Obama Supreme Court Nominee Has Anti-Gun Record

[Vendtre]

Just now, MorningGlory said:

I don't think anyone else here is going to look up YOUR sources.  Just post them.

 I have posted them, but why is that even necessary.  Why is it that people cannot do such things for themselves?  Why do people blindly believe organizations?

[ayin jade]

1 hour ago, Vendtre said:

No, I was not wrong.  You might not have noticed, but I rarely am. 

[other one]

50 minutes ago, Vendtre said:

I am wrong?  are you kidding me?  I have given you an example of what en banc is for, and I am not wrong.   Please provide your source that shows that the only reasons for an en banc review is to overturn the ruling.   Failure to do so will be enough for me to know you are just making things up like the NRA did.

you have given us an example of what en banc could be used for, but you really don't know why he did that.....        And considering Obama picked him right now when he has promised to put in Gun Control before he leaves office gives me great pause as to the answer to why....

I'm saying that if he is not against people having guns, Obama would not have picked him.

[Vendtre]

7 minutes ago, other one said:

you have given us an example of what en banc could be used for, but you really don't know why he did that.....        And considering Obama picked him right now when he has promised to put in Gun Control before he leaves office gives me great pause as to the answer to why....

I'm saying that if he is not against people having guns, Obama would not have picked him.

But the NRA said this... The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro-Second Amendment ruling. 

As you noted, I have shown this to be false.  And it ignores that one of the most conservative judges in the land also voted for the en banc.  

I am not saying he is not anti-gun, I am saying nobody has given a shred of real evidence that he is.  The guy has been a judge a long time, you would think he would have lots of evidence if he were truly anti-gun.  Yet the NRA has to resort to lying to make him look like he is.  Ask yourself, why is that?

[other one]

2 minutes ago, Vendtre said:

But the NRA said this... The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro-Second Amendment ruling. 

As you noted, I have shown this to be false.  And it ignores that one of the most conservative judges in the land also voted for the en banc.  

I am not saying he is not anti-gun, I am saying nobody has given a shred of real evidence that he is.  The guy has been a judge a long time, you would think he would have lots of evidence if he were truly anti-gun.  Yet the NRA has to resort to lying to make him look like he is.  Ask yourself, why is that?

Since I am not a member of the NRA nor do I read their literature, you can not say that about me......   what the NRA says doesn't sway my opinion any more than yours does....     but what does sway my opinion are the actual actions of the Judge and what my President has promised the democrats.....   and I really don't think you can refute that....   he did the act and Obama has said that several times.

So you can take you possibilities and tout them all you want, but me and mine are not going to trust Obama or anyone else who does not have an actual proven second amendment history.

[The_Patriot21]

1 hour ago, Vendtre said:

I am wrong?  are you kidding me?  I have given you an example of what en banc is for, and I am not wrong.   Please provide your source that shows that the only reasons for an en banc review is to overturn the ruling.   Failure to do so will be enough for me to know you are just making things up like the NRA did.

 

I have already shown you 2 articles, provided by the NRA, that shows he has a history of voting against guns, not just that one case you brought up. Or, do your reading comprehension skills need work? Quite frankly, I dont need to prove anything to you. Youve proven over and over again to not care about the facts, all you care about is your own personal agenda and will twist and ignore any fact, that goes against what you teach. The NRA made up nothing-nor did I, nor do I need to provide any more "proof" to you, as its already been provided. your inability to read is not my problem, nor do I care about what your opinion on the matter is.

[Vendtre]

26 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

 

I have already shown you 2 articles, provided by the NRA, that shows he has a history of voting against guns, not just that one case you brought up. Or, do your reading comprehension skills need work? Quite frankly, I dont need to prove anything to you. Youve proven over and over again to not care about the facts, all you care about is your own personal agenda and will twist and ignore any fact, that goes against what you teach. The NRA made up nothing-nor did I, nor do I need to provide any more "proof" to you, as its already been provided. your inability to read is not my problem, nor do I care about what your opinion on the matter is.

Your first article said this... The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro-Second Amendment ruling.   This is verifiable false and has been verified as false.  

The irony here is that I asked you not to blindly accept what the NRA said and your response is to say "well the NRA said", thus proving you have blindly accepted what they posted. 

As for reading skills, the first one is what this whole discussion is about, and the 2nd one, all of the Supreme Court agreed with, even the guy they are now trying to replace.   

[The_Patriot21]

Came across this little piece on facebook, food for thought:

A lot of people have brought up the fact that they won't vote for Trump if he's the eventual nominee. I just want to put something in perspective.
Justice Scalia's seat is vacant. Ginsberg is 82 years old, Kennedy is 79, Breyer is 77, and Thomas is 67. Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after 75.
These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years. The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology.
Think about that... 7-2. If the next President appoints 5 young justices, it will guarantee control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation. And 7-2 decisions will hold up much more over time than 5-4 decisions which are seemed to be lacking in mandate.
Hillary has made it clear she will use the Supreme Court to go after the 2nd Amendment. She has literally said that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Heller decision stating that the Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. Period.
Everyone saying that they won't vote for one candidate or the other if they are the GOP nominee, please realize this. If Hillary Clinton wins and gets to make these appointments, you likely will never see another Conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for the rest of your life. Ever.

[other one]

I think that deserves to be on my facebook also....