Ina massive blow to the Totalitarian Progressive agenda, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against Chicago’s Gun ban. The Left has tried for a generation to restrict gun ownership as a means to enable only criminals and the government to be armed. This creates a situation where the citizens are helpless and need government protection. Progressives love this since it helps further their Neo-Feudal agenda. Now American citizens have a right to defends themselves just like our founders intended.
In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying “the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.”
The ruling builds upon the Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation’s capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today’s ruling also invalidates Chicago’s handgun ban.
Read the rest: High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights
The Tranzi Totalitarian Progressive agenda has suffered another major blow.
Tags: 2nd Amendment, supreme court
A very prevalent headline regarding the decision is “Supreme Court expands gun rights”.
Sorry AP and alReuters, the rights are being RESTORED.
This is a blow to the Progressive agenda! I love this!
So will this ruling make Chicago’s handgun ban and Commiefornia’s “Assault Weapons” ban un-constitutional?
@ FurryOldGuyJeans:
“expanded” rather then affirmed (always framing the debate) or should i say skewing. Great point FOGJ
the 5-4 thing is less then encouraging
My headline: 4 commie pinko justices vote against the framers and the US constitution
Ok…I need to read more closely…Chicago’s law is out… curious to know the impact it will have on California.
. . . this is a God Bless America momment for us “Klingers”
(even the Klingers from Toledo, OH)
The Osprey wrote:
From the article as linked:
spinmore wrote:
Even Fox News is skewing the debate with their “The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states [emphasis added].” The very purpose of the Constitution was to restrict and circumscribe the Federal government’s reach into the affairs of the individual and the states, not stifle the states or the citizens.
Doppelganger wrote:
ain’t dat da troof
The Osprey wrote:
As with the Heller decision on the DC gun ban that made Chicago appeal the decision to maintain its ban, California and other gun-grabbing states will appeal this decision to keep their
citizens safeserfs enslaved.spinmore wrote:
Don’t mess with a guy in a big floppy straw hat and a sun dress when he’s toting an M1 Garand.
Chicago intends to make gun owners jump through hoops & loops in order to own a gun. It will be interesting to see what they actually come out with.
Richie Daley vowed that the City will take remedial measures.
@ The Osprey:
That is a Classic (hadn’t seen that) LOL
@ The Osprey:
Californians will undoubtably have to sue the State of California to have the State forced to recognize their rights, but the State of California is not the one standing in the “schoolhouse door” on a fundamental civil rights question. The Republicans should be able to rip them up with the anti-Civil Rights po0sition of the Democrat Party.
What I wonder is if the Democrats are going to fight this. The Courts are clearly more favorable to us on this issue (the 9th Circuit already had a ruling saying the Second Amendment applies to the States) kind of like the Courts all broke against Seggregation when that unconstitutional bit of oppression was thrown out. Gun Control is definately unpopular, the Courts are ruling against it, but Donks have been fighting for it since FDR was first elected. As Rodan says, this is a big blow to the Tranzi-Prog agenda. I can’t wait to watch Beck tonight. That should be great.
RIX wrote:
All it will do is make the criminals happy and raise the murder rate.
spinmore wrote:
Just shows how critical to our rights even a moderate RINO McLame would have been. Barry won’t be hailing this as a correct decision.
related story:
my boy is learning his basic riflemanship at training this week.
i’ve heard from the Mrs. that he has named his M16 “cupcake”
(i don’t know)
The Daley arguement against gun ownership is counter-intuitive.
If people waited for the Supreme Court to throw out the gun ban, by definition they are law abiding.
Criminals aren’t going to scream Yee Haw! & run out to get a gun.
They’re criminals, their job description is breaking laws, so they are already armed.
The Osprey wrote:
I can’t see any impact on CA’s state gun laws at all.
spinmore wrote:
That’s too cute. Kids are so clever. I think it works because of the irony.
“cupcake”
lol
@ Mike C.:
Oh, it is definately standing to sue. California isn’t going to do anything until a Judge tells them they have to, though.
@ spinmore:
That’s what the Left is expert at. They change the meaning of the language.
@ RIX:
They want the criminals to have guns so the unarmed citizens run for governmnet protection. That’s Feudalism.
Iron Fist wrote:
. . . and even then, good luck.
@ RIX:
They will be sued again!
RIX wrote:
Yet the criminals will be happy that their victims by and large will be unarmed and therefore make an easier target.
