Special Comment: Justice Scalia The Time Has Come- Quit The Bench

There are 270 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Jun 26, 2013, titled Special Comment: Justice Scalia The Time Has Come- Quit The Bench. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

In his dissent over the DOMA case, Justice Scalia threw a monumental temper tantrum- and it is time now for him to step down from the bench

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#62 Jun 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Feh. Dark clothing, masks, and tossing in a couple smoke grenades or flash-bags would make your gun pretty well useless, especially if it's so easily visible.
<quoted text>
Which gun ? I have several. And are you threatening violence and damage to my property in that post ?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#63 Jun 28, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
As I keep getting tired of saying to you, YOU HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT PHRASE MEANS.(and SCOTUS clearly said in Bush v. Gore that there is no right to vote).
Why don't you email the ACLU and ask them ? Why are you so afraid to spend 42 seconds to write and send that email ? afraid of the answer ???????:)
Same reason I don't have to email anyone and ask if I have the right to a speedy trial. It's right there in plain language in the constitution.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied......"

Now stomp your feet & hold your breath & tell your mommy I won't listen to you.....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#64 Jun 28, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Does your Constitutional analysis and dismissal of "qualifiers" (see above) include the 2nd Amendment? Said Amendment clearly states, "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Only as part of a well regulated militia- the part you conveniently left out.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#65 Jun 28, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a rifle that is always kept i the living room, near the front door easily visible from both windows, if a person should ever peer in.
I also recently installed TEN (10) wireless surveillance cameras on each of the four sides of my house, along with an easily-visible sticker on EACH window and EACH door stating that the occupant of the house is armed, and that surveillance cameras are in use.
Each camera has a small red L.E.D. that blinks continuously, and is easily visible from the street, or any place in the backyard. I also have a burglar alarm system with central station connection.
But if the cameras, window and door stickers, and large central station sign don't deter a would-be burglar, then perhaps the clearly visible gun will deter them.
I'd suggest you move to a less dangerous neighborhood.

I don't even have to lock my doors when I leave.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#66 Jun 28, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Only as part of a well regulated militia- the part you conveniently left out.
If we were to take the well-regulated militia clause seriously--and I have great doubts that rag-tag assemblies of gun-owning citizens will be able to protect our country from any conceivable threat--wouldn't that suggest that we need to know who owns the guns and make sure they're trained? In other words, wouldn't we need both a registry and formal, ongoing training sessions?

And for those who imagine that rag-tag assemblies of gun-owning citizens are going to save us from the politicians for whom the rest of us voted, I've got some very bad news: Let's start with drones and work from there. You don't get any.

There's a much easier way to seek change in the United States: Convince voters with reason that change is desirable. Gunpoint has never really worked all that well.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#67 Jun 28, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
If we were to take the well-regulated militia clause seriously--and I have great doubts that rag-tag assemblies of gun-owning citizens will be able to protect our country from any conceivable threat--wouldn't that suggest that we need to know who owns the guns and make sure they're trained? In other words, wouldn't we need both a registry and formal, ongoing training sessions?
And for those who imagine that rag-tag assemblies of gun-owning citizens are going to save us from the politicians for whom the rest of us voted, I've got some very bad news: Let's start with drones and work from there. You don't get any.
There's a much easier way to seek change in the United States: Convince voters with reason that change is desirable. Gunpoint has never really worked all that well.
Firstly, you have a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING of the meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" militia. "Well-regulated" at the time it was written meant "to be proficient in marksmanship", not that a formal organization exist. Also, according to the various states's laws that established their militias, nearly ALL states said in their laws that ALL able-bodied males over the age of 16 years, were in the militia by by virtue of those facts. And they were expected to bring their own arms, ammunition, powder, and necessary supplies to defend the state, towns, and other places in said state.

Furthermore, until World War II, the United States HAD NO STANDING ARMY in it's history. After each war, the military, INCLUDING the U.S. Navy, AND the U.S. Army Air Corps (one of the predecessor names of the USAF) were demobilized after each war. Outside of wartime, declared or undeclared, the ONLY military protection was a state's militia.

Only when the U.S. started to get ready in 1940, for our involvement in World War II, was a standing military established, and it was only kept that way because of the communist threat after the end of the Second World War.

And the Second Amendment, AND AN ARMED CITIZENRY is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to preserve LIBERTY in the United States.

SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT !

SUPPORT AN ARMED CITIZENRY !

ANNOY A LIBERAL BY SUPPORTING THE SUPPORT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION !

"from my cold, dead hands.........."
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#68 Jun 29, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Only as part of a well regulated militia- the part you conveniently left out.
I KNEW you'd play that game! Exactly where is the word ONLY in the Second Amendment?(Don't worry. It isn't there.)

Also noting (consistent with your being stupid and complete fraud) you trumpet your cherry picked phrase and completely (or should I say "conveniently" as you did above) ignore all else to he contrary to your bullsh!t claim re voting being a guaranteed, absolute right.

