Kagan: On Second Amendment: Like Freedom of Speech Enjoys “Strong But Not Unlimited Protection”

http://annem040359.wordpress.com/ ^ | May 13, 2010 | annem040359

[Biggirl]

During the time that Elena Kagan was working for the President Bill Clinton White House, she had worked to take on both the on gun and tobacco industries.

While during the time she was awaiting confirmation on becoming solicitor general, Ms. Kagan said: “the Second Amendment, like freedom of speech, enjoys.”

[Biggirl]

More "pearls of wisdom" from USSC Justice nominee, Elena Kagan. Sarc.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

We no longer aspire to be a nation of laws.

We are now a nation of street thugs.

[Loud Mime]

Her nomination is the ULTIMATE SLIPPERY SLOPE.

If she makes exceptions to rights, as she has with the First Amendment, there is no telling where the exceptions will end; but the rights WILL end.

[oldenuff2no]

She needs to be stopped now. Can she even read the second amendment?????
I used to think the obamass was taking us into socialism but I was wrong. Communism is his goal.

[Pollster1]

She knows the Second Amendment verbatim: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall only be infringed occasionally. Do we now have a doctrine of "Redistribution of Self-defense" to go with the "Redistribution of Speech"?

[OneWingedShark]

[...] the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... unless it scares someone or makes them feel uncomfortable.

*bleh*

[IHateLeftists]

She's right that the 1st amendment doesn't create an absolute right to free speech. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater when no fire exists, for example, and not face consequences after the fact. I wouldn't disagree with that. But she wants to go much further than that. This kind of statism is what Larry Flynt opposed when he went to SCOTUS to fight for his right to publish his magazine. Sure, what he was publishing was repulsive, but it was his right to do so as American.

Now, liberals don't mind porn. We know this. The more depraved, the better. :-D. But they do have a problem with violent/profane music lyrics and violent video games. The brain-dead sociologists on their side of the political specturm would like us to believe that violent music, movies and video games turn us into killers. Look for Kagan to lend a sympathetic ear to this crap once on the Court. This alone makes her 10x more dangerous than Ginsburg, Sotomayor, or Breyer.

And regarding her view that the Second Amendment isn't absolute? B.S. Sure, the 2nd might not extend to nuclear weapons. But it CERTAINLY extends to all portable guns, from muskets to revolvers to shotguns to machine guns. Muskets were the firearms of the day when the Bill of Rights was written. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles are the firearms of today. They should not be regulated in any way. People should simply be punished for the CRIMES they commit with firearms. Carrying a gun "illegally" is a farce because the law itself is constitutional. I will respect the law even though I know it to be unconstitutional garbage because I don't want to go to jail. Criminals won't respect the law. Throw people in jail for ACTUAL crimes, like committing 2nd degree murder with a gun. Throw parents in jail for criminaly negligent homicide when their six-year old gets access to one of their guns and shoots his friend in the bedroom. But don't penalize the vast majority of law-abiding, responsible gun-owners for the actions of a few dum-dums.

She should not be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court.

[jerry557]

Im not in support of Kagan on this... But if you read the Heller ruling, Justice Scalia stated that there could be some limitations HOWEVER those limitations do not apply to handguns.

So the conservatives on the court left the door open. But what I think Scalia means is that you can own rifles and handguns and that is protected...but you dont have a right to own a tank for example.