8
POPSOlbermann Explains the 2nd Amendment Those pesky rights that need to be explained. LOL Thanks, Keith, for explaining what our founders actually meant, given that they so woefully failed at expressing themselves clearly enough.
3
POPSObama's Supreme U-Turns The Supreme Court also looked at a Louisiana law extending the death penalty to the rape of a child. In another 5-to-4 decision, the Court ruled the Constitution doesn’t permit capital punishment for raping a child. The majority opinion argued the death penalty for that crime “poses risks of over-punishment.” Senator Obama criticized the decision: “I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution.” Like many Americans, I agree with that. The problem is that Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter don’t. All of them voted to overturn the death penalty for child rapists.
0
POPSGuns: This Is Why I live in Texas, a big gun-loving state. Just a few days ago when discussing the recent Supreme Court decision, I missed my opportunity to get on my soapbox when someone baited me by asking, "What, you wouldn't allow me to protect myself?" This is why, dumby: You are far more likely to blow yourself away than to protect your precious dvd collection. When people talk about guns, the words they use include "rights, freedom, American, 2nd amendment, protection, safety, etc." But somehow suicide and accidental gun injuries and death never rise to become part of that conversation. For the life of me I don't know why. Is it that we are confronted daily with images in the media of heroic gunfights between the bad guys vs. the good guys? But what about the good guy vs. himself? Or the bad guy grabbing the good guy's gun and using it against him? Or the good guy's young child accidentally shooting her foot off? Why do we never talk about these things?
2
POPSLandmark Decision on the 2nd Amendment The Supreme Court clarified the 2nd amendment recently, arguing that it guarantees a right to own guns for self-defense. As a former NRA member, I am thrilled with the decision. Scalia's explanation of his decision was superb. You should read it.
0
POPSSupreme Court Upholds 2nd Amendment, right to bear arms is personal but see even Scalia's "but" statements. They still want to "infringe". The idea of having a permit would be repugnant to Patrick Henry and the colonists of 1776. Notice how close this vote was, 5 to 4 by the Supremes , and even the most conservative do not deny some restrictions may be applied. "Shall not be infringed" is illegible to them apparently. So go buy yourself a Glock and learn how to safely use it. It's best to buy from private owners to keep yourself out of the "infringement" of federal data-bases which tracks gun sales, and could be accessed under PATRIOT ACT provisions upon any government desire to do so. My question is, what about the 4th amendment? This should be the next focus of challenges.
3
POPSSCOTUS Strikes Down DC Gun Ban Here's a fun question for the "strict constructionist" Scalia -- if this is true, why would 2nd amendment mention militias at all? And why doesn't it mention self-defense? Scalia's never been a "strict constructionist." All that means is "someone who'll be a judicial activist for Republican causes."
3
POPSAre we a laughingstock on gun ownership? If a politician goes against the gun lobbies and the National Rifle Association's desire to lessen restrictions on gun ownership, they lose! We are a Pistol-packing mama and papa, gun toting SON OF A GUN, nation, for sure. (E J Dionee writes about the argument of - if everybody were carrying weapons, someone would have taken out the murderer and all would have been fine...This is a stupid argument, driven by the stupid politics of gun control in the U.S.. When Richard Reid showed that nasty things could be done with shoes on airplanes, airport security started examining shoes. If we can act pragmatically in the skies, why can't we be equally practical here on the ground?) The questions that should be asked is... Why is America so violent, are guns to blame? or How many more mass murders involving guns will it take?
4
POPSThe Democrats And Gun Control Mr. Obama's campaign Web site touts his belief in the Second Amendment rights to have guns "for the purposes of hunting and target shooting." Conspicuously absent is the right to have firearms to defend one's self, home and family. A presidential candidate could of course swear devotion to the First Amendment, while declaring that the amendment's purpose is to protect sports reporting and book collecting. And that candidate could still support government lawsuits against publishers, local bans on newspapers, and draconian restrictions on political commentary. Civil libertarians who supported such a candidate because of his alleged love for the First Amendment would be foolish. Civil libertarians who support Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton because of their purported fealty to the Second Amendment may be bitterly disappointed.
