Originally Posted by Schlitz
I'm going to remember this moment in glocktalk history when years from now down the road one of Mitt's (if he's elected) judges ends up being the one that goes south when a big deal 2nd amendment case comes around. brb, adding this thread to my bookmarks.
+100000 internet points to me when it ends up being a assault weapons related case and Romney's judge says something along the lines of assault weapons being "instruments of destruction"
Riiiiiiiiight. Because of course if Obama gets in for a second term (which you've previously stated is what you'd rather see), he's certain
to appoint justices that will wholeheartedly support
the second, right? (That would be the polar opposite of the two that he's appointed thus far, just in case you weren't paying attention.)
When given the option of supporting the guy who might possibly appoint a justice that doesn't fully support the second versus the guy who HAS ALREADY placed TWO that are flat out opposed to it and when the opportunity presents itself in the future will almost assuredly do the same again, it defies logic to want the latter to win over the former.
Sometimes firearms owners are our own worst enemies.