Justice Thomas, for all his faults, spends his vacations in Walmart parking lots in his RV, touring the country. Pretty cool, in my opinion.

Typical of someone who's too fucking cheap support local economies by staying in RV parks owned by Americans, Justice Thomas stays in WalMart parking lots and sends as much money as possible to the Chinese.

Yeah...pretty cool.

Happy to see someone else appreciates the irony of an anti-gun justice being robbed with a machete.

Nobody ever said he buys from walmart. Plus, "local economies" could start opening their parking lots to overnight campers if they want the business.

WEAK, wl.

Too funny

Posted by L_E_Light

I like your thinking. FF

#1 .. sources report that the machete was NOT .. I repeat .. NOT registered!
~ the robber-dube likely acquired it in a quick cash deal behind IHOP

I am glad they are ok. The robber had a machete.

It would have been great if he did pull out his gun--or can of mace--or his car antenna.

Shouldn't Supremes get protection? -
considering others which do and
history of incidents.

...and no one was hurt

Yet. Would not want to be guy in hands of
Marshals and Court Police down there.

or his car antenna

Perhaps this will distill the justice's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Try that shit in my house and the coroner will be hauling your carcass off.

Hopefully he'll learn not to shit all over the second amendment after this.

^^^

This.

And candy-flavored rohypnol.

Be Well.

What's the 2nd Amendment in the West Indian Constitution?

I don't think that's the point, Lounge Singer.

BrokeJak

Point to a Breyer vote on the SC that messed with 2nd Amendment rights in the U.S.

BTW, I get a chuckle out of your lounger singer comments.

Point to a Breyer vote on the SC that messed with 2nd Amendment rights in the U.S.

It's the mentality, dumbass.

Point to a Breyer vote on the SC that messed with 2nd Amendment rights in the U.S.

Oops!

"there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

~ Breyer

Dissenting opinion

District of Columbia v. Heller

Point to a Breyer vote on the SC that messed with 2nd Amendment rights in the U.S.
BTW, I get a chuckle out of your lounger singer comments.
#9 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

~ anyway, I see Jak has already noted Heller ..

Breyer also voted against the majority in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, also a 5-4 decision
~ In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment granted Americans right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense ..
in McDonald, the Court applied (or "incorporated") that right to the states.
Breyer denied that the US Constitution granted Americans the right to armed self-defense in his dissenting opinions

~ ~ Breyer also made a laughingstock of himself back in 1999 by citing the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe -- in two death penalty cases, Moore v. Nebraska and Knight v. Florida

Breyer was right. There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution that specifically grants a homeowner the right to bear arms unless he/she is a member of a well regulated militia.

gotta say .. I had ya pegged as a "wannabe lounge singer"

Oh, he's very good.

Did you ever run into a musical group that works out of Kansas City and calls themselves "Four Jacks and a Jill"?

They've been at a Ramada Inn there for about 18 months.

If you're ever in Kansas City and want to hear some good music, you might want to drop by.

The "militia" is the people.

The citizenry.

Dumbass.

correct that the militia ARE the people, however for point of clarity ..

In DC v. Heller;
The court held that the second amendment recognized an individual right to possess and carry a firearm .. straight-up & "unconnected with militia service."

Scenario: You are a Supreme Court Justice and someone is robbing you with a machete. It just so happens you have a car antenna in your left rear pocket.

What do you do?

As a liberal Breyer should have handed over his posessions prior to the person having to resort to force. The poor machete user will have nighmares when he returns to the West Indies OWS camp.

"As a liberal Breyer should have handed over his posessions prior to the person having to resort to force."

He evidently did.
As would you.

#3 No, my 44, 38 or 30 06 would have taken out his machete and car antenna.

Only the good die young (BJ)

Rcade you know this was already posted twice in the discussion right?

But anyway, yeah, funny story. I think a lot of gun control advocates foolishly forget that criminals are usually set on criminal behavior, and use knives and bats and stuff if they can't get a gun.

