Gmofftarki Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I got this on an email forward from a crazy super-rightwing email forward list that I somehow got signed up for: Fwee: I trust you on stuff like this. What's the full story? 8) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-GUN, ANTI-WEAPON, ANTI-2nd AMENDMENT In herruling to allow government to ban privately owned weapons belonging to NewYork citizens, Sonia Sotomayor wrote in Maloney v. Cuomo: "The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks toimpose on this right . . . not upon that of thestate." Since her crazy reading of the 2nd Amendment only forbidsCongress from seizing your guns, the New York State Assembly was fullyauthorized to ban nunchuks, or seize ANY AND ALL of your weapons, according toSotomayor's anti-liberty reasoning. But as a former militarydistinguished marksman and former captain of my rifle team at a New YorkState high school, I care about protecting our right to bear arms. Also, quoted from the NPR website with full context, the original Sotomayor statement: Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.The lack of any sort of conditional on the controversial statement at hand is what worries me more than anything. Quote:Originally Posted by Mark LevinLiberals tell you the government sucks, and they want more of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achez Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 with statements like that she wouldn't even be able to get on a jurors panel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basenjib123 Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 with statements like that she wouldn't even be able to get on a jurors panel. Sure she could.....its not like she is a WHITE MALE. * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishweewee Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 she's hiding behind the "settled opinion" thing. it's possible we might have to wait a generation or two before incorporation of 2A is done. for the time being, if she's confirmed, she's a wash, since she's replacing justice souter, who cares not one wit for the 2A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishnmagician Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 2a is passe, now that we have a standing army, and weapons that would make our founding father's heads spin, we need to change the ammendment, and bring it up to date. Since there are no well regulated ammendments anymore, we lack any protections under the Constitution for private gun ownership. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would make all guns illegal. Eggy 10-13 LAA 7-14 50-50 2-15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishinambition Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 2a is passe, now that we have a standing army, and weapons that would make our founding father's heads spin, we need to change the ammendment, and bring it up to date. Since there are no well regulated ammendments anymore, we lack any protections under the Constitution for private gun ownership. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would make all guns illegal. 7/10 decent troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waist Deep Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 2a is passe, now that we have a standing army, and weapons that would make our founding father's heads spin, we need to change the ammendment, and bring it up to date. Since there are no well regulated ammendments anymore, we lack any protections under the Constitution for private gun ownership. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would make all guns illegal. Always brilliant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishweewee Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishweewee Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 gX59_9npUrc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishnmagician Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 7/10 decent troll Always brilliant... trust me guys, unless we get the law spelled out MUCH clearer, they can take all our guns away, and the Constitution won't protect us.... unless well regulated militias form up, even then how many would be able to join up? 2a is a qualified statement. Eggy 10-13 LAA 7-14 50-50 2-15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to register here in order to participate.
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now