RIX wrote:
Yes, criminals don’t care abt. the law. Gun bans don’t stop them for a second from arming themselves and setting out to rob and murder. Criminals love gun bans because their victims can not fight back.
Gun bans get law abiding people killed.
It has to be something like that. Daley & his people can’t believe that criminals care about a gun ban.
About a month ago an 80 something Korean War Vet shot & killed a guy who broke into his home in Chicago.
He did it with an unregistered firearm & the City took no action.
spinmore wrote:
I made it on “Obamicon Me” along with these:
MSM’s most famous “Teabagee”
Hope, Israeli Style
Same Socialist Taste, Less Filling
Kos Lite™
San Fran Nan’s a rapper
LOLPinochet
Rodan wrote:
Doing the same thing and expecting different results is a sure sign of stupidity and a symptom of Progressivism.
Why reply to spinmore awaiting moderation? Does a certain number of links in a comment trigger it to keep out spammers?
Chicago has (had) the most strict gun ban in the nation , yet leads in gun violence.
Locked and Loaded and Praise the Lord!
@ spinmore:
Yeah, the Obama Administration’s decision to ignore the Courts in the moritorium on drilling is troubling. What use are the Courts if the Executive and Legislative branches are free to ignore them? This is but one battle. It is surely not the war. But Gettysburg was but one battle of the Civil War, with two more years of fighting to come, yet the South lost it all on the slope up to Cemetary Ridge. One can hope that so it goes with gun control. It is going to be interesting to see if the Democrats choose to go against the consensus of the Country and the Courts on this issue at this time.
True
Livni: Netanyahu, Barak ruining Israel
Opposition leader issues unusually scathing attack against government leaders; Israel is in trouble not because whole world is against it, but rather, because of problematic policy represented by government, she says
Hey listen Tzipi, I am no big fan of Bibi, but if you were in charge, you’d be doing substantially the same as he. And the reason a lot of people do not like you is because you will say just about anything, true or not, just to get ahead. Get some principals and grow a backbone!
Iron Fist wrote:
For Progressives what is legal is what they say it is, not what the laws are.
If Chicago actually tries to get around the Court, they will be sued.
RIX wrote:
Progs are always hysterical when guns are given to the populace. When VA decided to enacts our open carry policy (people caqn literally walk around Marshall Dillon style) they screamed from the rooftops that they would be blood running in the streets. What it did was decrease violent crime and just about every illegal beat feet!
@ RIX:
Daley views himself a Feudal lord.
A little 2A celebration music; The Gitmos, “Buy a Gun”
http://69.65.114.219/liberty/buy-a-gun-the-gitmos.mp3
The Osprey wrote:
. . . i hope Charles hasn’t gotten a job here./
Instapundit is reporting that the decision strongly references the racist roots of gun conrtrol, an issue I unsuccessfully tried to get the NRA to tackle in 1994. If you are against free slaves owning guns and support the KKK disarming them, you might be a racist.
@ Nevergiveup:
She would be doing worse. She’d be apuppet for Obama.
@ Nevergiveup:
That’s right, she can’t grow any balls, can she?
I don’t think that he started out that way, but power over the years
has corrupted him
@ Iron Fist:
Gun control is racist. They want to have law abiding minorities disarmed and at the mercy of the gangs. That way they will be helpless serfs.
Strict gun control always increases violence, always.
Rodan wrote:
Nah I don’t think so. Obama is like most Commie Progressives. Give em a inch and they try to take the whole country. Even Livni would get pushed into a corner by Obama. And my point was that Livni wouldn’t be doing all that much different than Bibi. She is just crtitisizing Bibi for her own internal political advantage.
@ Nevergiveup:
It is always easier to snipe from the safety of the sidelines. If she were in charge she’d be doing far worse things that would virtually ensure Israel being on the brink of destruction.
@ RIX:
Plus since his daddy was mayor, he views Chicago as his patrimony.
@ RIX:
He reached the pinnacle of Chicago politics, he was ALWAYS corrupt. He’s just gotten more open about it over the years.
@ FurryOldGuyJeans:
That is certainly how they would like it to be. There are two things that we can do about it. The first is sue, sue, sue. There should be cases against every gun control law on the books by the end of next week (well, almost. You get my point). We want an overwhelming amount of case law on our side before this is over. That is following in the path of the Civil Rights movement. Pick the right courts and the right oppressive laws, and sue them. If you can, sue the enforcers/implementers of the law personally for violating your civil rights. I’m not an attorney, so I can’t say which cases should be emphasized, but I know there should be many cases against this ASAP.
