Posted on 07/15/2009 11:04:13 AM PDT by Avoiding_Sulla
LOL! Just TRY to stop me from defending myself or my loved ones.
I triple dog dare ya!
“The laws of nature are not subject to legislation.”
apparently she HAS NOT read the Constitution nor heard of the 2ND Amendment which re-iterates the fact of private gun ownerships!!
No matter what this individual says or doesn’t say, she has the support of the American people who think she is “on their side.” Even if she isn’t, the American people are sticking with her because they cannot be disproved under our “system”.
All she has to do show up and say anything, and the American people will at least cheer her for being there.
I'm wondering how many Dems are willing to cave on this; is the entire Dem caucus a total loss?
If liberals had powers of logic, they would not be liberals.
“inalienable right to life”
Not mentioned in the inaugural speech. THe word ‘life’ was used twice, IIRC, and not as inalienable.
Sotomayor should have said the right to bear arms implies the right to use them in your own defense and therefore the right of self defense is inherent in the Constitution. As the framers believed.
No use getting into small scale criminal statutes, half of which are unconstitutional anyway, especially out of California.
Unconstitutional? I think not.
I am a conservative Rep - a reliable vote in every election. But I still have my feet on planet Earth.
Really, then how are these local gun control laws being struck down by federal courts if they are not constitutional?
So yes they are unconstitutional.
All anyone needs to know about soto babe is that she was picked by ozero. Birds of a feather. She is cut from the same cloth as a person who believes the Constitution is a “living, breathing document written by a bunch of dead WHITE guys”. This is code that the Constitution needs to be changed to reflect our changing racial nature.
You’re mixing apples and oranges. You are allowed to use force (guns, rocks, knives, fists) in self defense if you reasonably believe you are under attack or habitation is invaded. The only cases limiting this that I have seen involve spring or trap guns, that fire automatically.
Gun control laws do not speak to when one can use deadly force, as do the self defense laws, but to the type of weapon that can be used. I have upheld some such bans on fully automatic weapons. Personally I do not support such bans - but that is a political, not a legal position. Judges (should) deal only with the former - the latter is for those elected by the people.
I am not mixing apples and oranges.
The right to self defense is inherent in the 2nd amendment. The right to own a gun is a fundamental right and thus the right to use it to defend yourself is inherent.
Period full stop.
Read Debra Saunders of Townhall.com:
“
The most interesting exchange thus far occurred when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., asked Sotomayor about a 2004 opinion, which she signed, that found that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”
Coburn wondered how courts cannot see the explicitly stated Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms” as fundamental, yet can hold as fundamental the unexpressed right to privacy. Sotomayor answered: “Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.”
For eight years, Democrats attacked the Bush administration for giving short shrift to personal liberties. As Obama wrote in “Audacity,” the Bush picks “showed a pattern of hostility toward civil rights, privacy and checks on executive power.”
Now the Obama pick for the Supreme Court can’t think of a right to defend yourself. That is arguably extraordinary.”
I am not mixing apples and oranges.
The right to self defense is inherent in the 2nd amendment. The right to own a gun is a fundamental right and thus the right to use it to defend yourself is inherent.
Period full stop.
Read Debra Saunders of Townhall.com:
“
The most interesting exchange thus far occurred when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., asked Sotomayor about a 2004 opinion, which she signed, that found that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”
Coburn wondered how courts cannot see the explicitly stated Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms” as fundamental, yet can hold as fundamental the unexpressed right to privacy. Sotomayor answered: “Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.”
For eight years, Democrats attacked the Bush administration for giving short shrift to personal liberties. As Obama wrote in “Audacity,” the Bush picks “showed a pattern of hostility toward civil rights, privacy and checks on executive power.”
Now the Obama pick for the Supreme Court can’t think of a right to defend yourself. That is arguably extraordinary.”
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.