Comments on: Sotomayor Pressed On Gun Rights, Second Amendment

[All_pols_need_2_go]

What I find so amusing about the gun grabbers in this thread is that they actually think they will disarm the general population. Can any of you would be gun grabbers tell us how you plan to get everyones guns away from them when the very logic and ideals you subscribe to would seemingly prevent you from owning or using a firearm yourself?

History has shown that those attending gun fights without guns are usually going to be losers. I can pretty much assure you a quick loss and hasty retreat should you ever even try to collect the guns. Think you have inner city violence wait till every fed up hunter, target shooter and former Vet that risked their life to defend that 2nd Amendment along with the rest takes up positions all over and starts to pop off the gun grabbers be they cops or feds whoever. What you fail to realize is that when you outlaw all guns your will make criminals of all legal gun owners, what more you fail to understand is that at that very moment we will no longer care if we are considered criminals all we will care about is erradicating those of you that would take away our rights our families have fought and died for to defend. If you think any of us will let that happen no matter what law gets passed you really out of your mind. Cops won't go into some hoods now for fear of their lives. Wonder how they will feel if they are charged to try and collect all the guns when they figure out they are now being targeted by EVERYONE that has a gun and refuses to give it up. I have guns I inherited from men that DIED for those rights, do you really think I am just going to hand them over because some African President who probably has never has a family member killed in action of this country and latino Judge say I have to? LMAO Yeah thats going to happen, SURE it is just keep thinking that. Then when you show up at my home I will be sure to give you all my ammo first as I try to kill every last one of you, if I have to go out trying so be it but I will be damned if some foreigners are going to come here and tell me that the 2nd is no longer valid.

[beaumuff]

yea buddy, ban the fat buns!

[All_pols_need_2_go]

Your whole premise is based on our own citizens and military actually going along with the gun grabbers. Now lets see they signed up voluntarily to defend our RIGHTS, including the 2nd and now you think they will just kill their friends and families because some 2 bit lying politician tells them to? Your nuts it will never happen. Besides you must not be familiar with that other little tid bit of law that says the military is never to be used against the citizens of the country. There are not as many cops and military as your claiming to begin with, so stick your numbers back where you pulled them out from it is smelling up the thread. Cops can't control a few city blocks from gangs yet you think they can disarm every last person in the country? LMAO thats rich, stupid and illogical but rich.

[gunownerdan]

All Americans should watch the new free video called "NO GUNS FOR NEGROES" from JPFO.
It is very important that we learn about the racist roots of American gun control laws,
the same laws that are now being supported by Obama and his administration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckgyfGbdnU
www.JPFO.org

[Void_Master]

This would pretty much be my point exactly. In fact, I think if you first asked the police if they would like that job you'd find most of them would rather pound salt.

[picklepants7]

here we go again. another example of dumbacrates not thinking through before they spew. if you make guns illegal, only the criminals will have guns, and law abinding citizens will not. giving the upper hand to criminals. take for example drugs. drugs are illegal but for some crazy reason, you can still buy drugs if you are a criminal. there are also laws on the book where it is illegal to buy a gun without a permit, but that didn't stop steve mcnair's murdering misstres now did it. and finally, people die in car crashes everyday around the world, but (and you know where i'm going with this), no one believes we should ban cars.

[Mortarman29]

Thanks! It amazes me sometimes how little these folks get.

[All_pols_need_2_go]

by o_the_potus July 15, 2009 9:11 AM EDT
by Mortarman29 July 15, 2009 9:06 AM EDT
Potus, of course repealing the 2nd Amendment will get NO guns off the street. How silly!

_____________________________________________________

Yeah, law enforcement would have to do that.

_____________________________________________________

I'll admit most cops aren't to bright. But I can assure you if you think the local PD is going to be willing to go to each and every home and try to confiscate the guns your crazy. Anyone that even wanted that job would have ot be crazy and odds are you wouldn't live out the 1st week of trying. The only real gun viloence you hear about now is thugs and spree shooters. You want real violence just think about going after every gun out there. Not only can you not collect them and if you could then why not collect the 30 million illegals 1st? More than 200 million guns and your going to get them all, right and I am going to hit the Powerball tonight too! See the main problem with outlawing guns is that just because a piece of paper says they are now illegal isn't going to mean jack to those that think the Constitution trumps any law and will fight to uphold it. The politicians couldn't stand the blood shed that would follow after one week and reverse course. Not to mention if they think they are targets now let them ban guns and see how long they survive. In the end those with the guns make the rules, that will never change. If you don't want to defend yourself fine be a lemming I will defend myself and my family no matter what politician or judge says otherwise. These same people you think will collect guns can't control a few city blocks from gangs that don't even know how to use their guns effectively. What are the odds they will disarm every hunter and target shooter out there that actually knows how to use their weapon? Slim to none. At least we won't have to worry about paying out more government pensions as no one will ever see retirement. Can't wait to see the want ad for that job LMAO.

[Void_Master]

This would pretty much be my point exactly. In fact, I think if you first asked the police if they would like that job you'd find most of them would rather pound salt.

[Void_Master]

Yes. Watch out for old ladies.

[Void_Master]

LMAO - ban the guns too.

[Void_Master]

Ok, so ban all buns and let us just see how successful the police are at collecting them all.

[Void_Master]

LMAO - ban the guns too.

