All Episodes
Previous Next
June 26, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
June 26, 2008, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
No, no, no, no.
You just give them time, Snerdley.
Give them time.
They're still trying to figure out their approach.
I've already figured out what it's going to be.
They're already focusing on Breyer's dissent.
In the gun ban today, the Heller case, what a great decision from the Supreme Court today.
But frankly, I like it, yes.
But there's some things about this whole system that are beginning to bother me a little bit.
We'll get into that in great detail as the program unfolds before your very eyes.
Meanwhile, the drive-bys are just trying to figure this out now.
The AP reporting this, blah, blah, But probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
They have no idea about that.
They're hoping and speculating.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network on the fastest three hours in media.
Not a good day for liberals today.
Not a good day for liberals.
Have you seen all the Obama campaign cutbacks, the staff cutbacks in the Obama campaign?
You have?
Look at the newspapers that are cutting back.
The Palm Beach Post is cutting back 300 jobs.
The Baltimore Sun is eliminating 100 jobs.
There's all kinds of newspapers.
The Obama campaign staff is cutting back.
40% of the Palm Beach Post newsroom got the axe.
40%, Snerdley.
And they're whining and moaning about low advertising, and they've got to remain a profitable business and so forth.
I'm saying, well, if you guys at newspapers are going to be so focused on maintaining a profitable business, then why are you upset with the oil companies becoming profitable businesses?
Anyway, that's happened.
The Gallup poll, there's a Gallup poll out there that has the Messiah tied with Senator McCain.
Now, there's also a newsweek poll out there that has the Messiah up by 15 or so.
But guess what I also have?
Same Newsweek poll, 1984, 14 years ago today.
Well, not today, but 14 years ago, the day after the convention ended in San Francisco, the Mondal Convention.
And the same Newsweek poll had Mondale up 18 points over Ronald Reagan, who went on to win in a 49-state landslide.
Polls right now are absolutely meaningless.
I don't care whose they are.
The Bush doctrine, I don't know, not sure about this, but it might be working in North Korea because the little potbelly dictator is going to have his country taken off the terrorist list if he follows through and blows up some cooling tower at a nuclear facility he's got.
And we're supposedly going to have that televised.
You're going to be able to see him do that.
Chikom's involved, us and the Brits.
The economy is not in a recession.
In fact, the economy grew in the first quarter, second quarter.
What was it?
The latest report, it's up 1%.
A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
We're not even close.
We haven't even had one quarter of that.
No recession.
And home sales went up in the last reporting period as well.
Supreme Court today affirmed the Second Amendment unambiguously using the term individual right.
It is an individual right.
What's stunning about this decision, you can take all of it, and I read it.
This Scalia is a brilliant man.
He was the lone opinion for the majority.
Nobody else joined in.
The first half of his opinion deconstructs the entire Second Amendment in the most logical, unassailable manner I have ever seen, using footnotes way back to the founding.
And of course, he's a big original intent, Justice, strict constructionist, as they call them.
But it is just, it's devastating.
And then, of course, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens have their dissents, and they're lame.
But the fact that the Second Amendment, as Scalia makes clear, I would urge you, we're going to link to it at rushlinbaugh.com, and it's written so that you can understand it.
I would urge you when you have a chance to read this opinion all the way up through the dissents.
I mean, you don't have to read the dissents because, you know, well, the drive-bys are going to tell you what the dissents are.
They're focusing on Breyer's dissent right now.
That's their first line of defense against this.
But you'll understand why strict constructionism and looking to the original intent of the founders is so crucial to maintaining the integrity of the United States Constitution.
Everybody has thought, all these legal scholars all these years have thought that the Second Amendment was rather ambiguous because it seems to be a non-sequitur, a well-regulated militia being necessary, blah, blah, blah.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
He goes through this brilliantly.
It is as smart as I've ever heard anybody do it.
And it's just, it's a joy to read this thing.
We'll have, after the break here, touching some of the things that are going to be discussed on the program today.
We have audio sunbites coming up on some of this.
In fact, let me play audio sunbite one right now.