Second, run on the issue politically. Make every Democrat that is running for office give his opinion on this case, make him defend it, and don’t let him weasel on it. Gun control is a loser politically. It has been since 1994. The Democrats are already set to have a bad year. Make it worse for them. Make this a civil rights issue (which it surely is), and make certain that everyone knows that the people for gun control aren’t for “reasonable” laws, they are violating your fundamental civil rights.
That’s a good place to start.
Iron Fist wrote:
I don’t see that CA bans ownership of most weapon types. Machine guns, yes, but that was already discarded in Heller. .50BMG rifles, yes, but that’s too narrow a point to pursue. There are AR-15 type weapons that are legal in CA, so there goes that one as well.
Sorry – just don’t see it. But I’ve never been a CA resident, so maybe there’s something lurking there I am not familiar with.
FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
Actually I don’t think she would be doing all that much substantially different.
@ Nevergiveup:
I read that Obama wants her as PM.
If they really want to save lives, they should ban swimming pools.
a kid is 100 times more likely to drown in their back yard than to kill themself with the family gun.
give kids guns. give them gun safety classes. teach them to respect the weapon, and fill in the pool with cement and make it a target range
@ Scott Madsen:
Barry has inadvertently been the biggest advert for private firearms ownership in quite some time.
I wonder, how are they treating this news over at the Swamp? I can’t look at LGF from work because it sucks so much bandwidth.
The family business.
Rodan wrote:
Yeah he probably does. But then again what Obama knows about Israel could fit inside that pimple on my ass.
OT –
This from the country that landed a man on the moon.
PUT ME IN CHARGE.
It’s all pretty damn corrupt.
Nevergiveup wrote:
And I have to disagree, courteously.
Next up we’ll be hearing from that other spiritual leader from Chitown, Fr Pfleger.
Iron Fist wrote:
Frothing and foaming over minutia like plastic frogs, nazi flags in Tennessee, and pundits who shared a cab with a man who used to mow the lawn of a reported friend of a white supremacist
FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
And what do you think she would be doing so much differently?
vagabond trader wrote:
Frag Father Pfleger.
@ Nevergiveup:
@ Mike C.:
They have a multiplicity of restriction on what can be sold and what can be owned in California. I don’t know all of the specifics myself, but it is bad enough that most gunshops on Gunbroker will not sell to California. I’d consider that level of restrictions to be too onerous to be constitutional. And I wouldn’t rule even Machineguns out long term. Heller gave lip service to regulating them, but Roe v. Wade gave more specific clearance to regulating second and third trimester abortions, and yet we hav ehad partial-birth abortion bans thrown out by the Court. We keep coming back wanting more, until we have it all. There is no reason we have to be satisfied with this when many States and Municipalities have unconstitutional laws on the books and enforce them with egriegously harsh sentences.
OT: Economy has recovered. Moron says obama has created more jobs in the last 18 months than during Bush’s entire eight year term!
People seems a bit peeved at us here in Virginia! This is my rep talking (gag!). Most of the time no one even runs against him! Even when noone votes for him he wins!
@ FurryOldGuyJeans:
No thanks,I’ll leave that to you.
@ Nevergiveup:
Lift the embargo on Gaza and kiss up to Syria?
Okay, I just have to share this personal opinion. There’s been a lot of condemnation about the actions of the police here in Toronto over the weekend. Especially with the riots, public damage and “inaction” of police officers. I will wait a bit before I look at the polices “over reaction” on Sunday.
@ vapig:
They are still pushing that Obama boom lie!
Unreal!
Rodan wrote:
She might say nicer things towards Syria, but that would lead nowhere anyway. And I doubt she would substantially change the Gaza Policy. And remember she would have to rule in coalition with Labor and that means Ehud Barack who is no left wing liberal.
@ Rodan:
“Can’t you say somethin’ nice instead of being such a smart azz…” Channeling VP Biden.
Nevergiveup wrote:
#1, she’d be listening to Barry more and considering what he wants Israel to do.
Bumr50 wrote:
What happened to “Yes, We Can”?
Rodan wrote:
One of the hallmarks of Progressivism is to report perception as it helps to promote their vision of Utopia instead of understanding reality and dealing with things as they are.
FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
She might make a show of listening to Obama more, but ultimately i doubt her actions would be all that much different than Bibi’s. As a matter of fact the problem with this Israeli Government and any coalition Government ( which all present Israeli Governments are and for the forceable future will be ) is that the is NO ACTION. They are essentially paralized by their fucked up coalitions and personalities. And all they do is react.
Guns don’t kill people, abortion doctors kill people.
@ Iron Fist:
Oh, I know CA has a bunch of fairly stupid restrictions, but restrictions are not the same thing as a ban. and a ban is what was under consideration in Heller and McDonald. In Ca, one can own a semi-auto rifle or a semi-auto pistol. Maybe not exactly the one you want, but you can own one. So I don’t see that these two cases apply. The NFA certainly isn’t affected and I don’t see the mid-80s amending law being overturned any time soon. Most US citizens can own full-auto weapons. If they’re rich…
We have a government of, by, and for the criminals.
@ vagabond trader:
Notice Biden got a pass for that? If it was Cheney the media would be all over it.
@ Nevergiveup:
And again I disagree. She would, in my opinion, do more than make appearances of just listening to Barry. She might be circumscribed by the realities of coalition parliamentary governing, but she would try take a much more conciliatory hand at compromising with the enemies of Israel.
FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
OK but like what?
@ Mike C.:
I agree with you, I don’t see this decision effecting California’s gun laws. Only some states IIRC allow full-auto rifles, I don’t think the court is suggesting that all states must now allow them. In other words, states are free to restrict stuff, but not outright ban all of them.
Waiting for an “interesting” remark from Eric Holder before the day is through.
@ Mike C.:
Poll taxes weren’t the same thing as a ban on voting, either. Restrictions on fundamental rights are, generally, unconstitutional. I’ll be interested to see how much political capital the Democrat Party is willing top put into defending gun control. Are they going to pull out all the stops? Make it a major issue? Or are they going to take their whipping, and go sit down and see what happens next. California will be an interesting case in point, because they have a Republican governor now, and likely will have a Republican governor after the election. Will that Republican governor be willing to go to the mat defending the Democrats’ pet laws? I think if you can find someone willing to sue over “One Nation Under God”, you can find someone willing to sue because they aren’t allowed to by a 30 round magazine for their M-4. What will the courts do? The 9th Circuit has already ruled that the Second Amendment applies to California in one case. I think this decision will open the floodgates of litigation. I’m no sure how much political capital the Democrats are going to be willing to spend to defend unpopular laws. They may recind these laws just to get out of the lawsuits. Wouldn’t that be nice?
@ Nevergiveup:
I have repeatedly stated I disagree with your stated opinion, let’s just leave it at that.
Hard to give the specifics you seem to be demanding because, guess what, she isn’t in charge. Kinda like expecting to know what Barry would do as POTUS when he was sniping at Bush as a senator.
@ FurryOldGuyJeans:
Nitpicking your way to Socialism?
I don’t think this ruling is all you’ve made it out to be. Since the Supreme Court refused to make gun ownership a Privilege or Immunity (see 14th Am), handgun bans are still ok so long as due process is given. That’s the whole point of the ruling: if gun ownership is a Privilege or Immunity, then it is beyond the government’s authority to regulate. By denying that status, the Supreme Court in the long run changes nothing, because now we’re only arguing about how bans are enacted and not the government’s right to enact them.
Greetings from the South Side of Chicago!
I’d like to recommend the following to my neighbors. 1) Chuck’s in Riverdale. He’s put up with the Reverends’ (Jackson and Pfleger) demonstrations at his store for years. 2) Freddie Bear in Tinley Park. No car? No problem! Take the Rock Island to Tinley Park (Oak Park Ave) stop and walk 1 block. 3) Rink’s in Lemont. Worth the drive. Small shop with range and great prices – and no Cook County sales tax! 4) Skip the “Mega” location(s) You’ll get better service and better prices elsewhere.
. . . ‘in response to the ruling, the O administration has agreed to set aside monies to provide handguns and ammumition to undocumented workers whom they feel may be at a disadvantage as compared to the population at large’
/
FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
Yeah I understand, but unlike Obama who is so far off the scale on the left, Israeli Politics usually does it’s kabooki dance in the middle range. And It is easy to say Livni would do all these things differently, but Israeli History, Kadima History, and Livni’s own limited History do not point in that direction. So I think it’s a fair question to ask what exactly she would do so differently?
bar wrote:
Taking the academic debating approach doesn’t work in the real world or a court of law. Many a criminal have rightly been convicted on circumstantial evidence.