[beaumuff]

yea buddy, ban the fat buns!

[talk_down_2_you]

Does Senator Sessions looks as much like Howdy Dowdy today as he did yesterday? Sadly, I'm from his state, what an embarrassment. He stutters as much as one of the clowns from Green Acres. Alabama used to have fairly intelligent Senators before the right-wing took over back in the 70's. Heflin and Sparkman did us proud. Now we have banker bought-out clowns.

[Mortarman29]

I would hope that a wise Causasian male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn't lived that life

[Mortarman29]

I guess there wasnt anything racial about my comment!

[Mortarman29]

Stuart, the quotes are relevant. And nothing I am saying here is partisan. The scholars that say they disagree, do so because they want to find a different meaning in the Constitution than the one intended. They believe in a "living" Constitution, one where we can decide on a daily basis, what the thing means. The Founders did not intend for them to do that, and said so. They did not make a "living" document.

A Constitution is meant to be rigid and defined. It is a list or contract by the States that set up a Federal government. It lists what powers the Federal government has, and includes some rights (the Bill of Rights) that the Federal government can NEVER take away from a law abiding American.

These scholars want to say that, well...that was a long time ago, and things have changed...so we have to change the meaning.

Wrong!!! You dont change the meaning thru a law, or a court decision. You change the meaning by amending the Constitution. That is what the Amendment process is for!!!!!! Otherwise, we wouldnt need it.

On the 2nd Amendment, it is very clear what the Framers wrote. Not just in that amendment, but in the lengthy writings, outlining what they meant.

[Mortarman29]

I didnt have time to answer the issues that you listed above...so here goes:

There is NO absolute RIGHT anywhere that allows us to keep and bear arms. Not in such vague language. Otherwise people would keep and bear bazookas, tanks, missile launchers exct ect.

-------Well, according to the Constitution, those items are allowed to be lawfully owned by law abiding Americans. The definition of ARMS is the "instruments of the soldier." Again, the definitions and prohibitions are not vague. What those that want to ban these things dont want to do is to go thru the heavy lifting of changing the Constitution, as they should. Instead, they ignore its clear meaning.

Is the continuing effort of the states to restrict gun laws a violation of my 2d amendment right?

----------Well, first off, the Constitution's intent is to limit the Federal government, not the States or people. So, if anything is vague, it is if the States are limited by this also. Some precedent has said that the States are limited by the Bill of Rights, but again...the clear meaning of the Constitution says it is there to limit the Federal government, and that all rights and liberties not given to the Federal government by the Constitution, remain with the States and the people.

Do we need militias anymore in this country?

-----------The definition of "militia" is not "national guard." The definition of militia that was used b ythe Founders at the time was every free male citizen. Here is a quote: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

Why the emphasis on weaponizing Americans? Who is behind this thinking?

--------------The Founders. They understood that the only person that can defend our liberties is the American people themselves. The Constitution was allowed to be backed up and defended at the barrel of a gun. If not, than it is just a worthless piece of paper. Americans must always be able to defend their homes, their lives and their liberties from anyone that might try to hurt them or take their liberties away. That means ANYONE that might do so. How do you think we gained independence? We decided one day that our government was too tyrannical, too corrupt. So we threw them out at the end of a bayonet.

Should keeping the peace be a defensive position - i.e. having a gun to defend against a violent criminal? Or should keeping the peace be an offensive position - banning guns?

-----------You cannot keep the peace by banning guns. Banning guns just means law abiding citizens dont have them. But again, even if true (but it isnt) that banning guns would lower violence, banning them is unConstitutional. Which means, there is a way to ban them, if the American people want them banned. And it is Constitutional. it is called the amendment process. It is very simple.

[Mortarman29]

Sorry, a majority do not disagree with me.

Again, those that want to find ambiguity, do so because they dont like the Amendment. They dont like what the Founders said. The Founders were very, very clear! Please take even the small list of quotes I have provided and find ambiguity in their statements. You cannot.

It is the same silly notion about this right to privacy that the SC found in the Roe case. There is no right to privact listed in the Constitution. That cannot be found there. Those that wanted it there try to make clear language, unclear...so that they can then force their agenda forward.

Here is always my proposal...you want a right to privacy in the Constitution? Put it in there. Yo uwant to be able to limit arms in the hands of the people, or even do away with them? Then change or abolish the 2nd Amendment.

But dont ignore the Constitution or decide on your own what the meaning is. It makes the Constitution useless.

[stuart2020]

by Mortarman29 July 15, 2009 12:22 PM EDT
No. They were addressing the right of the people to own the instruments of the soldier to be able to defend their liberties.
-----------------

So does that interpret to mean than whenever we feel our rights are being violated we have the constitutional rights to take up arms?

Does that mean that if a gang-banger tries to bully an old lady out of the seat on the subway, she has the right, because her liberties are being violated, to shoot him dead?

[Void_Master]

Yes. Watch out for old ladies.

[stuart2020]

Mortar...I want to know what YOU think not what anyone else thinks. Speak for yourself.

[stuart2020]

Why do you keep citing these irrelevant quotes? If they exactly defined something, why are so many scholars, lawyers, judges and other social workers so unvcertain and in constant debate over this issue - particularly the original intent of the amendment?

Can you answer that question logically and in a non-partisan way?