This is a, oh, I forgot to trying to do too much here in too little time.
The most striking, the most eye-opening, well, it didn't open my eyes.
It just kind of froze them.
The most amazing thing about this ruling, the most amazing thing, ladies and gentlemen, the idea that four justices of the United States Supreme Court disagreed with the concept that the Second Amendment is an individual right ought to be a wake-up call for everybody as to where we're headed if liberals get control,
mass control of all three branches of our government.
There's no question the Second Amendment is an individual right.
The First Amendment's an individual right.
Scalia goes through all of this in declaring it an individual right, but four justices of the United States Supreme Court disagreed with that.
And it gets even worse by the time you get to who, Breyer?
Breyer is sitting there wanting to apply a case-by-case application of the Second Amendment based on what he thinks or the courts would think is necessary given modern times.
I mean, this is striking.
This is just, this is simple.
But I'll tell you one of the things that bothers me about this, not the ruling itself, but every June, the country gets out of bed and they start panting.
And the country says, what will the court tell us we can do today?
And what will the court tell us we can't do?
What will the Supreme Court, by virtue of its own usurpation of powers, by virtue of liberal justices being on this court for years and years and years, has taken over the role of arbiter of political decisions in this country?
Not judicial.
I mean, yeah, they do some judicial cases, obviously.
But it frightens me that the it does frighten me that so many people slavishly look at the United States Supreme Court as the final word on issues that are political, not judicial, and not legal.
And so we sit around, we're like little serfs.
We're waiting for the crumbs to be thrown our way as we hang outside the big mansion, hoping to be fed a little freedom or hoping not to have some taken away from us.
And then depending on the decision, we get mad or we get happy.
So today we're happy.
Hey, they upheld the Second Amendment.
That should not be news.
The fact that this was even up for grabs should be frightening as hell to all of us.
The fact that four justices on the U.S. Supreme Court tried to take it away from us.
And yet we're going, all right, all right.
We're playing defense, folks.
We're playing defense.
And then, of course, earlier in the week, we find out that it's okay to rape a kid and you won't be executed, even though the state of Louisiana passed a law saying you would be.
We go, oh, our emotions go up and down and we argue these things on the merits of the law and society and culture, forgetting the fact that a state has the right to determine how it's going to punish people who commit crimes in that state if that state does so by virtue of the elected representatives in the state legislature, meaning the people of the state of Louisiana decided this.
And the U.S. Supreme Court said, you're too stupid to know how to do this.
As they do in a number of, and they counch this all in legal mumbo-jumbo.
So we sit around, get all excited, and we get disappointed and so forth.
And we look, what courses will the cases will the court take next term that will be decided and so forth.
It's like we have over the years just casually thrown away our own role in determining our own lives.
And we've gladly surrendered the power we the people have to a bunch of people in black robes that change every now and then depending on one of them croaks.
And whoever happens to be the political leader of the day, the president, whoever runs the Senate Judiciary Committee, gets to determine what the liberty and freedom of the United States population will be.
At any rate, I have arrived at that propitious moment where it's time, ladies and gentlemen, for EIB windfall profits.
So we will engage in those profits now and be right back.
Stay with us.
Hey, by the way, going through my list of things today, that equal it being a bad morning for liberals, I left one out.
Certainly, would you?
Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen.
Would you put that caller on pause, please?
Do not.
I see you in there shouting and yelling at another caller.
It's got to be the first caller of the day that you're talking to.
It's not worth.
There got to be zillions of other callers that you can talk to.
If the caller's making you mad or isn't worth it, hang up.
Move on to the next one.
Now, listen to this before I get back on the phones.
I left something out when I was going through my list of things, bad morning for liberals.
Iraq is doing so good.
Iraq is so safe that a CBS infobabe can have two affairs with two different guys at the same time.
Yes, we're talking about Laura Logan of CBS News, who is a babe.
There's no question she's a babe.
But she's out there.
She's doing the nasty.
She's in a horizontal joyride with two guys, one of them, some reporter from CNN named Ware, and the other guy, a CEO of a private contractor.
