Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
harvey lee

Gun Control

79 posts in this topic

Well, it sure looks like Sotomoyar will not be in favor of citizens keeping their guns. She feels the 2nd Amd. was not to cover any state law so they could do as they feel.

Boy, I really don't want to see her in the SC.

The NRA sent a letter today stating she would be a poor advocate for guns for citizens.

Buyer beware on this pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like her on so many levels. This is a big one however. They all keep tossing out that the Constitution is a "living document". Scary times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood what was so hard to understand about this being a right just like every other one of the RIGHTS.

There is really nothing to inturpit here.

Why do we even give merit to the discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But,barring something major she is on the court.

It's his right to appoint her if she is qualified

Put that into the "elections have consequences" file

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could anyone post a factual source in which she clearly states she is in favor of taking guns away? I haven't heard about it. Gun control is much different than taking guns away.

The constitution IS a living document. Its a brilliant piece of paper. That is the beauty of it, and a cornerstone of our great nation.

Personally, I'm not worried at all about the "they're comin to take our guns!" mindset. It is our right to keep and bear arms, but it also says in the amendment that "well regulated militia". This is what is open to interpretation. Everybody will have a different opinion as to what that phrase means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go.

It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.

Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.

In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.

This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms - it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The constitution IS a living document. Its a brilliant piece of paper. That is the beauty of it, and a cornerstone of our great nation . . . It is our right to keep and bear arms, but it also says in the amendment that "well regulated militia". This is what is open to interpretation. Everybody will have a different opinion as to what that phrase means.

Yes, agreed. The Founding Fathers knew the Constitution would be continually interpreted by generation after generation.

One can argue the meaning of "militia," but even if we all agree that "militia" extends to every Tom, Richard and Harriet in America, it still specifies that such a militia will be "well regulated."

Who regulates? Congress does. Who interprets the regulation based on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution? The Supreme Court does. Who appoints Supreme Court Justices? The President does, with the approval of the Senate.

All these checks and balances guarantee the ability of the citizenry to debate ad nauseum the relative value of this piece of legislation or that particular court ruling or this specific Supreme Court judicial appointment. And so that's what goes on. And on. And on.

But the 2nd Amendment itself speaks of regulating the citizens' rights to bear arms, so it's silly to say that such a right exists free from alteration.

These are just my opinions, of course. I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. gringrin

I'm not going to argue whether the most current appointee will be "good" or "bad" for America. You all will do that until the cows come home. I AM against too much regulation, and of course the definition of "too much" will vary from person to person, forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you on all accounts Steve. The problem in this case is on party has all the control right now. That's never good I don't care what side of the fence those the party is. Same happened when the Reps had control of both. I would argue not to this extent though. There are no checks and balances for this apointie as congress is in the Presidents pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that worrys me is the way Sotomayor danced around almost every question she was asked about gun control and Americans rights to defend themselves. I think it was the Oklahoma senator that went as far as aking a yes/no question and she NEVER anwered it. That and when asked if she thaught Americans had a right to defend them selves she said under certin conditions. WHAT???? How in the heck has this country been lulled so long to the point that its no longer the right thing to do to defend yourself. I don't like her and I'm sure Obama appointed her because he knows where she stands on these issues and he doesn't have to get his hands dirty... NRA will have a very tuff time dealing with Sotomayor.

I know dancing around topics is the political way nowa days but the fact that this way of doing things is excepted by us the American public is a very slippery slope. I would even go so far on the gun control topic to say gun owners are at a point of taxation without representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I will acknowledge that it sucks to be anybody but a Democrat right now if one is bound up in government policy.

But I will raise a point I've brought up before. I'd like to see one party in total power for 30 years, followed by the other party in total power for the following 32-34 years (the extra years because that's how long it would take for them to reverse 30 years of polar opposite policy.)

Sixty-five years on, we'd have some really valuable insight into which party does what with/to America. There'd be a lot less uninformed sniveling and sniping at each party and a lot more data upon which to base an evaluation.