@ dm60462:
Welcome aboard!
Rodan wrote:
. . . what he said
@ snork:
I think by now, Crappy Nappy will be muttering Si, se puéde!
@ dm60462:
Welcome! What part of the South Side? I lived near 36th St. & Damen twenty-some-odd years ago.
Nevergiveup wrote:
No, you don’t understand what I said. My “read” on her character is different than yours, I see where she could do worse in general terms.
And this is all of the kabuki dance with you I am going to do with you on this subject. We disagree. End of story.
PaladinPhil wrote:
Mischief-maker???? Shoot! I’d have used tear-gas, rubber bullets and firehoses. I’m sick of those anarchists!
Macker wrote:
. . . i think this calls for a link to ‘bad bad leroy brown’
vapig wrote:
they should start using real bullets. put an end to this bullshit once and for all
randian wrote:
You need to read the opinion:
I’d have prefered a P&I ruling, buit that doesn’t mean the states can do just whatever they want to do on gun control. All the other parts of the Bill of Rights that have been incorporated into the 14th Amendment have been incorporated through the Due Process clause. That certainly doesn’t mean the States can ban churches, or set up their own official religion (no matter how much California wants to make atheism the official State Religion, she can’t), restrict the press, or do any of the other things we have come to understand the Bill of Rights to prevent. What would make this different? The Democrats can fight this, that is true, but it will be an uphill battle bleeding political capital every step of the way, with honestly little chance of success until one of the five justices in this decision is replaced. Personally, I don’t think that is a fight the Democrats want to have right now, but we will see.
I had to turn off FOX.
Somebody give me a heads up when Kagan gets in.
“I’m sick of those anarchists!” – vapig
If ‘anarchists’ truly were ‘anarchists’ i’m sure they wouldn’t mind true lawlessness (would they) like a cop or anyone else for that matter showing them what it really means to embrace the term.
‘oh, you mean it’s more than just a cool tee shirt and a holloween costume?’
Bumr50 wrote:
. . . need a Tums?
vapig wrote:
I don’t know about the water cannon, but the other items were used at several times on Saturday afternoon. And yeah, you got to love how the MFMSM downplays the anarchists exploits. Heard a bit of that from the raw feed of CBC on Saturday evening.
@ vapig:
The same bullshit “revolution and anarchy is good” attitude ruled the day with the WTO riots in Seattle. They even made a movie to show how selfless and noble the trust-fund baby agitators were.
*SPIT*
Bumr50 wrote:
Unfortunetaly unless something new comes out I think she will get confirmed mostly along party lines with a couple of turncoat Rs going along. I hope not, but that seems to be how the winds are blowing.
@ Nevergiveup:
The Republicans have less balls than a steer, so you are probably right. That will depress Republican votes in the fall, too. Why turn out and vote for candidates that won’t stand up for your side when they are elected?
@ Nevergiveup:
Kagan is Barry’s new shiny object to distract from the main event of his Socialist takeover.
The Dems have had majority control of both houses since the 2006 midterms, and yet they still act as if they are in a slim minority when it comes to voting on things.
FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
They pull this crap all over the world! Every time there’s a G8 or WTO event they go apeshit destroying everything in sight. I’m sick to death of it! If a few of them got their heads cracked open maybe they’d think twice about it!
FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
Not sure what ya mean? They are trying to ram as much as they can get thru with their huge majorities that they have now.
Iron Fist wrote:
Or it could encourage conservative-minded voters to turn out in greater numbers. 2010 is shaping up to potentially be both parties’ Waterloo.
And they (Ds and Rs) are not the Duke of Wellington.
vapig wrote:
Yeah but it seems that every year their ranks get smaller and smaller. At least that is how it appears.
@ FurryOldGuyJeans:
It is going to be interesting (and instructive) to see how Hayworth does. He’s been weakened by the infomercial thing. How much, I can’t say. McCain is still McCain, so Hayworth has that going for him. This is certainly going to be ian interesting election.
International Space Station sex ban
Commanders do not allow sexual intercourse on the International Space Station, it has been disclosed.
Yeah it’s banned on Navy War Ships also and we all know how well that works?
FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
True – it’s bizzarre! When they can’t pass their own crap due to the stench they get in front of a camera and blame the GOP – who have NO POWER!!!
Nevergiveup wrote:
BarryCare wasn’t a cake walk, and each new piece of legislation requires months of debate to bring to the floor for a rancorous vote. Only backroom deals and bribes is what gets things actually passed.
FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
And the oil flows, and flows, and flows
And who is in charge there, nobody knows…
Iron Fist wrote:
The 2010 midterms certainly won’t be boring like most are.
FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
OK I got ya. Well that’s because they have no interest in any cooportion with the Republicans. It is unprecendented how they are shutting the R’s out. So they have to just try and buy one or two fake Republicans to get it passed. But that is about to end. Not soon enough. They can and will still try to ruin this country until the New Congress gets seated.
Nevergiveup wrote:
Anybody every come back knocked up from one of those?
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I doubt even the Shadow does.
@ vapig:
They know that public opinion is against them on everything that they want to do. Strongly against them. ObamaCare barelyt made it over the line, and it did it bleeding incumbants like they were water. Ask Stupid Stupak how much passing ObamaCare cost. Amnesty would be worse. So is cap-and-tax. That is why they really can’t be loving this gun control case coming down today. They don’t have the political capital for a long, drawn out fight on the issue. Obama right now is probably praying for a Domestic Terrorist event that doesn’t involve Mohammedans. I just hope he doesn’t decide his way out of this hole is to engineer one.
vapig wrote:
Yes, it is not all that unusual.
Iron Fist wrote:
Power and money…a tough uphill fight to overcome,but you are correct…McCain is his own worst enemy.
@ vapig:
Jeff Bridges?
vapig wrote:
The question is how many come back preggo, not if.
I got accused of sexual harassment, and nearly NJPed (Non-judicial punishment) by my chain of command, because I refused to sleep with some skank who was sleeping her way to advancement. Sexual politics in the military is more common now than when I was in back in the early 90′s. COs are deathly afraid of harassment charges while they are in command.
Nevergiveup wrote:
We have space babies? heheh…..
vapig wrote:
Not sure about that. I was talking about ship board babies courtesy of the US Navy.
@ spinmore:
They would be the first wones to start crying if their cell phones didn’t work, there was no more food to buy and no gas to get anywhere.
*ones*
Progressivism is public high school for all.
HELP!
@ FurryOldGuyJeans:
That term just cracks me up. They used to use it in the corporate world. The general response was, “if all these women are sleeping their way to the top, then where are they?” They sure were cnspicuously absent in the all-male world back then!
I’d say, if anything, women who use their bodies for advancement generally find they hit a brick way. No one was respect for those types.
Iron Fist wrote:
Even a Mooslim terrorist event could be used to push for more restrictions on civil rights, with a dose of martial law.
The proposed “Kill Switch” legislation would allow for the complete shut-down of the internet for up to 4 months. Time enough to make a martial law clampdown easier and permanent.
@ FurryOldGuyJeans:
I take it that club is more exclusive than the mile high club?
Nevergiveup wrote:
With the shuttle and space station I just wondered if we had anyone knocked up from one of those trips. I mean, if you can get away with it wouldn’t you try it? Zero gravity sex?
Nevergiveup wrote:
how do you get any leverage for thrusting?
vapig wrote:
In her particular case it worked long enough to get her in a cushy job until the end of her enlistment obligation.
Another reason why many women get pregnant onboard Navy ships is to get out of working, being placed on “light duty” and/or sent back to shore to wait out their pregnancy.
@ vapig:
I wonder if the baby would be less dense.
@ mjazz:
u know it
vapig wrote:
You’d need some sort of elastomeric cord to keep from bouncing off and away. Not as easy as it sounds, though it would make for an interesting televised experiment.
Maybe get wrapped up in glad-wrap first, or something like that.
Over on Volokh, a reeder reports that there are two cases coming up right now: Heller II (large magazines and “scary looking” rifles) and Palmer (concealed carry). I know there was also a case pending in the 9th Circuit that was on hold pending McDonald. I would assume that the 9th will now decide it, and that it will likewise be favorable to gun owners. There could be others I don’t know about, too. This issue isn’t going away, and shouldn’t. We want as many precedents on the books as we can get while the Court is favorable to us. Then we have to trust to Stare Decis and (hopefully) Republican Presidents to give us good replacements when the time comes.