I have the story here.
Sexy CBS siren Lara Logan spent her days covering the heat of the Iraq war, but that was nothing compared to the heat of her nights.
The 60 Minutes reporter and former swimsuit model apparently courted two guys while she was in Baghdad.
She'd been labeled a homewrecker for allegedly destroying the marriage of a civilian contractor there.
Passions got so hot in a combat zone that one of her lovers, Joe Burkett, brawled in a Baghdad safe house with her other paramour, CNN war reporter Michael Ware.
Now, the CEO guy said, No, no, no, no, divorce was final.
Divorce is impressed.
She's not a homewrecker.
She had nothing to do with that.
We didn't start doing a horizontal glide until after the divorce stuff had started.
She had nothing to do with that.
Michael Ware guys says, I don't remember ever getting in a fight with somebody.
I do remember the horizontal nasty with the so Baghdad is so safe that CBS war correspondent can have two affairs with two different guys while the bullets apparently were not flying.
It's not a good day, ladies and gentlemen for liberals.
Now, let me read to you the last page.
And by the way, we have posted the drive-by's rat out anybody.
Well, you wonder why they're ratting out Lara Logan.
You don't know why they're ratting out Laura Logan?
Laura Logan was just brought home.
She's just been named some chief foreign correspondent in the D.C. bureau.
It was okay when Laura Logan, who is a babe, I mean, she is a former swimsuit.
Have you seen a picture of her, Snurdy?
She is a babe.
She had no business being in drive-by media.
I'm telling you, none whatsoever.
And so they brought her back.
I mean, it's you ever heard of jealousy?
Kenneth says, Cut to the chase here.
You ever heard of jealousy?
And by the way, this story, put it in the back.
I think it's New York Daily News.
I don't know where it's.
It's a TV newser blog, but it's maybe it's New York Post.
I read it this morning before I read it on any blogs.
So, yeah, they're taking her out, take out their own.
I mean, look at you could put all the female drive-by reporters at a convention and bring Lara Logan in, and nobody would notice the rest of them.
I mean, that should explain to you what's happening.
I want to go in a wicked transition.
We now go to the last page of the Scalia opinion, which we have posted at rushlinblog.com.
And I'm serious.
When you have the time, it's about 63 pages, 60 pages, the actual opinion itself.
But the first part of it is the breakdown of the original intent of the Second Amendment and the attempt to make it unambiguous.
Scalia does this brilliantly, making sure that people it's not ambiguous at all when you know how they spoke back in those times.
So here's the summation: We hold that the district's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.
That's the trigger lock.
They even required you to have the trigger locked the whole time the gun was in the...
You were a sitting duck in D.C. Somebody breaks into your home under cover of darkness.
You got to wait for them to take action, whatever they want, whether they got a gun or not.
Then you got to call a cops and let the government protect you.
And that's what this case was all about.
Assuming that Heller, Heller's a cop, assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, meaning he's not a felon, meaning he doesn't get into other kinds of problems with the law, the District of Columbia must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Then Scalia says, we are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country.
I want you to listen to this very carefully.
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in the country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many friends of the court brief who believe the prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.
The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, and he cites some places where that's allowed.
But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.
These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.
No government has the right to mandate that.
Undoubtedly, some think the Second Amendment is outmoded in our society, where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem.
That is perhaps debatable.
But what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
This, when I read this, see, it's so simple, so strong, so powerful in its simplicity, the role of the court.
And then it got me to thinking, this case, as far as the liberals were concerned on the court, the four liberal justices, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens, this case wasn't about the D.C. ban.
This case wasn't about Mr. Heller.
When you look at some of Breyer's dissent and when you read some of what John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent, what you learn is that the liberals on this court sought to amend the Constitution.
They weren't pronouncing the constitutionality of a law.
They looked at this as an opportunity to literally amend the Constitution from the bench, which is not permitted by the U.S.
The U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court rather, has taken on the role, Marbury versus Madison, of determining whether or not laws passed by Congress are constitutional.
