Posted on 07/14/2009 7:06:47 AM PDT by pabianice
Mentioned "hunting" and "target practice" as legitimate uses for a gun, as long as the state decides you can have one. Not one word on self-defense.
The militia is the natural defense of a free country
against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections,
and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against
sound policy for a free people to keep up large military
establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both
from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended,
and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and
unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample
upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to
keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the
palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers
a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power
of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful
in the first instance, enable the people to resist and
triumph over them.[70]
It is high time we turned up the activist heat.
Uh who did Watts support in the election. I heard him on radio prior to election and he was sounding very supportive of Obama :(
as long as the state decides you can have one.
Sounds like she is exactly what 53 million + Americans are looking for in a Marx-like judiciary.
I think I read Watts has left the GOP or is considering doing so. His father, J.C., Sr., is staunchly Democrat.
I never understood the richness of experience of a Latina female. If we’re going to be “racist” and stereotypical, the typical Latina female is a baby mama at a young age, works in a lower level job, and didn’t go to Princeton, and didn’t become a federal judge, and doesn’t get nominated to the Supreme Court. She is anything but typical of most “Latinas” with their rich experiences.
By her reasserting the position that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States, Sotomayer just made sure of another million guns sold to conservatives trapped in Blue States.
Really? No frickin' kidding. When and where did Sotomayor make the comments about her stance on the 2nd Amendment? The original poster put up a comment without any explanation as to which ruling or comment Sotomayor made about an individual's right to bear arms....
Of course, but the question is when did Sotomayor say she's against the right of an individual to bear arms? Not trying to be argumentative, here, just like a corroboration of the poster's comment....
July 14, 2009
Sotomayor says she recognizes individual right to bear arms
Posted: 11:47 AM ET
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Judge Sonia Sotomayor said Tuesday that she recognizes an individual right to bear arms as recently identified by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Almost all law schools teach the anti-second amendment crap she’s spewing.
When each State joined the Union, did they not agree to incorporate the Bill of Rights into their State Constitutions at that point in time? Even the original 13 states voted on ratifying the Bill of Rights—the Second Amendment was ratified by the States in December, 1791.
How does a State that agrees to join the Union get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution do not apply to them?
In a word, no. The Incorporation Doctrine developed out of the 14th Amendment, post Civil War.
In the very beginning the Bill of Rights was a check on federal power only. However, each state had its own version of the Bill of Rights in its constitution to safeguard the citizens from the predations of state government. Still, there was a fair amount of variation among the states regarding civil rights.
Besides, even tho I haven't read the Constitutions of all of the 50 states, I think it's safe to say they their own state constitutions make it very clear that our right to bear arms is sacrosanct -- & many of them are probably even stricter that the US Constitution when it comes to prohibiting the state governments from infringing on those rights.
I say let's take a look @ how she spins this issue.
You know the answer to that.
They cant.
But they sure as hell will if they think they can get away with it.
We must speak up.
This is why I brought up Dred Scott.
The only way to claim the state can deny it's citizens equal
protection under the 14th amendment is to claim we are not
citizens of the United States.
Thanks. Her comment today seems at odds with comments and rulings she’s made in the past. If she’d been a judge on the Supreme Court and had ruled on the constitutionality of D.C.’s gun ban I have to believe she would have sided with the minority....
Federalist, anti-Federalist
Irregardless. Ever heard of Dred Scott?
It is where the 14th amendment came from.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
Hence fourth
From the Second:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
When a State makes or enforces a law prohibiting the "Right
to Bear Arms" they are violating the 14th amendment.
Either that or it is a return of the days of Dred Scott.
(Not a good place to go Ms. Sotomayor).
And yes I do equate removing the 2nd and 14th with slavery.
From the Second:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A power delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
specifically the 2nd amendment.
From the 9th:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It does not state that the state can deny rights given them
by the constitution.
The Bill of Rights was not extended to the States by Congress. The Amenders intended it to apply just to the federal government and it was the promise the Federalists had made to the Anti-Federalists in order to secure the ratification of the Constitution.
Its principle stated intention, because of widespread fear of an armed federal government, was to protect the states’s ability to form militias. In order for them to form militias it was necessary to acknowledge the right to bear arms within the people as a whole.
Barron v. Baltimore was the Supreme Court case during the Marshall Court affirming that the intention of the BoR was control of the federal government.
No one, excepting Alexander Hamilton, understood or explained the Constitution better than Marshall.
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.