Yeah, I know, never happen. Maybe even never SHOULD happen, but when each major party holds some of the checks and balances, we so often get stalemate, and even the stuff that started out as worthwhile legislation gets watered down to the point where it's worthless. We call that "compromise," but more often it's really "failure."

Anyway, sorry for the brief digression. Onward! smilesmile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: goblueM
The constitution IS a living document. Its a brilliant piece of paper. That is the beauty of it, and a cornerstone of our great nation . . . It is our right to keep and bear arms, but it also says in the amendment that "well regulated militia". This is what is open to interpretation. Everybody will have a different opinion as to what that phrase means.

Yes, agreed. The Founding Fathers knew the Constitution would be continually interpreted by generation after generation.

One can argue the meaning of "militia," but even if we all agree that "militia" extends to every Tom, Richard and Harriet in America, it still specifies that such a militia will be "well regulated."

Who regulates? Congress does. Who interprets the regulation based on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution? The Supreme Court does. Who appoints Supreme Court Justices? The President does, with the approval of the Senate.

All these checks and balances guarantee the ability of the citizenry to debate ad nauseum the relative value of this piece of legislation or that particular court ruling or this specific Supreme Court judicial appointment. And so that's what goes on. And on. And on.

But the 2nd Amendment itself speaks of regulating the citizens' rights to bear arms, so it's silly to say that such a right exists free from alteration.

These are just my opinions, of course. I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. gringrin

I'm not going to argue whether the most current appointee will be "good" or "bad" for America. You all will do that until the cows come home. I AM against too much regulation, and of course the definition of "too much" will vary from person to person, forever.

I don't agree with you on one point, Steve.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

The issue of a "well regulated militia" is a state regulated militia and not a federally regulated one. Hence the reason that the national guard is technically not a state regulated militia as they are still federally funded and supplied. A state regulated militia would be a militia made up of state citizens governed by the same.

Our country is not a single country but rather a group of individual sovereign states that have united together under one common constitution, hence the name United States. Contrary to popular belief, our civil war was NOT about slavery but states rights. The belief is that each individual state has the right to protect itself from an over-zealous federal government and our 2nd amendment guarantees the states that right by allowing their citizens to be armed and to form regulated militias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,(Notice the comma) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't believe that the "shall not be infringed" is really up for interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the shall not be infringed is pretty clear. However, I think its the definition of "well regulated miliita" that is the most widely interpreted.

I mean, we can all agree that we don't want Joe Sixpack running around with a bazooka, right? But we also want the right to own firearms. Its just a matter of where we draw the line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She will be confirmed. The good thing is that there is more than one vote on the SC.

This will be debated soon and if the SC decided that the guns could be totally controlled, it could get messy.

No politician would vote this way as it would be political suicide. The SC judges have no worries about their job, thats the bad part.

Yes, bobbymalone, you may believe its beating a dead horse but one needs to be concerned about their const. rights, thats if one cares.

The horse has not died yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off I'm gonna say that it is my belief this woman will be a VERY bad addition to the Supreme court, and she WILL get added.

Secondly, I will add simply this about my 2nd amendment rights. "You will get my guns when you pry my cold dead fingers.....

Harvey Lee....You are the most guilty of the "Pro-Obama, give him a chance" replies...yet here is ANOTHER Gaffe of his. Appointing this woman. Yet you so blindly choose to support him.

Maybe I should play devils advocate and say..."Why don't we just give her a chance...So what if she changes the second amendment...at least its a start".

You see my friend, this is one of many reasons I was SO against our wonderful new President. I strongly suspected he would put people in positions of power who were gonna make decisions that we would ALL dislike. The question is, how are we going to come together and STOP it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
The question is, how are we going to come together and STOP it?

I would say voting is about your only option-that,and joining the NRA-which I'm a life member.

"coming together to stop it" sounds eerily like what Rush Limbaugh advocated the other day,which was that he wants a foreign country to invade the US and remove the freely elected administration we have now-which is advocating treason-plain and simple.

This guy should have no followers who really love America. How much can you love America if you want a foreign military to oust our administration just because you don't like their policies?