But to sit there and to take the occasion of this case, D.C. versus Heller, Heller versus D.C., and use it as an opportunity to declare the Second Amendment, i.e. part of the Constitution, as unconstitutional.
Folks, if that doesn't tell you what their intentions are down the road, I can't think of anything else that I could use as an illustration to do it better.
Aha!
You want the truth?
You've got it.
You've got not only the truth, you've got a relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
Taking place daily here on the Rush Limbaugh program.
I got a note.
A friend of mine last night sent me an email story from the, via email, a news story from the French news agency.
Volcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor, according to a study.
And it says recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea.
Scientists who filmed the aftermath reported yesterday, a friend says, this is strange.
You got massive underwater volcanoes under the Arctic Ocean, no mention of melting ice caps.
And the media never misses an opportunity to tie melting ice caps to man-made global warming.
Why wouldn't that be mentioned here?
Well, perhaps they didn't mention it on purpose.
Perhaps volcanoes, volcanoes large enough and powerful enough to have wiped out Pompeii erupting underneath the polar ice cap might have something to do with polar ice melting now and then.
You think the Arctic ice melt might be due to undersea volcanoes?
And if that's the case, undersea volcanoes are not man-made.
There's nothing anthropological about that.
Could that be why they were left off?
John Paul Stevens, in his dissent on the D.C. gun ban bill today, wrote that the majority, meaning Scalia and the gang, would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.
Folks, that is scary.
I know Justice Stevens has been around for a long time, but that kind of interpretation, there is no way, I don't care how convoluted a way that you read the Second Amendment.
There is nothing in it to indicate that the framers intended to grant the federal government, elected officials, the right to police people in the Bill of Rights limited government for crying out loud.
The Bill of Rights told us what our freedoms and rights were and where they came from.
And they came from God, baby.
They were not enumerated by man.
They were not enumerated by government.
The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights sought to limit government.
And yet here is a justice of the Supreme Court suggesting that Scalia and the majority would have us believe it over 200 years ago.
The framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.
I'm telling you, this is too close.
This 5-4 stuff, four justices of the U.S. Supreme Court came damn close to just obviating the Second Amendment from the bench under guise of deciding some case from the District of Columbia.
Let's go to the audio sound buttons.
Just to show you how much ignorance there is in the drive-by media.
This is this morning.
On CNN, Tony Harris is talking to Dahlia Lithwick of Slate.com, a well-known Second Amendment expert, Dahlia Lithwick.
And Tony Harris said, my thought that it would be closer to a unanimous decision, but this 5-4 thing surprised me a bit, Dahlia.
The really big, big meta question here, this question of is there a personal individual right to bear arms, really is fundamentally a very ideological one.
It's a very political one.
It has a lot to do with your libertarian notions about the constitutional protections that you're afforded.
And so I think at the end of the day, what we're seeing here with this very, very typical 5-4 split.
Dahlia Lithwick, remember that name?
A Supreme Court decision dealing with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in her view, is ideological and political.
And she's, I'm sure she believes this.
I'm sure she looks at the court as a political arbiter.
And I'm sure she thinks the courts made a political decision here.
And I'm sure, because she probably went to journalism school somewhere.
Hell, you don't have to go to journalism school.
You just go to school anywhere in America.
And they will tell you the Supreme Court decides political issues.
The Supreme Court will tell us what we can and can't do.
This is frightening.
The level of ignorance.
And I'm not talking about intelligence.
She may have a high IQ.
Doubt it, but she might.
But the level of ignorance, the inability to learn things and apply them to something as fundamental as the United States Constitution.
See how it gets bastardized?
Do you see how it gets torn apart in the hands of the opinion makers in this country?
Scalia said it's an individual right, made it clear.
The majority said the right to bear arms is an individual right.
There's nothing ideological about it.
There's nothing political about it.
It's constitutional.
Dahlia.
So you could take this decision to mean that there is a presumption that the Second Amendment actually means what it says.
Can you believe we've gotten to this point where we have to have the court tell us, yep, says what it says?
