[Jack Black]

It’s too late. I’m long, long, past caring what our pseudo-masters in black robes say.

Affirmation of our right is certainly to be desired. However I seriously doubt that it will slow the gun-banners in their quest. So at best it will be a hollow victory.

If I agreed that the SC had the right to decide this, then I would agree that should they decide that gun-banning is Constitutional it would be legitimate.

Conversely if the SC rules against the individual right I will completely ignore this law, as it is absurd. My rights are not negotable.

I don’t care how many justices Lady Hillary eventually gets to appoint, nor how they rule on this. It’s just not open to furhter discussion.

[Flintlock]

Anybody out there TRUST the SCOTUS?
Me neither.
Lock and load, boys and girls. It’s going to be time to fight.
As in “bang bang.”

[Resolute Conservative]

I am with you and am not making false bravado. I will always have my weapons and they will not take them. If this is ruled the wrong way it could be the spark that lights the fuse that leads to a revolution.

[gridlock]

I’m with you, Jack. It is abhorrent that the Supreme Court should be permitted to consider the question. The answer is obvious.

[RicocheT]

Amen, the justices on the US Supreme Court aren’t the final answer on our right to use and have arms. Neither is the Constitution as it merely recognizes that right, and other rights as preexisting our government.

The rights are those of free and independent American people who came together to form a government for and of free people, one that respects rights as well as sets responsibilities (pay taxes, follow the law, take care of yourselves and your children, come together for common defense, elect honest representatives, etc.).

If the court or the government infringes on our rights, we have the power and duty to correct or change that government. Our power includes the use of votes and if necessary, our arms.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

If I agreed that the SC had the right to decide this

Not a big fan of Marbury vs Madison I take it.

[labette]

A good point.

[dbacks]

[I don’t care how many justices Lady Hillary eventually gets to appoint, nor how they rule on this. It’s just not open to furhter discussion.]

I hope the supremes took this to get it in before Hillary wins and stacks the court with ultra-libs. In that regard, the republicans damn well better filibuster any and all appointments she makes (presuming it IS a dem).

[EBH]

This is the court we’ve allowed to rule...as in rulers vs. judges.

Supreme Court appointment is not for life...although we don’t have a Congress with the BALLS to fight for our Rights.

I agree this is a lock and load issue. DC may just find themselves in the middle of a real live GUN Protest.

The Justices may find themselves on the losing end. This is exactly why the Right exists.

[montag813]

It’s too late. I’m long, long, past caring what our pseudo-masters in black robes say.

This is the same body which ruled that Blacks were subhuman, and that the Constitution contained a right to kill the unborn. It is hardly worthy of much respect.

[Redbob]

You may think this will be “hollow,” but the citizens of D.C. certainly will not.

[newguy357]

It’s too late. I’m long, long, past caring what our pseudo-masters in black robes say.

Exactly. Lots of people on both sides will be losing sleep over this, but it will change nothing.