliction
of duty. The US Constitution is not hers to change. Let's hope this case
goes before the high court as a challenge to her fitness to serve
as a federal judge,

Personally, I prefer the Remington 750 or any M-14 if I could find one.
223 Rem is a good round for that model and 10 mags are standard.
I've never been a big AR-15 fan, but those who are report the later
models are scary accurate.

Quote from: keyboarder on August 15, 2014, 03:23:39 AM
My iron frying pan is suspect as it has been known to ring a few bells.  Well, I ain't getting rid of it.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 15, 2014, 06:31:55 AM
Of course the answer is a blanket "no".

Progressive judges are dedicated to a group of simple beliefs, and will shade every action and decision toward these things:

-Gun control (criminalization of guns)
-No fault, no limits abortion
-Eradication of religions / churches
-Maximum state welfare / legislation
-Maximum taxes / redistribution
-Minimum self reliance / liberty
-Eradication of the military for national purposes, but a militarized internal security apparatus

I mean, it's all there in marx, alinsky, machiavelli, cloward-piven.  But they've all internalized each and every tenet as beliefs to live by.

They've also been very savvy; rule each and every time to help one or more of these beliefs take hold.  Incremental, long-term.

The sad thing is that the progressives have created a hive mentality where 50-100 million people are doing this daily.   While conservatives haven't even gotten started developing a response.  Only been happening for 35 years already.   Hope we get our shit together soon.

That's my point too.

Federal Justices are appointed to the Bench for LIFE just like those at the SCOTUS.

This is done not because we want someone to sit there in that job forever.

But because we want a judge to be free from political considerations and contraints.

Free to make rulings which are based upon nothing more than the law, and the evidence.

It is absolutely unethical and immoral for a judge, especially a federal justice, to issue a ruling which is based upon their own political ideology rather than the facts of the case and the existent relevant law.

IF we had a Congress full of men and women who were there to do their jobs, who were willing to uphold our Constitution and our laws, and not just there to collect a hand-out errr I mean paycheck (as well as other fringe benefits they've voted into existence for themselves) from the taxpayers.

Justices who do issue such rulings based upon nothing but their own political views, would and by rights should, have their rulings voided as well as be impeached and removed from the bench for judicial misconduct.

Oh and btw, I was scalded me today when I just filled the cup and swigged the coffee.

Since my Mr. Coffee doesn't have a warning label to tell me that the coffee may be hot and might burn me.

I will be filing suit presently....to have all coffee makers banned since they are so obviously dangerous. j/k

Don't retreat.  Reload.