And that's why there is wording about the right to bear arms.
Otherwise, that language has no meaning at all.
You've got to read this Scalia opinion, the right to bear arms.
There's nothing ambiguous about it.
Zilch, it's a right.
It is also saying that the court will not go through all these state laws to determine what is or is not constitutional.
However, laws that bar the right to bear arms need to be very specific and aimed narrowly if they're to be constitutional.
And it means aimed at felons, aimed at the mentally challenged, the mentally ill, certain places and so forth.
This is crystal clear.
Here, Jeffrey Toobin, legal expert, CNN, talking to Heidi Collins at CNN.
Jeffrey Toobin, specifically, what's really, what's it about, isn't it?
The Constitution.
Listen to this question.
The memo to Jonathan Klein, running CNN, do you understand how incompetent some of the people you have on your network are?
Listen to this question.
Heidi Collins to Jeffrey Toobin.
Specifically, Jeffrey, that's really what it's about, isn't it?
The Constitution trumping policy.
The Constitution trumping policy?
The Constitution, trumping, I know what you, yes, of course it is, but for this to be a question of a legal scholar, here's the answer.
This is just a big, big event in American constitutional history because the Second Amendment has been a true mystery.
No one really knew for decades what it meant.
Yes, they did.
In practical terms.
Now the Supreme Court, by a margin of just five to four, has said that there is a constitutional right to own a handgun inside the home.
Now.
Stop today, Paris.
The only reason Mr. Toobin, anybody ever debated this, is because people like you, liberals, years and years ago, tried to tell us it didn't mean that.
And you've been passing laws throughout these local municipalities and states chipping away at the Second Amendment because you don't like it.
Nobody had any question about this till you liberals got involved, tried to obfuscate it and confuse everybody about it.
And now we have to get to the point where the Constitution, which is plainly clear in this case, has to be affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here's the rest of the answer.
There raises a lot of questions about the limits of this decision.
I mean, how much gun control will be allowed?
Certainly there is some.
There was some discussion of military weapons.
The court clearly is very concerned that there not be a constitutional right to own a surface-to-air missile.
But how this gets translated into the real world is going to take many, many years.
That's right.
And you know why?
Because the liberals are going to go out there and try to muddy this up like they have all along.
They're going to start talking about the majority of the justices in this decision being extremists and nut cases.
They're just, you know, I have no clue.
I mean, I have no doubt how they are going to react to this.
But I still can't.
Isn't this a case of the Constitution trumping policy?
I don't know.
Here's Obama.
Let's listen.
I'm just that just boggles my mind.
Isn't this a case, the Constitution trumping policy?
As though the policy has been screwed by the Constitution.
Damn that Constitution.
Damn it.
We had a great policy of protecting people.
And now it's been trumped by the Constitution.
I know that's how they think.
The thing is, the D.C. gun ban, there was more crime in D.C. after they got this ban done in place than anywhere in the country.
And New York, too.
Number two.
Oh, New York, where hell the mayor up there is trying to tax you just for moving around.
You know, wait till they find a way to put guns on top of the cranes before they fall.
And as a man of means of getting rid of them, here's Obama.
February 12, 2008, during a forum sponsored by ABC TV and the Politico.com, the moderator's Leon Harris.
One other issue that's of great importance here is in the district, as well as the gun control.
You said in Idaho recently, I'm quoting here, I have no intention of taking away folks' guns, but you do support the D.C. handgun ban.
And you've said that it's constitutional.
How can you reconcile those two different positions?
Well, because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country.
I think it is important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally.
And a lot of people, law-abiding citizens, use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families.
We also have a violence on the streets that is a result of illegal handgun use.
And so there's nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets.
Another idiot.
Another blooming.
That's not what the D.C. gun ban did.
It left guns in the hands of the illegals.
It always does.
I'm not talking about immigration here.
I'm talking about the only people who had guns were the criminals, by definition.
And the problem is that criminals could climb into your house anywhere in the district any time of night, and you were stuck if they had a gun.
Well, any knife, you couldn't.
If you pulled a gun out, you were liable.
