Comments by "Hugh Jorgan" (@HughJorgan1) on "Supreme Court set to take up major Second Amendment case" video.

  1. We passed the point of no return on guns decades ago. There's more guns than people in our country. And many own guns for only one reason: to protect themselves from the criminals with guns. Putting limitations on guns only helps the criminals.
    72
  2. LeDummy James helped destroy the leftist anti-cop narrative with his ignorance.
    14
  3. We already have many 'infringements" to owning guns. Those that oppose gun laws based strictly on the Constitution need to look at the bigger picture.
    4
  4. We already have many infringements to owning guns. We also have many infringements on where you can carry a gun (public places) and the type. Those that oppose gun laws based strictly on the Constitution need to look at the bigger picture.
    1
  5.  @deadname...  ...Key words: "where legal". Whether we like it or not, what NY is proposing for laws on concealed carry in public places will definitely make it through the SCOTUS. Many states already have such laws.
    1
  6.  @deadname...  ..Good point. And regarding 'need', the core principle "The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the individual" has been used in many past SCOTUS decisions. For example, they determined that random DUI checkstops are allowed under the 4th Amendment. Their key reasoning was the right of people to feel safe on public roads outweighs the Constitutional right of an individual against 'unreasonable' searches. All current gun laws that infringe on ownership, types, where we can carry, etc are based on this same principle.
    1
  7. "The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the individual" is a core principle of many past SCOTUS decisions that interpret the Constitution. For example, they determined that random DUI checkstops are allowed under the 4th Amendment. Their key reasoning was the right of people to feel safe on public roads outweighs the Constitutional right against 'unreasonable' searches. All current gun laws that infringe on ownership, types, etc are based on this same principle.
    1
  8. And the founding fathers weren't thinking about large magazines, bump stocks, suppressors, etc. And they never anticipated many other gun and ammo technologies and the easy access to guns we currently have. Bottom line, we already have many 'infringements" to owning guns. Those that oppose gun laws based strictly on the Constitution need to look at the bigger picture.
    1