Comments on: Sotomayor Pressed On Gun Rights, Second Amendment
Add a Comment See all 147 Comments
- another day of watching lame senators try to stick something on this woman. Watching Graham and Sessions, it's easy to see why the GOP lost big time. These guys should be wearing white hoods and sheets. Especially Sessions. Relics from the old days. Time for them to go.
- Reply to this comment
-
- I agree completely. I dare them to find one preson who doesn't judge based on their own life experiences. Everyone does, even the current supreme court justices.
Republicans need to stop the circus and confirm her. She's fully qualified and all this just reveals the reasons why the republicans with their current mindset have no desire to attract minorities to their party.
- I agree completely. I dare them to find one preson who doesn't judge based on their own life experiences. Everyone does, even the current supreme court justices.
- "The NRA is committed to constitutional rights. While most people think of us as focused on firearms, we are rather more focused on freedom. Yes, we concentrate on the Second Amendment, but the Second Amendment is about liberty. It's an insurance policy for all of your constitutional rights. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that you have the ability to protect your life, liberty and property, and those of your loved ones, against any who would try to take them from you. That includes your freedom to speak, worship, protest and vote. It includes the things you hold most dear."
- Sandy Froman, former NRA president - Reply to this comment
- The people choose the legislatures in elections, so the people choose the democratically elected officials. That is not dictatorship.
- Reply to this comment
- Now I watched and listened to the hearings and I think you must have been listening, if you did listen, with a closed mind. You failed to understand her legal position of the 2nd Amendment. It's truly embarrassing to have educated people from other nations read the stupidity posted by our Fringe Right.
- Reply to this comment
- (The majority's decision threatens severely to limit the ability of more knowledgeable, democratically elected officials to deal with gun-related problems.) Does she think that we live in a dictatorship or what? Democracy means the people chose what they want not a small group of government officials. I think she doesn't know what her job is. HMMM maybe it was ideas like this that lead to Hitler
- Reply to this comment
-
- Now I watched and listened to the hearings and I think you must have been listening, if you did listen, with a closed mind. You failed to understand her legal position of the 2nd Amendment. It's truly embarrassing to have educated people from other nations read the stupidity posted by our Fringe Right.
- The people choose the legislatures in elections, so the people choose the democratically elected officials. That is not dictatorship.
- David Souter is a "he", not a "she". He is the one who said that. There are exactly zero reasons to believe (as the author, and pretty much everyone else seems to assume) that Sotomayor would have joined the minority rather than the majority of Heller. Her decision on Mallony was dictated by 2nd circuit precedent.
- Second Amendment all the way, baby!
- Reply to this comment
- What gibberish is this in the second paragraph? There is no "2nd Amendment right of self-defense." Reporters evidently can't read these days, let alone write. The 2nd Amendment is obsolete; abolish it! If people want to own guns (I do) for self-defense, amusement, or anything else, and if that right is endangered, why don't we pass a new amendment that actually addresses the issue? The 2nd Amendment refers to specific use, and that specific use is no longer relevant. Even loosely interpreted, the 2nd Amendment only guarantees the right to own a gun; it in no way guarantees the right to use it for self-defense. Until this anachronistic bylaw is eradicated, every few years this debate will rear its head. Let's end it once and for all.
- Reply to this comment
-
- you obviously know nothing about the second amendment and why it was written. we have the right to bear arms for a few reasons. one, it's harder for a tyranical government to supress armed citizens. hitler is one of many dictators in the past to use this to his advantage. two, it's harder for invaders to overtake a country where citizens are armed to defend themselves which is why japan didn't invade us during world war II. three, people use guns to hunt and supplement their food supply. and four, defend yourself, family, and property, which i can't imagine anyone with a brain opposing. guns don't kill people, people kill people. next thing you'll probably do is blame pencils for spelling errors.
- 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.
- While I disagree with you about the value of the 2nd amendment, which I believe to be essential to liberty, and commend you for having the integrity to want it abolished (by which I take to mean through the lawful process of amendment) as opposed to the easier, lawless way championed by Democratic senators, which is to have it "interpreted" into non-existence. BTW, I think that Sotomayor is perfectly aligned with the conservative view on this, which respects the law, not the liberal one, which does not.
