I wonder if Brian Nieves is even smart enough to realize what an insult his upcoming fundraiser is to all women. Given the rumors in past years about his various relationships with women, you would think someone close to him would warn him about the sexual overtones of naming a gun a woman’s name and “mounting” something on it and letting the big winner “take her home.” Men like him probably think this is funny, just the way they think it’s funny to call women dirty names when “the guys” get together. Every woman who supports Brian Nieves should take time to see what this event is really all about – male dominance over women with guns and sex.
Dinner & Comedy Show with STL
Area Conservative Celebrities
Jamie Allman & Michelle Moore!!
Monday, July 26th
Hidden Valley Resort in Wildwood
VIP Reception 6-7pm, Dinner & Show 7-9pm
This is an Event you do NOT want to miss!!
Join Jamie Allman and Michelle Moore with Senators Jim Lembke & Jane Cunningham, Representatives Tim Jones & Brian Nieves and who knows what other "Conservative Celebrities" may show up and be part of this Cast of Characters! This event will be so much Fun that the Federal Government may outlaw it!
The general theme for the night will be a Spoof on the new Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan, who seems to be Ravenously Anti-2nd Am. and a Threat to God Given Liberties!
In honor of Ms. Elena we got a Ruger Super Redhawk .44 Magnum mounted with a Leupold Scope, all in gorgeous stainless steel, the serial number of which is being engraved on a plaque naming it "The Elena Kagan" and guess what?? ... The Elena Kagan will be the Grand Door Prize of the night! - Yes, somebody gets to take Elena home!!
|
posted by sarah jo - 07/24/2010 3:41:42 PM |
For the sake of those who won't take the time to read Rp's entire link, here is the relevant passage by Justice Scalia.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
|
