Our most consistently constitutional justice.

[ironglows]

.
  We have one Justice on the SCOTUS, who is a reliable follower of the constitution, and has been fo 29 years.

  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clarence-thomas-awaits-his-chance-to-drive-the-conservative-majority-on-abortion-and-guns/ar-AAKbGzx?ocid=msedgntp

[DDZ]

To bad Trumps appointees didn't side with Thomas and vote to look at the lawsuit by Texas and other states over the fraudulent election.  Thomas has been a rock.

[Doublebass73]

Thomas is the only legitimate follower of the Constitution on that court.

[Dee]

I thought Scalia was with Thomas on all that.

[Doublebass73]

I thought Scalia was with Thomas on all that.

In the Heller decision Scalia wrote “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

Sounds just like Pedophile Joe to me.

[ironglows]

.
  "In the Heller decision Scalia wrote “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

  Could he have been referring to weapons of mass destruction..getting the context, may change the perspective.

  Still, Thomas is in a class by himself !

[Doublebass73]

.
  "In the Heller decision Scalia wrote “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

  Could he have been referring to weapons of mass destruction..getting the context, may change the perspective.

  Still, Thomas is in a class by himself !

Could you point me to the "weapons of mass destruction" exemption in the 2nd Amendment? I just checked my copy of the Constitution and can't seem to find it.

[ironglows]

.
  "In the Heller decision Scalia wrote “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

  Could he have been referring to weapons of mass destruction..getting the context, may change the perspective.

  Still, Thomas is in a class by himself !

Could you point me to the "weapons of mass destruction" exemption in the 2nd Amendment? I just checked my copy of the Constitution and can't seem to find it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Of course, there were no WMD, as defined today.. chemical weapons in the form of toxic gasses, and despite that we just recently were hit with what apparently was a weapons lab virus development, they were faced with no major bio weapons. 
  ..And of course, nuclear.  We are fast approaching a briefcase size nuclear weapon.

  If perchance that is what justice Scalia was referring to... I wouldn't be greatly comfortable with Muhammad's suicide bombers running around the country with some of those nukes..

  Then there is the "dirty bomb", scenario, where  a major city may have to be evacuated because of one canister scattered from an airplane or drone.
 
  We may have need of a way to legally take such WMD away from dangerous people..

[Ranger99]

" dangerous people "

For some reason, everyone is hesitant to
put dangerous people and any other forms
of criminals in a place where they can't do
harm to others or their property.
It's the simplest most common sense
solution that costs the very least, but we
still grasp at straws and continue to
avoid the obvious

[ironglows]

.
  The California governor is bound that he will release 79,000 felons upon Californians, and ultimately upon America.

 One female DA on Fox, said that was 80% of the total felony population in the California prison system.

[Ranger99]

I have one across the way right now
that's been to state 3 or 4 times, and
county hotel numerous times.
For some reason I was thinking 3 strikes,
but I guess that's no longer valid.
Tens of thousands + just like him in
this area alone.
Went right back to hard drugs and
alcohol and thievery upon release 
Hard core heroin this time 
Been caught holding not long ago
and still running around willy nilly

[Ranger99]

Saw his useless cousin today when
he came by to visit. Just as useless,
but draws the line at meth.
( as if that's a big difference)

[Doublebass73]

.
  "In the Heller decision Scalia wrote “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

  Could he have been referring to weapons of mass destruction..getting the context, may change the perspective.

  Still, Thomas is in a class by himself !

Could you point me to the "weapons of mass destruction" exemption in the 2nd Amendment? I just checked my copy of the Constitution and can't seem to find it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Of course, there were no WMD, as defined today.. chemical weapons in the form of toxic gasses, and despite that we just recently were hit with what apparently was a weapons lab virus development, they were faced with no major bio weapons. 
  ..And of course, nuclear.  We are fast approaching a briefcase size nuclear weapon.

  If perchance that is what justice Scalia was referring to... I wouldn't be greatly comfortable with Muhammad's suicide bombers running around the country with some of those nukes..

  Then there is the "dirty bomb", scenario, where  a major city may have to be evacuated because of one canister scattered from an airplane or drone.
 
  We may have need of a way to legally take such WMD away from dangerous people..

So in other words you're actually naive enough to believe that criminals follow laws.

Again, could you please point me to the exemption in the 2nd Amendment that says we can't have WMD's?

[ironglows]

.
  From DB 73;

   "
So in other words you're actually naive enough to believe that criminals follow laws.

    DB..   I don't want to be rude, but when somebody comes to me with the statement.."in other words", i have to make something clear.

  "In other words" is just a term used to substitute what I truly said, with "other words" ! 

  For instance; I neither said or implied that criminals would obey laws...where did you get that idea?

   Or are those just "other words" ?  Please stick to the words I used, without 'editing' them..

  ..And yes, I suspect that Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson didn't have WMD in mind, when they approved of the second amendment.

And yes, I must admit some trepidation, that each Mohammed, Yusef or Ishmael, may be running around with nuclear briefcases or dirty bomb lunch boxes, and with nothing the law can do about it !

[Doublebass73]

.
  From DB 73;

   "
So in other words you're actually naive enough to believe that criminals follow laws.

    DB..   I don't want to be rude, but when somebody comes to me with the statement.."in other words", i have to make something clear.

  "In other words" is just a term used to substitute what I truly said, with "other words" ! 

  For instance; I neither said or implied that criminals would obey laws...where did you get that idea?

   Or are those just "other words" ?  Please stick to the words I used, without 'editing' them..

  ..And yes, I suspect that Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson didn't have WMD in mind, when they approved of the second amendment.

And yes, I must admit some trepidation, that each Mohammed, Yusef or Ishmael, may be running around with nuclear briefcases or dirty bomb lunch boxes, and with nothing the law can do about it !

Still waiting on my question as to where the WMD clause is in the 2nd Amendment.

You sound exactly like liberals when you say the founding fathers didn't have WMD's in mind. Please stick to the words the founding fathers wrote instead of editing them.