Enraged Keith Olbermann calls for Supreme Court's dissolution after gun ruling

[Valletta]

Olbermann also blasts Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a 'paralegal' after Supreme Court gun ruling
The Supreme Court Thursday ruled 6-3 that New York’s regulations that made it difficult to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun were unconstitutionally restrictive, and that it should be easier to obtain such a license. All three of the court's liberal justices ruled against it.
Enraged Keith Olbermann calls for Supreme Court's dissolution after New York concealed carry ruling
The Supreme Court ruling was on the right to bear arms as stated in the Constitution. It had nothing to do with what Olbermann or anyone else believes is a good policy for guns in the hands of citizens. It's in our Constitution and the most productive thing to do is for people to make their arguments, peacefully and patriotically, and then to propose and support an amendment to our Constitution to handle guns as to their liking.

 

[Pommer]

Olbermann also blasts Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a 'paralegal' after Supreme Court gun ruling
The Supreme Court Thursday ruled 6-3 that New York’s regulations that made it difficult to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun were unconstitutionally restrictive, and that it should be easier to obtain such a license. All three of the court's liberal justices ruled against it.
Enraged Keith Olbermann calls for Supreme Court's dissolution after New York concealed carry ruling
The Supreme Court ruling was on the right to bear arms as stated in the Constitution. It had nothing to do with what Olbermann or anyone else believes is a good policy for guns in the hands of citizens. It's in our Constitution and the most productive thing to do is for people to make their arguments, peacefully and patriotically, and then to propose and support an amendment to our Constitution to handle guns as to their liking.

So we’ve been told.

 

[disciple Clint]

Olbermann also blasts Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a 'paralegal' after Supreme Court gun ruling
The Supreme Court Thursday ruled 6-3 that New York’s regulations that made it difficult to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun were unconstitutionally restrictive, and that it should be easier to obtain such a license. All three of the court's liberal justices ruled against it.
Enraged Keith Olbermann calls for Supreme Court's dissolution after New York concealed carry ruling
The Supreme Court ruling was on the right to bear arms as stated in the Constitution. It had nothing to do with what Olbermann or anyone else believes is a good policy for guns in the hands of citizens. It's in our Constitution and the most productive thing to do is for people to make their arguments, peacefully and patriotically, and then to propose and support an amendment to our Constitution to handle guns as to their liking.

yes by all means if it does not agree with your views cancel it. Nothing new here.

 

[KCfromNC]

Olbermann also blasts Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a 'paralegal' after Supreme Court gun ruling
The Supreme Court Thursday ruled 6-3 that New York’s regulations that made it difficult to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun were unconstitutionally restrictive, and that it should be easier to obtain such a license. All three of the court's liberal justices ruled against it.
Enraged Keith Olbermann calls for Supreme Court's dissolution after New York concealed carry ruling
The Supreme Court ruling was on the right to bear arms as stated in the Constitution. It had nothing to do with what Olbermann or anyone else believes is a good policy for guns in the hands of citizens. It's in our Constitution and the most productive thing to do is for people to make their arguments, peacefully and patriotically, and then to propose and support an amendment to our Constitution to handle guns as to their liking.

Is there anything illegal about removing and replacing all the justices? I mean, I remember hearing a while back when Mitch and friends were packing the court that there was nothing technically illegal about it so it must be fine. I think it is only fair if the same standards apply here.

 

[dqhall]

Olbermann also blasts Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a 'paralegal' after Supreme Court gun ruling
The Supreme Court Thursday ruled 6-3 that New York’s regulations that made it difficult to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun were unconstitutionally restrictive, and that it should be easier to obtain such a license. All three of the court's liberal justices ruled against it.
Enraged Keith Olbermann calls for Supreme Court's dissolution after New York concealed carry ruling
The Supreme Court ruling was on the right to bear arms as stated in the Constitution. It had nothing to do with what Olbermann or anyone else believes is a good policy for guns in the hands of citizens. It's in our Constitution and the most productive thing to do is for people to make their arguments, peacefully and patriotically, and then to propose and support an amendment to our Constitution to handle guns as to their liking.

States rights should be considered. Some will want to sell semi auto assault rifles to terrorists, convicted murderers and armed bandits without requiring background checks for private sales.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I actually don't necessarily disagree with the ruling in this particular case. The law requiring a reason for being able to CC after a person has been background checked and licensed to possess a firearm seemed a little too far and is a pretty subjective standard that could be easily used on a whim to grant or deny permission to CC. If the law had been more specific as to the allowed reasons it might have stood.

I do find it interesting that the 14th amendment regarding a right to privacy was used as a reason for the ruling. The court seems a bit schizophrenic. But that's what happens when you ignore precedent.

 

[Yttrium]

Keith Olbermann has the right to say stupid things against the government. And we have the right to make fun of him for saying stupid things. I can't see his point of view becoming any kind of trend. It'd be so much easier just to stack the court, after all. If you're into that kind of thing, which I'm not.

 

[durangodawood]

Is this the same enraged Keith Olbermann as in that other thread?

 

[Desk trauma]

Is this the same enraged Keith Olbermann as in that other thread?

It’s his middle brother, they are identical triplets who share a name.

 

[durangodawood]

It’s his middle brother, they are identical triplets who share a name.

More likely its just one guy who voted 3 times for Biden.

stopthesteal!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Is this the same enraged Keith Olbermann as in that other thread?

If they post enough threads about Keith, then they’ll push the threads about the Jan. 6th committee off the first page.

