SCOTUS Moroniee Wants ALL DA GUNS MADE ILLEGAL

[mynameis]

In a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/28/sotomayors_views_on_abortion_g.html?wprss=44

[danceswithbunnies]

No governmental power has jurisdiction to determine fundamental rights.
They are guarenteed by the constitution itself.

Unfortunately for SCOTUS, the US government, having violated circumscription of its office, as set forth by the constitution, is null and void.

[veritasvoice]

I seriously question the sanity of any politician who believes that they can or should disarm Americans. It would be the largest armed uprising in history.

You just haven't seen someone passionate about guns until you've seen Americans defending the 2nd amendment. If the Feds start confiscations, you'll have grannies with semi-automatic rifles coming out of the woodwork - and that is not an exaggeration.

These people know their Bill of Rights, they know WHY the 2nd amendment exists, they know that it is NOT for hunting...unless you're talking about hunting members of Congress. The 2nd amendment represents the fundamental, integral right of an individual to defend their own life, and not rely on the state to do so...and for any public official sworn to uphold the Constitution to suggest that right be stripped away is an indicator of either gross ignorance or planned tyranny.

MANY more US police than you'd believe possible support the 2nd amendment too, and are highly critical of anyone - including other cops - suggesting the populace be disarmed, and I'm willing to bet that many simply will refuse to comply with a federal order to criminalize firearms; same goes for many members of the US military.

I'm also concerned that there is a potential Justice who would vote to repeal Roe vs Wade, not just because it involves abortion - it is an affirmation of an individual's right to do what they want with their own body. Pro-lifers don't generally get that. Suppressing that right would open up every single person to enforced vaccines - or enforced implants.

[opulentview]

Thank you Thomas Jefferson for clearly writing '..shall not be infringed.'

[swethirte]

And that's precisely why your society is in such a mess.

[jesuitsdidit]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/28/sotomayors_views_on_abortion_g.html?wprss=44


Sotomayor's Views on Abortion, Gun Rights Come Under the Microscope

By Ben Pershing
The main storyline of Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination -- whether she'll be confirmed -- seems hardly in doubt, but her candidacy has already become the vehicle for other interesting subplots. On gun rights, abortion and even immigration reform, Sotomayor has provided the platform for advocates on both sides of the aisle to battle it out.

Sotomayor's abortion views are the focus of multiple front-pagers today. The New York Times says "some abortion rights advocates are quietly expressing unease that Judge Sotomayor may not be a reliable vote to uphold Roe v. Wade." As was the case with the man she would replace, David Souter, Sotomayor's paper trail on the issue is relatively thin. With Souter, conservatives made assumptions about his views that later came back to haunt them, and liberals hope to avoid making the same mistake today. The Los Angeles Times notes that "in her only abortion-related decision, she did not come down the way [abortion rights supporters] would have liked," referencing Sotomayor's role in upholding the constitutionality of the so-called Mexico City Policy in 2002. Per tradition, Sotomayor surely won't give a clear answer on her abortion views when she appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, so will the White House find some other way to reassure its allies on this issue?

Gun rights groups also have a problem with Sotomayor's views, and in this case it's because of her substantive record, not her lack thereof. In particular, they cite a 2004 ruling in which Sotomayor joined two other judges to declare that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." You can expect conservative groups to put red-state Democratic Senators on the spot on this issue, pushing them to agree or disagree with Sotomayor. "These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court," writes Ken Blackwell, warning that "you should never underestimate the political power of American gun owners."

Continue reading at Political Browser »

[motleyhoo]

And that's precisely why your society is in such a mess.

Not at all. The gun violence that occurs in this country is primarily in inner city urban areas among the lower economic demographics. That is a social problem that has nothing to do with guns, and I can assure you that the vast majority of guns are owned by people outside of the cities where gun violence is minimal.

The reason our country is in a mess is because we have a corporately controlled government that is corrupt beyond the belief of most people. I am atually in favor of some gun controls. People shouldn't be able to walk into a store and buy an Uzi with their bag of chips and Red Bull, but the whole point of the 2nd amendment was that the creators of the Constitution understood that an armless society is defenseless at the mercy of the govt.

.

[jesuitsdidit]

the reason i've posted the article
is bcoz there is a habit here
of starting a thread with a link

it really is not a very good idea
bcoz evry1 who wants to access
the thread has to use roughly
100kb of net allowance each time
that is incredibly wasteful
for the individual and the net generally

did you know the average google search
uses the equivalent electricity
to boiling 2 kettles of water
we r supposed to be setting an example
for responsible living

as ive said b4 if u r cluttering up the forum
with unnecessary postings sum1 will prob
say sth
not in an unpleasant way
but hopefully in a helpful way

there was a time when there was a lot of unnecessary posting
the worst of which is quoting a long post
to make (often) a short reply

some may not know how to delete
a quote down to a few lines
others do and i wd suggest they shd inform
newcomers that u can delete the text in the quote
box in the normal way
as long as u leave the [QUOTE...] boxes intact
at the beginning and end
u can remove as much of the text as u want

as a rough guide i wd say if the post u r quoting
is longer than a screen's width
then its probably too long

it works both ways
make it too short ppl hav 2 use allowance
make it too long - same

but certainly i think STARTING a thread
with a link is pointless
u must post the article in full
and with date, headline and source/link

i hope this makes sense
if not, let me know why
over the last few months ive had
to post on this several times

general rule
1 dont start a thread with a link
2 try to keep your replies to 10 lines or less in the quote section

i think evry1 will find this useful
j.