National No Mystery to Supreme Court Nominee Kavanaugh's Gun Views

[Joe Link]

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[No_Regerts]

He has been quoted as supporting states use of "common regulations".

 

[bbbass]

He has been quoted as supporting states use of "common regulations".

 

[CHLChris]

He has been quoted as supporting states use of "common regulations".

Do you mean in an actual court decision? Or at a party in polite company? Do you have a citation?

Either way, he's the guy we've got and I'd rather see the glass 90% full than 10% empty. He's not perfect, but his pro-2A bona fides are making lefties poop their pants. That's good enough for me...

 

[CHLChris]

"Critics contend Kavanaugh's analysis is flawed because AR-15s were not around during the early days of the republic."

I hate this crap. Neither was the internet. The 2nd Amendment isn't limited to black powder muskets any more than the 1st Amendment is limited to pamphlets off a printing press.

 

[CHLChris]

You have really been on top of the news lately, @Joe Link. Thanks for keeping us all up to date and getting these important conversations started!!

 

[No_Regerts]

Do you mean in an actual court decision? Or at a party in polite company? Do you have a citation?

Either way, he's the guy we've got and I'd rather see the glass 90% full than 10% empty. He's not perfect, but his pro-2A bona fides are making lefties poop their pants. That's good enough for me...

This article references a decision he made regarding gun control.

Here's the real reason Democrats are so scared about Kavanaugh joining the Supreme Court

 

[SA Shooter]

I really hate the anti-AR spin spouted by the writer in the first sentence.

What's happened to objective news reporting that is consistent with the article title???

 

[ZigZagZeke]

He has been quoted as supporting states use of "common regulations".

In his decision, Kavanaugh notes: "Heller largely preserved the status quo of gun regulation in the United States. Heller established that traditional and common gun laws in the United States remain constitutionally permissible."

Sounds like he's just upholding Heller. The "experts" in the media and elsewhere really don't have a clue when it comes to the law. It's not as simple and straightforward as it appears. Brief a few thousand USSC decisions looking for why they ruled differently in one case versus another and you begin to have an understanding of how the law works. The average journalism major has no idea.

 

[No_Regerts]

Sounds like he's just upholding Heller. The "experts" in the media and elsewhere really don't have a clue when it comes to the law. It's not as simple and straightforward as it appears. Brief a few thousand USSC decisions looking for why they ruled differently in one case versus another and you begin to have an understanding of how the law works. The average journalism major has no idea.

Yep, I was a pre-law student and briefed many cases. What I think is funny is that Kavanaugh wrote a book on precedent.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Yep, I was a pre-law student and briefed many cases. What I think is funny is that Kavanaugh wrote a book on precedent.

I was in law school when Nixon resigned.

 

[No_Regerts]

I was in law school when Nixon resigned.

I did an internship and I was cured of that affliction!

 

[cigars]

"Critics contend Kavanaugh's analysis is flawed because AR-15s were not around during the early days of the republic."

I hate this crap. Neither was the internet. The 2nd Amendment isn't limited to black powder muskets any more than the 1st Amendment is limited to pamphlets off a printing press.

Easy... the Brits had muskets which was the latest available small arms technology, so did we. Slide that same logic over to today and what's the problem then?

 

[Jonnyuma]

"Kavanaugh says he recognizes that gun, drug and gang violence "has plagued all of us." Still, he believes the Constitution limits how far government can go to restrict gun use to prevent violent crime..."

Uuuuhhhh... YEAH, no kidding.
...duh

 

[etrain16]

Pretty simple. When the 2nd amendment was written, the average citizen was able to, and did own, the exact same firearms used by the military. No ambiguity here. That, in my mind, of course not in the mind of others, set a precedent that whatever the military uses for combat, should be available to us too. I'm not sure that would need to apply to large arms, but certainly small arms - pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc. I doubt the average person back then owned a canon, though I suspect it wouldn't have been illegal for them to do so.

But the "logic" they keep using, that we should only have muskets, absolutely needs to be thrown in their faces, big time, especially with the arguments used about the 1st amendment and modern technology. If technological advances must apply to the 1st amendment, then they must apply to the 2nd amendment as well. I just can't fathom that 2 different standards could be applied to 2 different parts of the BOR.

 

[pharmseller]

I was pre-law.

Pre-law? I thought you were pre-med.

What's the difference?





P

 

[No_Regerts]

Pre-law? I thought you were pre-med.

What's the difference?



P

Kind of like being pre-diabetic or being pre-mature, I think.

 

[pharmseller]

Kind of like being pre-diabetic or being pre-mature, I think.

Swing and a miss. It's a movie quote.


P

 

[No_Regerts]

Swing and a miss. It's a movie quote.


P

Damn, how did I miss that?

 

[pharmseller]

Damn, how did I miss that?

Embarrassing. You should go to the box. Two minutes, by yourself, you know and you feel shame, you know.




P