3
POPSSupreme Court To Back Right To Bear Arms
It appeared clear that a majority of the court would rule that the US constitution protects the right of individual Americans to “keep and bear arms” – but that federal, state and local governments will retain some powers to regulate firearms. At issue in the case is the constitution’s second amendment, which includes ambiguous language about gun rights. It says “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.A majority of the nine justices, including the crucial “swing” justice Anthony Kennedy, who often holds the balance of power on the court, appeared to believe the amendment guaranteed an individual right to weapons. Justice Kennedy repeatedly insisted that the amendment must have been intended to allow citizens to protect their frontier homes and families against dangers such as attacking Indians or bears, and should provide a similar right to protect the modern home.
2
POPSLawyer Funds Challenge To Washington Firearms Ban >>>Supreme court tests right to own gun<<<In what is being billed as the most important firearms ruling in a generation, the US supreme court begins hearing a case tomorrow that will decide whether Americans have a personal right to own guns. The city of Washington DC has outlawed gun possession for more than 30 years, but a 65-year-old security guard is challenging the rule which he says prevents him from keeping a gun at home to protect his family. If the supreme court strikes down the city's ban, considered the nation's strictest gun law, the floodgates could open for legal tests on rules limiting gun ownership in the US.
4
POPSTHE REAL DO-GOODERS VERSUS THE PSEUDO DO-GOODERS Their impassioned desires to make the ENTIRE world look the way THEY want it is a utopian dream - FOR A NARCISSIST! And they don't care if their utopia is just an unrealistic dream. Or, if it's been proven to be a nightmare in other nations, in other centuries. WHY!? Because: For the leftist, it's more about looking like their helping, than really helping.
3
POPSHillary Clinton Voted To Grab Guns During Emergencies >>>>>>Barack Obama Voted Against It<<<<<< "What are we thinking?" Durbin, the Democrats' No 2 leader, asked. "Why would we do this to the men and women in law enforcement, to the National Guardsmen, or to innocent victims, which could be you or me or people we love, in a disaster they cannot even anticipate?"
1
POPSStop half-the-war bill passes House.
"There's no way to get there from here," someone once said. One big step forward, at least, is that it has a name and number so when trying to talk about it you don't have to say things like: "The 2nd Amendment to Fall Supplemental Funding" This bill is called the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act, HR 2957. One good idea is a clear policy against torture. There also appears to be a clear requirement that the government must start a withdrawal of troops. This article clipped here, though, distorts several provisions of the actual bill. If interested in comparing this ONE sample of distortion and propaganda spin, the actual text of the legislation can be found here, at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02956 which does NOT ask for a Full Withdrawal of troops by Dec. 2008 but a Limited Withdrawal by April 2008. Gosh...Bush could bring one soldier home by and meet the requirement. At least we're getting another Holocaust Muse
0
POPSWill Supreme Court Uphold Right to Bear Arms?
The case in particular revolves around a Washington DC (unconstitutional) ordinance that bans handguns, or requires their disassembly. But upholding what a federal judge has ruled, that such an ordinance is unconstitutional, the principle of course (though plain to all) has ramifications on all gun measures that states and the federal government have (unconstitutionally) passed--i.e. mandatory registration, IDs, concealed carry, transportation between states, etc. The current gun laws would have been immediately decried by the founders which included this in the Bill of Rights. "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tenche Cox, 1789 on the 2nd Amendment
0
POPSFor those who STILL can't believe what is happening, Pt. IV. I believe all of these things are happening, and, if I'm not mistaken, so do most people. They are describing people who be believe the Constitution has been subverted, (it has) the U.S. has lost its sovereignty, (it has, and long before the idea of our keepers building a North American Union; we lost our sovereignty with the creation of the U.N.) I believe the 2nd Amendment is as important as the first. What is frightening is they are describing perfectly normal AMERICANS, and for the first time use the word terrorists against normal Americans: "These terrorist claim that the U.S. government is infringing on their individual rights and/or the governments's policies are criminal and immoral. "These terrorists." They are describing the most law-abiding citizens in this country, and cannot refer to them as anything but "These Terrorists." Could they not use the term white supremacists more often?
2
POPSWonders Never Cease What a shock. An armed citizenry makes for a peaceful community. Not only that, but the people who appreciate such old-fashioned values make for good neighbors. Tell us something we didn't already know.
2
Pops
Newest Clips
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Print
Save
Turn on live update