Comments on: Sotomayor Pressed On Gun Rights, Second Amendment

[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?