So I hear the latest tom cruize movie crashed and burned at the box office and with the critics again. When is he gonna learn that wacked out crazy cultist doesn’t play well with the audience?
Send the LGF night crew up with their leather straps and whips duct tape and all that stuff, and see if they can do it. Just tie the tubes first; you wouldn’t want those things reproducing.
Daley isn’t wasting any time on this:
Nevergiveup wrote:
Feathers and Cadillac make better unicorns…
Nevergiveup wrote:
According to IMDb, Knight and Day is #3 at the box office with plenty of positive critic and user reviews.
@ lobo91:
Daley is willing to go to the mat, but is the Democrat Party? This may be a winner in Chicago, New York, and LA, but if the Democrats would like to elect Representatives and Senators from places other than these cities, they may not want to go full-bore “We’ll fight it everyt inch of the way”. They may. I don’t know. If I were one of the top dog in the Donk Party, I think I’d be giving rational accomodation a hard look.
That you can safely ignore because it will go down in flames when it hits district court. The Heller decision specifically addressed that issue.
@ snork:
Box Office Mojo puts the weekend take for Knight and Day at approx. $20,500,000. Not a Toy Story 3 or Grown Ups, but still not shabby.
Here’s a link to the full decision, if anyone has a spare day or two to read it.
It’s 214 pages.
@ Nevergiveup:
The same with the collection of “We are the bad guys” war movies. There were a lot of people not living in leftist enclaves who just couldn’t find the spare change to see what awful people we are on the silver screen. As for Cruise, he is bat sh*t crazy 8 ways to Thursday. The Oprah interview made sure he’ll never be viewed the same way again.
FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
Of course, the only real way to determine whether a movie is successful or not is to know how much it cost to make.
There have been movies that grossed $100 million that were considered flops, because they actually lost money.
$20,500,000 didn’t even cover the unicorn’s paycheck…
@ FurryOldGuyJeans:
From that same link, look at Sex and the City 2. It’s grossed $93 million.
Sounds good, until you see that it cost $100 million to make.
lobo91 wrote:
214 pages is an easier read than 2,000, especially when a lot of the verbiage is in reference to other legislation previously passed.
Wife made me go see Toy Story 3.
Not all that.
@ FurryOldGuyJeans:
That’s true.
I wouldn’t even bother trying to read something like that health care bill, for just that reason. It wasn’t intended to be read as a coherent document.
lobo91 wrote:
That is S&C2′s total gross, after 11 weeks. K&D may very well not have legs and tank the second week, but it have a respectable opening weekend. K&D is so far not the bomb at the BO and with critics as was previously opined.
FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
Ooops, my bad, I was wrong. 5 weeks, not 11.
I blame it on them EVIL! Typo Elves.
@ FurryOldGuyJeans:
The reality is that those numbers don’t have much relation to reality, anyway. Hollywood accounting makes Enron’s books look good.
“It depends on the meaning of profit,” to borrow a phrase.
My favorite stupid Hollywood accounting trick was what they did with the grosses from Men in Black 2.
The reason it took so long for it to be made following the hugely successful first one is that when they wrote the contracts for the first movie, they promised all the major players involved chunks of the gross for any potential sequel that totalled more than 100%.
They had to renegotiate everyone’s contracts before even starting on the sequel.
lobo91 wrote:
Did you notice that Box Office Mojo is unable to report the operating budget for K&D? Tells me it is more than likely James Cameron HUGE.
@ lobo91:
Hollywood and their “creative” accounting would make a Byzantine Emperor green with envy for the convoluted shenanigans.
@ FurryOldGuyJeans:
I saw that.
Movies are starting to cost so much these days that it’s scary.
$200 million for Toy Story 3? It’s a freakin’ cartoon…
lobo91 wrote:
As movies become more unreal due to the prevalence of CGI effects and characters, so do the budgets and ticket prices.
Hollywood has yet to relearn why the studios and movies were so successful during the 30′s.
@ FurryOldGuyJeans:
Yeah, they had some strange ideas back then, like starting with a compelling story, turning it into a script, and then hiring talented actors to be in the film.
These days, I think they start out with a fast food tie-in and go from there.
So indeed the 5-4 decision does seem to reinforce the idea that liberals want to take your guns away.
[...] Breaking News: Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of Gun Rights … [...]
[...] SOME GOOD News: Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of Gun Rights …. [...]