You were breaking the law before they were.
Unless you're Carl Rowan.
That's right.
Carl Rowan, a late columnist, Washington Post, he got caught violating the ban.
He said, screw the ban.
I'm going to protect my big liberal columnist for the Washington Post.
So Here's the Messiah, along with all the other leftists, openly, blatantly, apparently proudly exhibiting a total ignorance of the D.C. gun ban.
Thing is constitutional.
Here's Obama yesterday on the gun case.
This was in Chicago.
An unidentified reporter said the Supreme Court's expected to rule tomorrow on the D.C. gun ban.
Can you review for us where you stand on that?
Why don't I wait until the decision comes out and then I will comment on it, as opposed to trying to prognosticate what the Supreme Court is going to decide tomorrow.
Senator, before you support the D.C. gun ban.
What I've said is that I do not, what I've said is that I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but I do not think that that precludes local governments being able to provide some common sense gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of gangbangers or children, that local jurisdictions are going to have different sets of problems, and that this is a very fact-intensive decision that has to be made.
Okay, some more gibberish, absolute total gibberish.
Local governments got to be able to keep guns out of the hands of gangbangers and children.
The gun laws already do that, unless they're going to go violate the law in the first place or in the second place and get a gun.
This is, in fact, his comment here pretty much parallels some of the things that Breyers said in his dissent.
I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but I don't think that precludes local government from being able to provide some common sense gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of gang men.
Those laws already exist.
It's when those laws are broken and people aren't armed that they have problems.
Anyway, so there's a micromanagement here.
The Second Amendment is to be molded and flaked as these liberals want it to be.
The Supreme Court struck it down from now back after this.
You know, one of the problems that we're having here in our culture with all this is the bastardization of the meaning of the word right, as in to have a right.
For example, look what the left is saying today.
We don't have a right to own guns.
I mean, that would be their preference.
That there be no Second Amendment.
Just get four or five justices to wipe it out.
Even though the Constitution specifically says we do, yet they further the notion that we all have a right to health care.
We do not have a right to health care.
That we all have a right to a home.
We do not have a right to a home.
That we all have a right to go to college.
We do not have a right to go to college because those are not rights.
That we have a right to be free of the pollution of oil.
That is not a right.
I don't even want to talk about Reverend Wright because there we're talking wrongs.
If we don't have a right to health care, what is it then?
Do you call it an opportunity?
An option?
Chance?
Who says?
Where?
Where is it written anywhere?
Where is it stated?
And don't tell me that it just makes common sense.
Where is it stated we have a right to health care or that we have a right to own a home or a right to go to college?
Where is it stated?
Where is it?
It's nowhere.
It has been manufactured.
The left has convinced everybody that they have these rights and that if they're denied these rights, somebody must pay for it.
Now, Obama.
Obama says nothing wrong with taking illegal handguns off the street because of a violent society.
The handguns being illegal begs the question since it's the issue that's in dispute here whether owning handguns can be legal per se.
But here's the question when it comes to Obama's comment and thinking: Obama wants to write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution along with all the other liberals.
They want to write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.
Why?
Because our society is too violent.
Our society is too violent because everybody can get guns.
And so write the Second Amendment out, nobody will have a gun.
That's what they believe.
Then, at the same time, Obama and his gang, who want to get rid of the Second Amendment because our society is too violent, turn around and applaud the same court for rewriting the Constitution to give rights to terrorists who are violent and seek to destroy the nation.
So, somebody please explain to me how it is that Obama and his group can celebrate a previous decision that says to terrorists, come on in.
You've got full citizenship rights.
You can come in and have access to our U.S. court system.
And we know that you are violent and that you are murderers and that you intend to wipe us out.
But come on in.
Meanwhile, we got to write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution because our society is too violent, meaning America's are too violent.
And by the way, whoever said, as Toobin referred to, that the Second Amendment permitted surface-to-air missiles.
The state of Louisiana has an answer to the Supreme Court decision earlier this week.
They cannot execute child rapists.
It's called castration.
▲
Export Selection