It’s the “lalala I can’t hear you” tactic. Very popular amongst toddlers…

 

[Valletta]

States rights should be considered. Some will want to sell semi auto assault rifles to terrorists, convicted murderers and armed bandits without requiring background checks for private sales.

As to states, the states all have to abide by the U.S. Constitution. I agree there will be those who will want to sell the guns. Realize that 80 billion dollars worth of military equipment and weapons were left behind in Afghanistan, much of which has gone to terrorists.
How much of that weaponry goes to the cartels in Mexico we don't know, nor how many terrorists and murderers have crossed the border because of Joe's policies. Given how the cartels are now established in the U.S. there is no way any law would be able to stop them from selling guns in the foreseeable future, certainly not until the next presidential election, and even then it will take time to round up as many criminals and terrorists as we can.

 

[durangodawood]

As to states, the states all have to abide by the U.S. Constitution.....

But remember, the incorporation of the bill of rights to the states was a Supreme Court decision..... which can presumably be overturned by that court.

I know I know, scotus rejecting precedent. Crazy, right?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How much of that weaponry goes to the cartels in Mexico we don't know, nor how many terrorists and murderers have crossed the border because of Joe's policies. Given how the cartels are now established in the U.S. there is no way any law would be able to stop them from selling guns in the foreseeable future, ....

I don't think the source of guns in Mexico is from Afghan terrorists. It is mostly direct from the US. To talk about the Mexico selling guns to Americans is like people in Florida trying to sell ice cubes to Eskimos. The US has 3 times more guns per capita than any other developed nation. But the Supreme Court just ruled we need even more guns. How crazy is that?

 

[Valletta]

I don't think the source of guns in Mexico is from Afghan terrorists. It is mostly direct from the US. To talk about the Mexico selling guns to Americans is like people in Florida trying to sell ice cubes to Eskimos. The US has 3 times more guns per capita than any other developed nation. But the Supreme Court just ruled we need even more guns. How crazy is that?

You're wrong about the Supreme Court, it had nothing to do with "need," it had to do with the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. It says "keep and bear arms" not "keep and bear arms at your home only." They have a lot of heavy and sophisticated weaponry in Mexico, cartels use IEDs and bomb rival cartels with drones. What do you think they do with all of the money they get from the huge increase in drugs, sex trafficking and human smuggling under the Biden administration border policies? They use it to try and gain more and more power and dominance. It would make such a difference if the mainstream media did not cover so much for this administration, people would be sickened at what is going on.

 

[dqhall]

As to states, the states all have to abide by the U.S. Constitution. I agree there will be those who will want to sell the guns. Realize that 80 billion dollars worth of military equipment and weapons were left behind in Afghanistan, much of which has gone to terrorists.
How much of that weaponry goes to the cartels in Mexico we don't know, nor how many terrorists and murderers have crossed the border because of Joe's policies. Given how the cartels are now established in the U.S. there is no way any law would be able to stop them from selling guns in the foreseeable future, certainly not until the next presidential election, and even then it will take time to round up as many criminals and terrorists as we can.

The U.S. left behind tons of military equipment and bases in Vietnam. It seemed like what was then the longest war accomplished little and many have no desire to go back there and waste trillions fighting in the tropical jungles of SE Asia. Afghanistan was a terrible waste of $2 trillion dollars. People may complain about losing Afghanistan defense contracts and abandoning billions of dollars of equipment there, but like Vietnam, we are not going back there to fight.

 

[Valletta]

The U.S. left behind tons of military equipment and bases in Vietnam. It seemed like what was then the longest war accomplished little and many have no desire to go back there and waste trillions fighting in the tropical jungles of SE Asia. Afghanistan was a terrible waste of $2 trillion dollars. People may complain about losing Afghanistan defense contracts and abandoning billions of dollars of equipment there, but like Vietnam, we are not going back there to fight.

Completely different situations. In South Vietnam American positions were overrun and the United States had a huge emergency evacuation. In Afghanistan Joe deliberately abandoned a secure military base and the most sophisticated technology, helicopters could have easily been flown to friendly nations, and he withdrew the military first abandoning civilians, all when there was no need to do so!

 

[Desk trauma]

Oh, it’s the Biden! laundry list again.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You're wrong about the Supreme Court, it had nothing to do with "need," it had to do with the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

And that is another way in which the US is unique in its worship of the right the bear arms. No other developed nation has such a liberal gun policy, which is why it makes sense to reconsider revoking the 2nd amendment, as retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens suggested.

 

[dqhall]

Completely different situations. In South Vietnam American positions were overrun and the United States had a huge emergency evacuation. In Afghanistan Joe deliberately abandoned a secure military base and the most sophisticated technology, helicopters could have easily been flown to friendly nations, and he withdrew the military first abandoning civilians, all when there was no need to do so!

As the U.S withdrew, the Afghan government forces retreated and surrendered. Their senior leadership tried left the country. Similar happened in S. Vietnam. The U.S. withdrew and the S. Vietnamese government retreated. Saigon fell. The S. Vietnamese army was sent to communist reeducation camps. People complained about all the equipment, vehicles and munitions left behind as the nation collapsed.

Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations in Asia. They have very little income in spite of years of billions of dollars in U.S. support they received. We upgraded an airport and paved their roads. There are U.S. roads that need repair.

Afghanistan was a waste of two trillion dollars, all because Al Qaeda hijacked jet liners and attacked the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. The threat was lessened by increased airport security, air marshals, and reinforcing the pilots’ cabin doors. Osama Bin Laden was taken out by Navy SEAL’s while Obama was president.

The U.S. should have left Afghanistan years earlier.