Sour Grapes to the extreme!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We slow it down by becoming a royal pain to our senators and reps by constantly badgering them, then we stop it at the next election.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I prolly am, but the judge being replaced leaned fairly heavily to the left also. So, isn't it really a one for one swap? I'm not a fan of this lady, just askin the question.

Concerning more gun control stuff, the Supreme Court ruled on this one not too long ago. I'm sure they will hear more arguments in the future, but not in the very near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BobT is correct that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the right of each sovereign state to maintain their own "citizen's army"...

It's my understanding that that is where the National Guard has it's origins. However, it seems to me the National Guard has been pretty much commandeered by the federal government in recent years. Military guys, correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wade

If I'm guilty of supporting my President, then so be it. I can live with being supportive to my President.

I just don't care for his pick for the next SC Justice.

I don't believe I have ever supported everything any President has chosen to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we need to "overthrow" the gov't with force, but we do need to put bugs in our reps ears. Sad thing is Frankin couldn't wait to get in to abrove this judge. I have heard things she says that are very racist towards white folks. Just another thing I don't like. Many said BHO would go after guns. A lot said he wasn't, well this is an indirect way of doing it. With his apointies it could even happen after he is out of office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree people should be making some noise about some of these things - probably too late on this one, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with talking to ones reps to see if this can be changed. Thats ones right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guy’s confuse me; On one active thread you’re complaining that the Federal government would screw up a two car funeral and on this thread you’re complaining about a Supreme Court nominee that wants to take decision making away from the Feds and give it to the States.

I don’t get it? Do you want the feds, where you have minimal influence, making decisions, or do you want your State, where you have strong influence, making your decisions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
You guy’s confuse me; On one active thread you’re complaining that the Federal government would screw up a two car funeral and on this thread you’re complaining about a Supreme Court nominee that wants to take decision making away from the Feds and give it to the States.

It was my impression she wants to do just the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Hey you guys-you forget I'm an old Alaskan.  I know all I need to know about the dingbat and her famous family. If you are actually accepting her blather as useful intelligence and knowledge than you are as squirrely as she is. Let her just fade away for Pete's sake.
    • Hi Dave.  We have talked about this briefly a year or two ago.  Due to the paranoia factor on this site I and most others aren't here as much.  I do miss guys like you Dave.  I remember the pic of your camper at Itasca so we took a drive through this summer.   I wondered where your spot was.  Man I hope you come out of this alright Dave.  My Uncle had diabetes bad and finally lost the battle.  The docs said change your diet or take the shot.  He said give me the shots.  Well that lasted for many years and his body finally gave in..  He should have changed his diet too.  I took him to a couple of bear baits he wanted to see and he told me his feet were finally giving in.  AND he was a tough guy.   Anyway Dave we all love you and I hope you can persevere....   I am thinking good things for you so you think positive too.....    Barry.    Hope this isn't deleted for one of their paranoid reasons...  If it is deleted I will never be back as many others.   So sad.....
    • It is interesting how people got out so early.  I have done it too.  3 or 4 hits with the spud and it is alright.......  NO it isn't ....  It is manly to talk about getting on the ice first.  Well now that I am older I realize it is stupid talk not manly.  The fishing sales world is just as guilty.  They talk about the first ice fishing being so good.  They actually are hugely responsible for getting stupid people out on thin ice.  The lets make a buck is more important than anything.  ANYTHING!!! 
    • Great pictures.   I'm used to seeing eagles, but those pictures are outstanding. 
    • Didn't I just do that?   Can't you read? 
    • Only if they have a drinking problem and maybe me implants.  That's all the Canadian folks care about....
    • That sounds like a great idea. 
    • I know perfectly well how phishing works.   Typical Liberal thinks anyone who is not toeing the party line is ignorant.    It isn't that hard to phish a fool like podesta.
    • I feel like we were just water skiing not to long ago!  Definitely caught a sun burn for deer season ha.  I'll be doing my fishing at the grocery store for a bit yet.
    • Remember, your fishing for pickerel!!  No such thing as walleye where your fishing
  • Our Sponsors