Do you really think you get away with that bullsh!t? Obviously not since you have been called on your bullsh!t by several others. And in usual Sheeple bullsh!t fashion, you simply ignore all evidence to the contrary and keep trumpeting the same bullsh!t over and over again, as if your blatant dishonesty isn't noticed. Yet again, you are exposed as a complete fraud.

Surprise.
BS Detector

La Puente, CA

#69 Jun 29, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, you have a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING of the meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" militia. "Well-regulated" at the time it was written meant "to be proficient in marksmanship", not that a formal organization exist. Also, according to the various states's laws that established their militias, nearly ALL states said in their laws that ALL able-bodied males over the age of 16 years, were in the militia by by virtue of those facts. And they were expected to bring their own arms, ammunition, powder, and necessary supplies to defend the state, towns, and other places in said state.
Furthermore, until World War II, the United States HAD NO STANDING ARMY in it's history. After each war, the military, INCLUDING the U.S. Navy, AND the U.S. Army Air Corps (one of the predecessor names of the USAF) were demobilized after each war. Outside of wartime, declared or undeclared, the ONLY military protection was a state's militia.
Only when the U.S. started to get ready in 1940, for our involvement in World War II, was a standing military established, and it was only kept that way because of the communist threat after the end of the Second World War.
And the Second Amendment, AND AN ARMED CITIZENRY is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to preserve LIBERTY in the United States.
SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT !
SUPPORT AN ARMED CITIZENRY !
ANNOY A LIBERAL BY SUPPORTING THE SUPPORT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION !
"from my cold, dead hands.........."
Well regulated also has been defined as two or more people united in a common goal. No, I do not have a cite for that.

Silly Sheeple has the silly (but I repeat myself) idea that the government cannot grant rights. They just somehow magically *are*(as long as he agrees with or approves of them).

I have a feeling you already know that the Bill of Rights was created to protect the people from government, not the other way around.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#70 Jun 29, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, you have a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING of the meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" militia. "Well-regulated" at the time it was written meant "to be proficient in marksmanship", not that a formal organization exist. Also, according to the various states's laws that established their militias, nearly ALL states said in their laws that ALL able-bodied males over the age of 16 years, were in the militia by by virtue of those facts. And they were expected to bring their own arms, ammunition, powder, and necessary supplies to defend the state, towns, and other places in said state.
Furthermore, until World War II, the United States HAD NO STANDING ARMY in it's history. After each war, the military, INCLUDING the U.S. Navy, AND the U.S. Army Air Corps (one of the predecessor names of the USAF) were demobilized after each war. Outside of wartime, declared or undeclared, the ONLY military protection was a state's militia.
Only when the U.S. started to get ready in 1940, for our involvement in World War II, was a standing military established, and it was only kept that way because of the communist threat after the end of the Second World War.
And the Second Amendment, AND AN ARMED CITIZENRY is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to preserve LIBERTY in the United States.
SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT !
SUPPORT AN ARMED CITIZENRY !
ANNOY A LIBERAL BY SUPPORTING THE SUPPORT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION !
"from my cold, dead hands.........."
I think you have just confirmed that the reasons for the Second Amendment no longer exist. That's not how we raise an army, any more. I could also add that guns referred to single shot muskets, which took a lot of time and trouble to reload.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#71 Jun 29, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you have just confirmed that the reasons for the Second Amendment no longer exist. That's not how we raise an army, any more. I could also add that guns referred to single shot muskets, which took a lot of time and trouble to reload.
So the First Amendment then does not apply to magazines, radio, tv, DVD's, the web, nor ELCA, because they didn't exist at the time and the Founders couldn't have imagined them. RIGHT ?:)

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#72 Jun 29, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
So the First Amendment then does not apply to magazines, radio, tv, DVD's, the web, nor ELCA, because they didn't exist at the time and the Founders couldn't have imagined them. RIGHT ?:)
So you think that faster and better communication of ideas is morally equivalent to highly efficient killing?

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#73 Jun 29, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think that faster and better communication of ideas is morally equivalent to highly efficient killing?
Yes.

Are you one of those weirdo commie pinko liberals that want's to eliminate nuclear weapons ?! That is our MOST efficient way of killing people !(Invented and APPROVED and USED by DEMOCRATS to kill and injure HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE !)

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#74 Jun 29, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
Are you one of those weirdo commie pinko liberals that want's to eliminate nuclear weapons ?! That is our MOST efficient way of killing people !(Invented and APPROVED and USED by DEMOCRATS to kill and injure HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE !)
Well, you just disproved that Democrats are weak on defense. Thanks.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#75 Jun 29, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you just disproved that Democrats are weak on defense. Thanks.
So you're PROUD of the slaughter of THOUSANDS OF INNOCENTS with nuclear weapons by your Stalinist regimes over the years ?! I thought you guys were supposed to be against that sort of thing ?

