Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sotomayor reasserts 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states
Fox News Channel | 7/14/09

Posted on 07/14/2009 7:06:47 AM PDT by pabianice

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-323 next last
To: pabianice
It's about defense against government and none of the government shills and hacks (be they leftists, libs, dems, or RINOs) want to admit that or acknolwedge it.

They fear the second amendment...as any tyrant wann-be well should.

When government fears the people you have liberty, when people fear the government you have tyranny.

The 2nd amendment keeps the government in check.

Molon Labe!

People like Obama and his ilk understand this and they want to ultimately find a way to neuter and defang the 2nd amendment precisely because they want total control.

THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

NOW WE KNOW WHAT A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER DOES

OBAMA, THE STOCK MARKET, AND ENERGY

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IN HIS OWN WORDS

THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S UPBRINGING

AN AMERICAN TEA PARTY SPEECH FOR JULY 4TH

41 posted on 07/14/2009 7:29:49 AM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

The one thing Libtards have right is you have to work from inside the system to change it. Problem is there are too many slimey liberal lawyers looking to make a buck off of “victimized” minorities and not enough conservative ones that believe in equal protection under the law. The former looks at the profession purely from a self enriching viewpoint and the latter as a civic duty with opportunity to serve the people (not to say they can’t make money the honest way).


42 posted on 07/14/2009 7:30:15 AM PDT by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TomOnTheRun
Question from Sessions. Do you believe Heller and cases from several courts of appeal reaffirm the right of a person to have a firearm for self-defense?

From Sotomayor. I agree with Heller in that the 2nd Amendment applies to the federal government, not the states. Guns are ok for hunting and target shooting as long as the states allow it. Blah, Blah, Blah.

43 posted on 07/14/2009 7:30:51 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mrmeyer

roger that...


44 posted on 07/14/2009 7:31:05 AM PDT by JrsyJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What part of that don’t you understand, oh wise Latina?

}:-)4


45 posted on 07/14/2009 7:31:16 AM PDT by Moose4 (I took my car in for an alignment. Now my front end is chaotic evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat
California...heh....when the welfare gets cut off, there will be a WHOLE LOT of converts to RKBA....if its not to late of course.

Good job for harrassing your Congress critters....soap box, ballot box, and cartridge box.

Let's hope we don't have to use the third.

46 posted on 07/14/2009 7:31:46 AM PDT by DCBryan1 ( Arm Pilots&Teachers. Build the Wall. Export Illegals. Profile Muslims. Execute child molesters RFN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 4Speed
Woe to the Repub member that votes OK.

My money's on king of spinelessness, Lindsey Graham
47 posted on 07/14/2009 7:32:18 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TheDailyChange

“wise Latina woman”


Not only was the “wise latina woman” statement racist, it was also egotistical. Anyone who dares to call themselves wise is a fool.


48 posted on 07/14/2009 7:32:59 AM PDT by Sailor Moon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I bet she has an armed security detail.


49 posted on 07/14/2009 7:33:14 AM PDT by BJClinton (One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
But she said she had an open mind. Bah!

Bumper sticker from Newt's site:

image

50 posted on 07/14/2009 7:33:30 AM PDT by Salvation (With God all things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allerious; ...



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
51 posted on 07/14/2009 7:33:41 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad; All

Maybe the 1st ammendment???


52 posted on 07/14/2009 7:34:08 AM PDT by KevinDavis (Can't Stop the Signal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
More... on Ricci... "I never said a judge's personal background and prejudices should influence the outcome of a case. I really said that, despite a judge's background and prejudices, she should rule only on the law."

She is a bald-faced liar and is starting to trip over her pile of lies. Good TV. Too bad the Dems are all voting for her.

53 posted on 07/14/2009 7:34:25 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
I wonder if our "wise Latina woman" (a redundancy) realizes that she would still be a Spanish citizen had the Mexican people not had access to firearms?
54 posted on 07/14/2009 7:35:11 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Indolence is the enemy of a republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
“Wayne LaPierre was on FoxNews yesterday, and seemed to be 100% against confirmation.”

They can “seem” to be against her all day but it has no effect until they let the senators know that a vote for her IS going to be recorded as an anti-gun vote.

That is the only club they have to hold over the senators heads.

55 posted on 07/14/2009 7:36:20 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

She’s correct.

“Had the people of the several States, or any of them, required changes in their Constitutions, had they required additional safeguards to liberty from the apprehended encroachments of their particular governments, the remedy was in their own hands, and could have been applied by themselves. A convention could have been assembled by the discontented State, and the required improvements could have been made by itself. The unwieldy and cumbrous machinery of procuring a recommendation from two-thirds of Congress and the assent of three-fourths of their sister States could never have occurred to any human being as a mode of doing that which might be effected by the State itself. Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.”

“But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government — not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.”

U.S. Supreme Court, Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 7 Pet. 243 243 (1833)


56 posted on 07/14/2009 7:36:23 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

If she is confirmed after this there is no hope for the republicans. How about a new party with Palin, JC Watts, Nugent and Huckabee leading the way?

Flame away I don’t care but enough is enough with both political parties.


57 posted on 07/14/2009 7:40:03 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud
He's no more a constitutional scholar than my cat.

He was a part time, adjunct instructor. They're a dime a dozen and consist of anybody the first-year dean can rope in to assist for free or for a very small 'honorarium'. I've done it myself, to help out a friend. It looks good on your resume if people don't understand exactly what you were doing.

58 posted on 07/14/2009 7:40:42 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Out of respect for the confirmation process:

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/nrasotomayorltr709.pdf


59 posted on 07/14/2009 7:40:48 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA /Patron - TSRA- IDPA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

She is Obama in an ugly dress.


60 posted on 07/14/2009 7:42:05 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannolis. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-323 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson