Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

The Kackler wins enough support to clinch Democratic nomination
Politics by HatetheSwamp     July 23, 2024 3:33 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [15 views]


Harris Is Uniting and Energizing Democratic Voters ó and Polling Better Against Trump
Politics by Curt_Anderson     July 23, 2024 5:18 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [38 views]


Harris/______?
Politics by Ponderer     July 21, 2024 12:09 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (35 comments) [254 views]


538: Kamala Harris approval tanking
Media by HatetheSwamp     July 23, 2024 4:26 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [11 views]


Baha. Andy Beshear claims JD Vance ha'int no real hillbilly
Politics by HatetheSwamp     July 23, 2024 3:48 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [5 views]


Republican try the same ploy that worked on Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016
Politics by Curt_Anderson     July 22, 2024 3:05 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (6 comments) [68 views]


Donald Trump is angry and frustrated today.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     July 21, 2024 8:55 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (20 comments) [147 views]


Will anyone challenge Harris?
Politics by ROB3RT     July 21, 2024 3:29 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (16 comments) [143 views]


I already like the way Harris is taking on Trump
Politics by Curt_Anderson     July 22, 2024 3:24 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (8 comments) [68 views]


JOE MANCHIN FOR PRESIDENT
Politics by HatetheSwamp     July 21, 2024 5:37 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (8 comments) [66 views]


Law selectors, pages, etc.
Clarence Thomas is sole dissenter in Supreme Court decision on guns
By HatetheSwamp
June 21, 2024 9:14 am
Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

Wouldn't you just know it? It took a d@ng pickaninny to stand in the way of a unanimous, rational decision on guns.

Right white wokesters? Baha!


Cited and related links:

  1. thehill.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Clarence Thomas is sole dissenter in Supreme Court decision on guns":

  1. by Curt_Anderson on June 21, 2024 9:46 am
    How is this a tough call?

    The case started in 2019 when Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer in Texas, assaulted his girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone, leading her to obtain a restraining order. The order suspended Mr. Rahimiís handgun license and prohibited him from possessing firearms.

    Mr. Rahimi defied the order in flagrant fashion, according to court records.

    He threatened a different woman with a gun, leading to charges of assault with a deadly weapon. Then, in the space of two months, he opened fire in public five times.

    Upset about a social media post from someone to whom he had sold drugs, for instance, he shot an AR-15 rifle into his former clientís home. When a fast-food restaurant declined a friendís credit card, he fired several bullets into the air.

    The shootings led to a search warrant of Mr. Rahimiís home, which uncovered weapons, and he was charged with violating a federal law that makes it a crime for people subject to domestic violence orders to possess guns.
    nytimes.com


  2. by Indy! on June 21, 2024 10:59 am

    Wouldn't you just know it? It took a d@ng pickaninny to stand in the way of a unanimous, rational decision on guns.

    Right white wokesters? Baha!




    It's always about race with the racists. There is no other issue in their lives.


  3. by HatetheSwamp on June 21, 2024 11:07 am

    T'other day, Gutfeld made the point that things would be very different if the 2nd Amendment were the 1st Amendment.

    Lovers of freedom allow virtually no abridgement of the right to speak freely nor to assemble. And, the 2nd Amendment is as far reaching as the 1st: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    BUT pb, BUT pb!!!!! Rights aren't absolute!!!!! A blast from the SS past, eh!!!!!?

    For Justice Thomas? The 2nd Amendment may not be absolute but he takes the words "shall not be abridged" literally and seriously.

    How is this a tough call?

    Should Rahimi lose his freedom to speak? To worship as he pleases without Big Brother intrusion?

    That's how.

    Note. Thomas is the only Justice on even this Court who understands the 2nd Amendment in this way. But, that's how.

    Many lovers of freedom love that crazy ole spearchucker. Deservedly so.


  4. by Indy! on June 21, 2024 11:43 am

    Gutfeld is an idiot (and certainly not funny - his own audience doesn't laugh at 90% of his "jokes") There are far more restrictions on the first amendment than the second (which really should not even be in the Constitution). Guns are a product - not a human right.


  5. by Curt_Anderson on June 21, 2024 11:45 am
    I made a similar point to my wife regarding Hunter Biden's conviction. Sure, we don't like the idea of drug abusers owning guns. But at that point Hunter Biden was not convicted of any drug offense. Like it or not, gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right. I told my wife that we wouldn't want it to be that you could lose your right to vote if you admit you abuse drugs or alcohol.

    But the guy in this case was obviously a menace to his ex-gf and society. You and I have the right to own a gun but not the right to shoot willy-nilly and at people and threaten people with a gun. Like speech, religious expression (sorry, human sacrifices are not allowed) and other rights, gun ownership is not an absolute right. The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.



  6. by HatetheSwamp on June 21, 2024 12:08 pm

    Indy, Gutfeld ain't an idiot, as much as you disagree with him. His thinking is as clear as anyone on the right, though he can be a buffoon.