"As a liberal Breyer should have . . ." #2 GRACIEAMAZED

The only way Breyer is a liberal is if you compare him to his fascist collegues.

"That's not a knife....THIS is a knife!" ~ C. Dundee

Anyone besides me interested in the identities of the two unidentified guests? Seems odd their names wouldn't have been divulged. Makes you wonder if there was a political reason for them remaining anonymous.

#3 No, my 44, 38 or 30 06 would have taken out his machete and car antenna. #4 | Posted by gracieamazed

I have my doubts that the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis would allow Loretta Jenkins there to walk around packing.

#3 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS AT 2012-02-14 09:56 AM Would have pissed himself.

#3 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS AT 2012-02-14 09:56 AM Would have pissed himself.

#11 | Posted by glasshouse

Would that be before or after he fainted?

#3 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS AT 2012-02-14 09:56 AM Would have pissed himself.

#11 | Posted by glasshouse at 2012-02-14 10:33 AM | Flag: Internet tough guy; Would've creamed his pants; would've also shat; would've also dangled his doodle; would've also fongled his manteats; would've also peed his pee-pee

#3 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS AT 2012-02-14 09:56 AM Would have pissed himself.
#11 | Posted by glasshouse

You've no way of knowing that, just as I have no way of knowing for sure you'd have done a big job in your pantaloons just before dropping to your knees and stammering, "H-h-hey, s-s-s-sailor, I c-c-can t-t-take me d-dentures o-o-out i-i-if y-y-you'd l-l-l-like."

All I indicated was that from what I'd read, Breyer handed over the goods before Machete Man used force. And I thought the poster who moronically politicized that would've, too.

Not to worry. I didn't mean you, Gasshouse. You have to have stuff worth stealing for Machete Man to think it's worth stealing.

Would that be before or after he fainted?
#12 | Posted by Sniper

I'll let you know when you finally produce that John Kerry tape you said existed but just...can'
t...quite...located, assclown.

located = locate
assclown = assclown

regardless of Justice Breyer's political leanings, this is a terrible story. Outside of the executive branch, the SC members, as individuals, each holds a large burden of the socio-economic tendencies of our country (obviously, i am ignoring the members of Congress because the importance of the individual is lost in sheer numbers; presidential advisory staff and executive positions are all subject to congressional and presidential execution of their recommendations). Before reading this story i didn't know that there was a Supreme Court Police. Given that, where were they?!?! I'm sure this was a coincidence (i.e., the mugger didn't know who his victim was), but it does raise the question whether with such lax security, could the members of our highest court become potential targets? even those of you that hate the alito / roberts / scalia, etc. 'cluster', or vice versa (cons hating the lib justices), we can (at least should) all agree that it would be a tragedy if anything should happen to any of these great legal minds!

Scenario: You are a Supreme Court Justice and someone is robbing you with a machete. It just so happens you have a car antenna in your left rear pocket.
What do you do?
#1 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

If you are an intelligent Conservative rational American, you whip out the 38 spcl that is made to look like an antenna and drop the thieving sonofabitch in his filthy tracks for attempting to steal.

If you are a whiny complaining pants pissing liberal, you hand over your wallet and wife and car to this "deprived entrepreneur" and bid him a nice day.

dic/dok, How many times do I have to give you the link to the interview with larry before you shut your pie hole? Rou realy do need to get some new material, you old fart-et.

And what's with our SCOTUS Justices living/vacationing abroad? Seems unpatriotic and pretty disconnected.

It's unpatriotic to vacation abroad? Sheesh.

-It's unpatriotic to vacation abroad?

We're lucky to be able to eat French fries again.

"Spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said the robbery took place on the evening of February 9, the intruder stole about $1,000, but no one had been hurt. Two unidentified guests also were present."

Again...who were the guests? The Soros' come down for some snorkeling? Van Jones down looking for recruits? The Ayers' on holiday? Come on MSM!! If this were the cast of Twilight, we'd already have a guest list complete with a "who was there with whom" innuendo article or three.

Crap. bold off, I hope.

