Okay, listen. Our President has the constitutional right to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. We all know that. Just like the Senate has the right to deny his nomination. Obama has made it perfectly clear that he plans to fulfill that constitutional job of his, even though many believe that it may be the first time he’s ever even looked at our Constitution since he’s been in office. But, the point is that the Supreme Court vacancy needs to be filled by We the People, in the voting that we do later on this year.
But, that’s a point for the politicians, and doesn’t really have anything to do with guns. But, the idiotic liberal anti-gun headline of the week does, here it is: Merrick Garland Is Being Smeared as an Anti-Gun Nut.
To make it more interesting, here is the sub-title: Conservatives are trying to paint him as a warrior against the Second Amendment. They have no evidence for that whatsoever. Thankfully, that about sums up what the article says, so you won’t have to go read it. Unless, of course, you want to.
Now, in case you weren’t sure, Merrick Garland is the guy being nominated as a “moderate” to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat. Here’s the issue with this article:
Conservatives don’t need to smear him as an anti-gun nut, when he isn’t a pro-gun nut.
His record on the second amendment speaks clearly to us, simply because he hasn’t really made a stance on it (there was one thing, but for argument’s sake we’re going to leave that out and make our point a different way).
Whether you’re a conservative or a liberal, you want to know where people stand on the issues that you care about. If you’re a liberal, you’d likely want to know where a politician stands on gay marriage before you vote for him.
If you’re a conservative, you likely want to know where he stands on guns before you make that crucial vote. That’s just how it is. If there is really no way of figuring that out based on what he has done, he may as well be an anti-gun nut. Plain and simple. In other words, we need to be 100% positive of who we are getting, and where he stands on the important issues.
Furthermore, it’s easy to make a judgment concerning his stance on this all-important right simply because our liberal president (who has made his views on the 2A well-known) wants to appoint him.
Obama has made it known that he does not support the second amendment, so why on earth would he appoint someone who is in support of it?
The Final blow comes from the NRA itself, in its condemnation of Obama’s nomination. Here is what Chris Cox has to say about Garland’s nomination:
With Justice Scalia’s tragic passing, there is no longer a majority of support among the justices for the fundamental, individual right to own a firearm for self-defense. Four justices believe law-abiding Americans have that right – and four justices do not. President Obama has nothing but contempt for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners. Obama has already nominated two Supreme Court justices who oppose the right to own firearms and there is absolutely no reason to think he has changed his approach this time. In fact, a basic analysis of Merrick Garland’s judicial record shows that he does not respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Therefore, the National Rifle Association, on behalf of our five million members and tens of millions of supporters across the country, strongly opposes the nomination of Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court.
There you have it, folks. It’s hard to smear Garland as a potential Supreme Court Justice when the man’s record speaks for itself—even if there is no record. As a free nation, we simply cannot take any chances on allowing someone to get into Scalia’s seat that may be against the fundamental right to keep and bear arms—even if we aren’t sure what he’ll do. Need we say anything further? Make sure you get out and vote in order to be heard.
Finally, the time is now, folks. Our new video series is starting on the Gun Carrier YouTube Channel next week, so make sure you subscribe to it to stay as current as possible.
OBAMA WOULD never APPOINT A PRO-2nd AMENDMENT judge to the SCOTUS.