    Also, I think you gave yourself away. Just how could you possibly know that his audience doesn't laugh at 90% of his jokes!!!!!... you closeted GUTFELD geek, you. Baha, ha, ahhhhhhhhhhh.


    Curt,

    You asked how this ain't a close call. I splained. It's curious to ole pb that you can't simply disagree with Thomas, that you have to condemn him for having the audacity to hold an opinion at odds with yours. How typical of sanctimonious woke whitesters.

    I absolutely disagree with Thomas, as did every other Justice. But, I don't condemn him for holding his opinion.


  7. by Curt_Anderson on June 21, 2024 1:48 pm
    Quote where I supposedly condemned Thomas, HtS. When I said "tough call", I was thinking that the Supreme Court shouldn't have wasted their time hearing the case and let the lower court decision stand.

    Can we not agree that there are limits on all of our constitutional rights and those who abuse those rights are subject to losing them? In his background which I posted above, there were about a half dozen reasons that the guy should lose his gun ownership rights.





  8. by Indy! on June 21, 2024 2:37 pm

    I watched about 15 minutes of Gutfeld one time on your recommendation. Then about 2 minutes of one of your videos - which you already know about (unless your brain farted). Don't worry - I won't making that mistake again. But no worries, I do agree with one thing you wrote...

    Indy, Gutfeld ain't an idiot, as much as you disagree with him. His thinking is as clear as anyone on the right.

    Yep - because none of you think clearly, nor do you have a sense of humor. 😉


  9. by HatetheSwamp on June 22, 2024 7:00 am

    Indy,

    Are you taking Sanctimony Lessons from po?

    You seem to be becoming nuthin more than a woke SwampDem.

    po could have written your post. Wake up, bruh!


  10. by Ponderer on June 22, 2024 8:08 am

    "It's always about race with the racists. There is no other issue in their lives." -Indy!

    Yup. They just have to bring up a black person's race. They bring it up whether it's relevant or not. And it almost never is when they do. They genetically can't help themselves.


    "Lovers of freedom allow virtually no abridgement of the right to speak freely nor to assemble. And, the 2nd Amendment is as far reaching as the 1st: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."" -Hate

    The blatantly relevant difference of course being that a psychopath can't blow a classroom full of children's brains out using their freedom of speech.


    Oh there I go again, expecting a conservative MAGA Hat to understand the concept of an equitable comparison.



  11. by Indy! on June 22, 2024 9:13 am

    Indy,

    Are you taking Sanctimony Lessons from po?

    You seem to be becoming nuthin more than a woke SwampDem.



    Because I know - like his own audience knows - that Gutfeld is not funny? Are you saying Gutfeld only appeals to the right? Or maybe he's only "funny" to the far right (because - again - his studio audience is not laughing at his "jokes")


  12. by oldedude on June 26, 2024 10:11 pm
    Curt- Second response first. I made a similar point to my wife regarding Hunter Biden's conviction. Sure, we don't like the idea of drug abusers owning guns. But at that point Hunter Biden was not convicted of any drug offense.

    The question on the form doesn't ask if you're convicted. It asks if you're an illegal user or addicted to illegal drugs. pedojr was smoking crack every 30 minutes. He's in violation of the law. Period. In FL, I'm not allowed a Concealed Carry permit if I have a Medical Weed license/ permit/ whatever. That's the law. So to be caught with weed in your blood (which lasts 30+ days because it's a fat-soluble drug), you violated state law. Do I support it? I dunno, it doesn't affect me. I still hold a clearance and can't smoke weed if I actually wanted to.

    Thomas's decision: There is a huge issue with the "red flag laws" v spiteful ex's. If my ex were alive her son's (they're mine also) and I agree that she would throw a red flag on me for simple spite. There needs to be protection for the gun owner in these cases, at least get their day in court.

    This butthead. Another question in the form is about selling dope. He violated federal law. Sorry. End of story, go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. And frigging charge him!

    In an earlier thread I posted that "indy" mocked. This is exactly what the task force is built to do. Take guns away from assholes like Rahimi and ensure they don't have the capability to get more "legal" guns. We know they'll get guns if they want to. That's a 25-year jaunt in state (alone). I'm in agreement with that. And of course, you need to arrest him for slinging dope with that. But don't bury the gun charge.

    Also, if it's within a certain period, many states will flag DUIs/DWAIs in the system and depending on the time since the alcohol charges may allow the guns, and the officers that stop the person know they have guns and the courts can take the appropriate action (whatever that may be according to their law).

    It's long, sorry. My 2 cents.


  13. by HatetheSwamp on June 27, 2024 3:31 am

    Indy,

    Gutfeld is, indeed, only funny to the right. But, then,... Only the right laughs. If you doubt me, watch MSNBC for a day.


  14. by Indy! on June 27, 2024 11:45 am

    So you're saying Gitfeld only has lefties in his own audience?


Go To Top

Comment on: "Clarence Thomas is sole dissenter in Supreme Court decision on guns"


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page