KOPEL: Sotomayor targets guns now

[emptyquiver2]

Washington Times ^ What we've been saying about her all along. Chip by Chip, Piece by Piece. Hope and Change, to fundamentally change the country. It wont be long till push comes to shove.

[bigtim6656]

She is nothing. Now if two right wing judges step down were done. IT is a good year to be a gun owner. We won the DC battle, We won the Chicago battle(our lovely presidents hometown) and the US SUPREME COURT SAID FOR THE FIRST TIME a individual has the right to keep and bar arms. KEY WORD INDIVIDUAL. They are running around spending money, passing health care bills, and dealing with oil spills that they will not get to gun control before the election and after that day our lovely president becomes a LAME DUCK till 2012. Dam sounds like a good year to me.

[falcon]

We knew from the beginning that Sotomayor is anti-gun and anti-self defense. We also know that Kagan is anti-gun and anti-self defense. Unless she rapes a school girl, Kagan will be confirmed just like Sotomayor was.

[Alsatian]

This is just one more proof of what the true nature of a national Democrat is. It isn't rocket science people. They are cut from the same cloth. DO NOT LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY!!! They are liars. They lie. They cynically and willfully misrepresent themselves to get foolish, gullible voters to vote for them. They know that if they stood up and honestly represented their intentions to (1) distribute more money and services to the poor, (2) pay for this spending with higher taxes on those who work -- all of those who work, not just the rich, and (3) be mamby-pamby weaklings in the foreign policy arena, they would never get elected. The Democrat base would vote for them, but they need the independents -- the swing vote -- to get elected . They know these independents, who are not drinking the Democrat Party koolaid, do not believe in or subscribe to this leftist, unlimited government, anti-gun, supine foreign policy, tax and spend Democrat agenda. So they lie. They really aren't for those things. They aren't socialists (if you walk like a socialist, talk like a socialist, spend public money like a socialist, tax like a socialist . . . guess what, you are a socialist). Count on and expect national Democrats to lieing their true posistions on the second amendment and redistribution of wealth. Bet your money on it. You'll never buy a stock that so regularly meets this expectation.

Voting for a Democratic presidential candidate is a vote to suppress and surrender second amendment rights. It can't be any clearer.

[ipscshooter]

Originally Posted by Alsatian

Voting for a Democratic presidential candidate is a vote to suppress and surrender second amendment rights. It can't be any clearer.

Ditto. Anyone who wants to keep their guns, but votes for a Democrat for President, is a fool. The Supreme Court is where our gun rights will be decided. They left open the issue of what constitutes a "reasonable restriction." I will guarantee that Kagan, like Sotomayor, and all the other leftist idiots on the Court, will not find ANY gun law unreasonable.

[Obama]Sure, you can have a gun, but it has to be completely disassembled, and stored in locked boxes in at least five different locations in the house, with the keys to those locked boxes in safe deposit boxes at five different banks. And, separate Ten Million Dollar liability insurance policies on each gun. [/Obama]

[Sotomayor]That sounds reasonable to me, for I am a wise Latina Princess.[/Sotomayor]

[Kagen]Sounds good to me too. If someone breaks into my house, I will simply fend off their attacks with the large "massage device" that my girlfriend and I use. We keep it handy right by the bed...[/Kagen]

[Sotomayor]Oooohhh.... Justice Kagen, you are so naughty..




..... Call me later....
[/Sotomayor]


Seriously, Kagen was a proponent of Clinton's Gun Bans. She was directly responsible for Clinton's pursue a ban on partial birth abortions. Her nomination to the SCOTUS borders on treason. And, it is ABSOLUTE PROOF that Obama is staunchly anti-gun. And, didn't we have a bunch of Leftie members, prior to the election, saying that "We don't need to worry about Obama, He's not anti gun..." Hogwash. Anyone who believed that is an IDIOT. Plain and Simple... Many of us were raising the red flag on this. "Don't vote for Obama. He'll appoint Anti gun justices to the SCOTUS." Anyone who didn't listen or who disagreed is an IDIOT. Plain and Simple. The proof is out there now. We were right. You were wrong.

[cr422]

Originally Posted by bigtim6656

Now if two right wing judges step down were done. .

A courteous correction my friend. All we need is for one of the conservative justices to have a stroke, a heart, attack, be diagnosed with cancer, etc., or just decide to quit and we have a problem.

As I pointed out in another thread, in Heller the Court recognizes that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right. This decision applies it to the states but allows for "reasonable restrictions." Now the Court will have to decide in its next decision what constitutes "reasonable restrictions." If Obama gets to replace only one of the conservative justices, we can only imagine what kind of restrictions will be deemed "reasonable."

Anyone who supports the Second Amendment who votes for anyone other than a Republican candidate has his head up there where the sun doesn't shine. You may think Ron Paul or someone of that ilk is cool. Fine. But a vote for anyone other than the Republican candidate is a vote against the Second Amendment.

The right to keep and bear arms has no value if it is subject to "reasonable restrictions" satisfactory to the anti-gun crowd.

[Alsatian]

Pursuant to the thought of a conservative justice leaving the court during a leftist presidency, it is perhaps worse than has been suggested. If the Heller decision and the McDonald decision are granted the force of binding precedent -- "settled law" in the words of Sotomayer during her appointment hearings -- things are not so precarious. It seems I have read, in another thread, that the dissenting opinion refers back to Heller and explicitly calls it a mistaken opinion. That does not make me feel comfortable that these leftist judges would not flush the Heller decision and/or the McDonald decision without batting an eye.

At the heart of this dissenting opinion in McDonald was the clinging to the notion that the second amendment just does not signify an individual right. If the stuff I read is correct -- if this is in the dissenting opinion -- that makes me very nervous.

As has been said, any vote for a president other than a Republican candidate is a vote against the second amendment.