Typical hypocritical Stalinists.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#76 Jun 29, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you just disproved that Democrats are weak on defense. Thanks.
Unfortunately, our current President continues to prove that in a very bad way.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#77 Jun 29, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, our current President continues to prove that in a very bad way.
By the targeted murders of Americans overseas (some say here too), of American citizens without accusation, indictment, trial, nor conviction). Thought we got rid of that sort of thing in 1776 ???

Oh no, we didn't. KING OBAMANIAC DOTH PROCLAIM !

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#78 Jun 29, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, our current President continues to prove that in a very bad way.
Ya, I say get OUT of the Middle East altogether. Let them people fight their own battles,they have been doing it for centuries, way before Israel even existed. But what gets me......Muslims Sects can strap on bombs and kill each other, they think that is ok. But don't let a non Muslim kill one? Now that is some wacked out thinking. BTW I have heard that the Koran does NOT condone killing.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#79 Jun 29, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
If we were to take the well-regulated militia clause seriously--and I have great doubts that rag-tag assemblies of gun-owning citizens will be able to protect our country from any conceivable threat--wouldn't that suggest that we need to know who owns the guns and make sure they're trained? In other words, wouldn't we need both a registry and formal, ongoing training sessions?
And for those who imagine that rag-tag assemblies of gun-owning citizens are going to save us from the politicians for whom the rest of us voted, I've got some very bad news: Let's start with drones and work from there. You don't get any.
There's a much easier way to seek change in the United States: Convince voters with reason that change is desirable. Gunpoint has never really worked all that well.
Yes, it's called the National Guard; every state has one.

While I don't believe the 2nd amendment was meant to give an individual the right to own guns in any other context than as part of a militia, that doesn't mean I still don't have the right to own a gun as an individual. Rights don't have to be enumerated to exist.

That said, I also know every right can & is restricted to some degree, and I support mandatory registry, training, background checks, etc, etc.

I agree that guns are seldom the answer to political problems.
Just look at how the communist regimes fell across Europe last century- all through mostly peaceful protests when the people finally had enough.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#80 Jun 29, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, you have a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING of the meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" militia. "Well-regulated" at the time it was written meant "to be proficient in marksmanship", not that a formal organization exist. Also, according to the various states's laws that established their militias, nearly ALL states said in their laws that ALL able-bodied males over the age of 16 years, were in the militia by by virtue of those facts. And they were expected to bring their own arms, ammunition, powder, and necessary supplies to defend the state, towns, and other places in said state.
Furthermore, until World War II, the United States HAD NO STANDING ARMY in it's history. After each war, the military, INCLUDING the U.S. Navy, AND the U.S. Army Air Corps (one of the predecessor names of the USAF) were demobilized after each war. Outside of wartime, declared or undeclared, the ONLY military protection was a state's militia.
Only when the U.S. started to get ready in 1940, for our involvement in World War II, was a standing military established, and it was only kept that way because of the communist threat after the end of the Second World War.
And the Second Amendment, AND AN ARMED CITIZENRY is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to preserve LIBERTY in the United States.
SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT !
SUPPORT AN ARMED CITIZENRY !
ANNOY A LIBERAL BY SUPPORTING THE SUPPORT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION !
"from my cold, dead hands.........."
Exactly, and now that we have standing armies and each state has a national guard, there is no longer a need for every able bodied adult male to own and be proficient in the use of a gun.

The right to own a gun still exists, just not from the 2nd amendment.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#81 Jun 29, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I KNEW you'd play that game! Exactly where is the word ONLY in the Second Amendment?(Don't worry. It isn't there.)
Also noting (consistent with your being stupid and complete fraud) you trumpet your cherry picked phrase and completely (or should I say "conveniently" as you did above) ignore all else to he contrary to your bullsh!t claim re voting being a guaranteed, absolute right.
Do you really think you get away with that bullsh!t? Obviously not since you have been called on your bullsh!t by several others. And in usual Sheeple bullsh!t fashion, you simply ignore all evidence to the contrary and keep trumpeting the same bullsh!t over and over again, as if your blatant dishonesty isn't noticed. Yet again, you are exposed as a complete fraud.
Surprise.
Yet again you generate B.S.

Not surprised.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ireland same-sex marriage 2 min Andy 43
News Republic of Ireland votes for equal marriage 33 min Sceptical_Mal 58
News Boy Scouts' leader speaks out on gay adults ban 56 min Wondering 57
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 1 hr Wondering 210
News What it cost Indiana to fight same-sex marriage 1 hr Wondering 14
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 4 hr NorCal Native 4,444
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 4 hr TheTrioSpamGroup 5,595
Memorial Day With NE Jade 5 hr Frankie Rizzo 25
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 7 hr NoahLovesU 33,160
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 13 hr WasteWater 21,568
More from around the web