Psaki today: Gun control a 'priority'

[ScottsBad]

Fox News.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/psaki-gun-control-a-priority-biden-not-afraid-of-standing-up-to-the-nra

Make sure you donate whatever you can to gun rights organizations. CRPA, FPC, GOA, etc. Even $10 helps, because it adds up fast.

[OCEquestrian]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-wont-rule-out-using-executive-orders-to-crackdown-on-second-amendment-rights-white-house?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro&fbclid=IwAR3tqEmBJx8WDZe3pqn8rqlzUYK0q9YPpUZPh-cswmPzaVwGfmcPJWrCmFQ

Anyone who thinks we should not support the NRA in the face of this is a short sighted IDIOT! The only way to fight executive orders is litigation and lawsuits cost $$$$ and the NRA is the only deep pocket player in that arena.

[sigstroker]

I put the over/under of cops that disobey orders at 1.4%.

[lastinline]

Where are all these Calguns libtard, used butt-wipes who claimed Biden (or whoever else was in there) would not do anything?.....Oh yea, they are hiding under their beds with a dildo up their cornholes.

[Rodell]

If they were serious, POTUS would do an oval office address in prime time to push the agenda and embolden the anti's and not bury it as the third item in the news.

Still a risk ...

[QuinnBayArea]

Buy everything you can get your hands on!!

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Discussions about whether law enforcement and the military "upholding their oath" usually miss the point. It is premised on... obeying the Constitution based on the way WE choose to interpret it. While I firmly believe that our interpretation has the historicity, common sense, logic, original intent, and everything else behind it, as I've noted previously, it's clear that the Left has a different or alternative view.

Put simply, their view is that of the dissent in Heller and you have to bear in mind that Heller was a 5-4 decision... and... it left a lot of wiggle room that Scalia had intended to clarify with subsequent decisions. In a very direct way, Biden's understanding of the 2nd Amendment is similar to Hillary's. Both of them can and often do say they 'support' the 2nd Amendment and, from their perspective, they do. The sad part is that they aren't alone in that perspective and it's one shared by nearly half the Supreme Court in the Heller decision.

The question becomes, as it is currently manned, would the Supreme Court come down with a greater percentage on "our side" or would it further equivocate similar to Heller or would it even accept a 'challenge' to what we perceive as 'anti-civil rights' laws given Roberts' declared (with Gorsuch agreeing, to a point) intent that SCOTUS should not be involved in 'public policy' decisions. While I argue that the 'public policy' input they seek to avoid is actually their job in much the same way Alito and Thomas have been arguing (e.g., public policy often involves fundamental rights), it's something more insidious than that. Take a look at what Gorsuch put forth as a criticism of Living Constitutionalism...

I suspect the real complaint of living constitutionalists isn’t with old laws generally so much as it is with the particular terms of this old law. The Constitution is short—only about 7,500 words, including all its amendments. It doesn’t dictate much about the burning social and political questions they care about. Instead, it leaves the resolution of those matters to elections and votes and the amendment process. And it seems this is the real problem for the critics. For when it comes to the social and political questions of the day they care most about, many living constitutionalists would prefer to have philosopher-king judges swoop down from their marble palace to ordain answers rather than allow the people and their representatives to discuss, debate, and resolve them. You could even say the real complaint here is with our democracy.

On it's face, that might seem to be the correct understanding; i.e., leave it to the People. It frames the issue in almost a populist manner of "the People" vs. "the elite." In that way, it makes it appealing to many. Unfortunately, it ignores a fundamental element of what the role of SCOTUS is. As the Supreme Court declares on their website...

As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The 'twist' comes a couple of paragraphs later...

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

What is meant by 'living Constitution' is the source of the problem. Some see it as applying original intent/meaning within the context of today's issues. Others see it as, in essence, making it mean whatever the current generation seems to want it to mean or, more accurately, what a specific 'group' appears to want it to mean; whether that 'group' be a simple majority, the loudest minority, or an 'elite' which have ostensibly attained an enlightenment unavailable to the 'ordinary people.' What is 'lost' in that debate is something the Supreme Court website acknowledges toward the end of the page (note what I placed in bold)...

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

Thus, by definition, the Court allows for public policy based on the decisions they make. It's a distinction that Roberts has attempted to make; i.e., that SCOTUS is not tasked with creating/composing public policy. The problem is that it's a distinction without a practical difference when it comes to how political power is wielded and how the Court currently operates in terms of 'judicial politics' and 'philosophical differences;' i.e., the Court is NOT a 'neutral' arbiter. That is precisely why the 1943 Supreme Court opined...