Bryer is reported to have written this in a court opinion:

"I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as fundamental insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes."

Ray, his opinion just proves he can't even read.

"........the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Breyer was right. There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution that specifically grants a homeowner the right to bear arms unless he/she is a member of a well regulated militia.

#17 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY AT 2012-02-14 02:30 AM | REPLY | FLAG

bullshit. it is fundamental for a free citizenry to bear arms. it keeps a certain balance in order. your interpretation is interesting, but wholly inconsistent with the intent and interpretation of the Constitution.

"unless he/she is a member of a well regulated militia."
Not much of a student of history, are you?
Revisionist assholes.

Come and take them.

"A well regulated militia, consisting of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free state."
~James Madison

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison.

A real lib pussy like Breyer could be robbed with a butter knife or a nerf gun.

The "militia" is the people.

People, you say?

The citizenry.

Ah, that's better. Because the militia sure didn't include those people counted as 3/5 of a person for representation purposes in Congress.

In fact, the whole point of the militia is to keep those people in bondage. (And to fight off Injuns once in a while, though that was really the Department of War's gig.)

The raison d'etre of the Second Amendment is to make it impossible for anti-slavery interests to undermine slavery by banning the use of the tools (firearms, militias) which were used to keep slaves in the first place.

"Home defense" does not enter into the calculus. Breyer knows this; apparently most other Americans do not.

Bryer is reported to have written this in a court opinion:

"I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as fundamental insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes."

Breyer is 100% accurate, or very nearly so.

The use of firearms and our attitudes towards them has evolved over the years, but the intent of the Founders has not.

Much like there's practically zero case law invoking the Third Amendment, because the notion of troops being quartered in our homes is utterly foreign to us now. Not so back in 1787.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

Which is a completely different thing than protecting yourself from a private citizen breaking into your home.

Glad we could clear that up.

Breyer is 100% full of shit.

FTFY

The intent of the founders is quite clear in their own words.

The intent of the founders is quite clear in their own words.

And if you read their words, there's nothing about personal self defense against a private actor.

The Founders were concerned about the give-and-take power struggle between the government and the individual, and how to give a government enough power to govern, yet insufficient power to become tyranny.

This is not to imply they would have opposed using a firearm to defend one's home from a private actor breaking houses.

But that's not the reason for the Second Amendment.

And if you read their words, there's nothing about personal self defense against a private actor.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington

"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not."
~Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."

The Founders were concerned about the give-and-take power struggle between the government and the individual ..This is not to imply they would have opposed using a firearm [for self defense]
But that's not the reason for the Second Amendment.
#53 | Posted by snoofy

Again, the Founders had no problem with the employ of firearms to defend life, liberty, and property.

But the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that slavery cannot be undermined by making the tools of slavery -- the gun and the militia -- expressly legal at the Federal level, regardless of the whim of any State.

The notion that the right to form an armed militia was espressly spelled out with the intent of protecting your home from robbers is asinine.

The Constitution lays down the rules for the relationship between men and their government, not between homeowners and robbers. Knowledge of that context is essesntial to understanding what the words mean.

..... Valentine's Day in Guantanamo!

**** Its a Pittance in Pay Back...Considering all the people,especially in the 3rd World that the US Supreme Court has FUCKED OVER & EXTERMINATED...all at the Behest of Big Oil & CorpoRat America!

The Constitution lays down the rules for the relationship between men and their government, not between homeowners and robbers. Knowledge of that context is essesntial to understanding what the words mean.

#56 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2012-02-14 08:20 PM | REPLY | FLAG

it was for the citizens to be able to protect themselves against the government should it run totally and completely amuck.

it was for the citizens to be able to protect themselves against the government should it run totally and completely amuck.

Exactly correct.

Now, to go just one step further, the specific worry that the Second Amendment deals with regarding a government run amok is their own government would ban firearms, which would in turn render slavery untenable.

The Second Amendment is there to prevent particular States or Congress doing an end-around on the Founders intent that slavery be permitted in this Land Of The Free.