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Yet, here we sit. We can't even agree among ourselves as to what the 2nd Amendment encompasses in terms of the protections it provides. As I've argued several times, "self-defense" is and was synonymous with "self-preservation;" thus, the 2nd Amendment includes protections for hunting and hunting arms. Heller noted that it provides...

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

In other words, 'self-defense within the home' is just ONE of the things protected under the 2nd Amendment; thus, why we argue that it ALSO includes self-defense outside the home or the ability to 'carry.' Hunting has long been a 'traditionally lawful' activity and is synonymous with 'self-defense' if you recognize that 'self-preservation' and 'self-defense' are interchangeable when speaking to original intent. Defense against tyranny? According to Heller, that is a benefit to a militia...

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” ... First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia... Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

So, we must be cautious in our zeal to protect so-called "assault weapons" when we say that they were the very types of arms specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment. It was ONE type of arm protected and, in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear was not intrinsically and inseparable tied to service in a militia. But, as stated, they only made such a ruling by the barest of margins and THAT is the point and highlights the actual problem.

The ideal is what the Court said in 1943 and I believe that was the original intent. Where we have failed is in protecting our view/understanding as the dominant one over the course of our country's history. We've allowed a conflation of 'insurrection' as a 'bad' thing and 'resistance to tyranny;' something we see with the current narrative regarding the Capitol fiasco. We've allowed for the very thing a number of the Founders feared, a large, standing army replacing "the People" as defenders of the nation. We've developed a tolerance for the Courts to use current 'meaning' rather than 'original intent;' making the Constitution less meaningful and usable as a 'structural' framework for our society and leaving us more susceptible to nefarious machination. (An example of which being the mix-mash of laws regarding elections.) The list goes on.

If we can't agree among ourselves what is/isn't specifically protected... If the Supreme Court is nearly evenly divided on what is/isn't protected... If we can't agree on how to comprehend and come to an understanding on what is/isn't protected... Then let's be honest. Discussing whether law enforcement and the military will 'uphold their oath' isn't a discussion about whether individual members of both would be 'upholding their oath' as THEY understand it. It's a rant about how they must uphold their oath as WE understand it and, once again, "we" can even agree on how "we" understand it. So...

What standard are law enforcement and the military supposed to use in 'upholding their oath' without being caught in a seeming Catch-22?

[ScottsBad]

if it isn't obvious where we are heading now...

now is the hour of testing for law enforcement and the military. will they uphold their oaths, or will they commit treason with the other conspirators

I don't think we can count on LE loyalty to Constitution, because one can justify to themselves that the law was created in an assumed lawful and Constitutional system, even if it violates the plain text.

People, these days, have no hard historical reference and have seen the Constitution violated over and over.

As for the Military, the leftist Secretary of Defense is busy "identifying extremists" to take them out of the Military. He gave no definition of extremist, but you can bet he means white Christian Conservatives.

This Military purge and monitoring, along with reinstating the Critical Race Theory indoctrination, will keep the soldiers scared and in line.

Besides, if the Military, LE, or National Guard push back on whatever is coming it will be called an insurrection. The press will take over to make sure that anyone who disagrees with the Commies is vilified and probably jailed or put in camps.

Yes, this is where I fear we are heading. Get thee to a deep RED STATE (or leave the Country) as soon as possible. It your only hope.

As crazy as it sounds, I'm looking into how I might get out of the US with my wife, and maybe grown kids if necessary.

This is all SCARY stuff. Too bad most people don't understand what is happening.

[ScottsBad]

Where are all these Calguns libtard, used butt-wipes who claimed Biden (or whoever else was in there) would not do anything?.....Oh yea, they are hiding under their beds with a dildo up their cornholes.

They are all practicing to suck Democrack dick.

[BajaJames83]

I juts got my bonus and will have to send some the NRA ILAs way

[Fastattack]

Now I know how to spend my stimulus money, contribute to the cause!

[Featureless]

"President Joe Biden reportedly won’t rule out using executive orders to crackdown on Americans’ constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights.
The revelation was made during a White House press conference on Tuesday in response to a statement that Biden put out last week calling for banning semi-automatic firearms in addition to other gun control measures."

My question is, how does this demented old pedophile plan to enforce any of his dictates?

[kurac]

I think the dems are just waiting for another mass shooter event so they can ram their proposed laws through with no debate.

[whutsup40]

Scr**w them!!

[ScottsBad]

Where are all these Calguns libtard, used butt-wipes who claimed Biden (or whoever else was in there) would not do anything?.....Oh yea, they are hiding under their beds with a dildo up their cornholes.

They are all practicing to suck Democrack dick.