Elena Kagan opposes Americans' Second Amendment
This is a discussion on Elena Kagan opposes Americans' Second Amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by GunGeezer
The lawyers, judges, prosecutors and legislators who wrestle with the scope and meaning of 2A every day have a liberal agenda ...
May 28th, 2010 10:44 PM
I concur. The 2A is well written and clear. What we have is unscrupulous people in high places, with nefarious purposes, who wish to undermine liberty and further enslave the people.
Originally Posted by GunGeezer
Unfortunately, there are many people who buy into their lies, who are duped by their eloquent speeches, who willingly disarm themselves and expose themselves to the unholy designs of the nefarious persons.
This debate will never cease. Even here on this forum, where the discussion is pursued with civility, no one is going to change their mind. The only way minds are changed, is when they are targeted. They thought they gave up 2A for security; but then the bully comes knockin' for his pay.
Kagan is a product of these knaves who have been looking to destroy the 2A for generations. It's good, old fashioned good against evil.
The lawyers, politicians and legislators that have been wresting the 2A for decades, have been doing it for their own aggrandizement, they lie and say it's for our own protection. They lie because the 2A was drafted so we had the means to protect ourselves from them, so they must destroy it, in order to destroy us.
Trust in God and keep your powder dry
"A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source
May 28th, 2010 10:44 PM
May 30th, 2010 01:19 AM
Speak to Judge John Roberts and if the the person being nominated for a Supreme Court Justice,have her not vote because of CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO THE ADMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. richgp100z
May 30th, 2010 07:45 PM
Everyone arguing over the 2nd is afraid, in some way, of what will happen if it gets interpreted in a way contrary to their own interests. Some read it "literally" and claim to be patriots. But if there were no restrictions at all on the right to keep and bear we would have guns in all courtrooms, prisoners open carrying on prison grounds, school children packing 45s at school, the mentally insane walking the streets with machine guns and violent felons with the freedom to carry grenades, etc.
There will always be "reasonable" restrictions. Always. Regardless of how the 2nd gets interpreted. And regardless of incorporation into state law. There will always be arguments over what reasonable means or where reasonable is even mentioned in the amendment. "Reasonable" is a slippery slope but does have it's place. That place is somewhere between the common peaceful citizen being hassled for wanting to protect his family vs issuing guns to felons. In this country, sometimes unfortunately, the loudest voice carries the day or the richest voice carries the day. Not necessarily the most correct.
We've moved away from gun rights in the past, but there is a clear trend now toward more common sense gun rights and more awareness of what that means with respect to crime. Good.
I think this trend will continue. A complete ban in the US is not possible and not enforceable. We, as a nation, will not allow it. We live in a violent world, in a violent time and in violent neighborhoods. That's just the way it is and we won't be told to be victims. Guns are part of our heritage, how we gained our freedoms in the first place.
Meanwhile, the political right is taking every opportunity to personally attack anyone who is even associated with someone that might be less opposed to gun control than they are. Some label others and then hate them based on that label. There are many so called liberals who are also gun owners and could help in the gun rights battle. How many times do we hear conservatives include anyone they disagree with on any subject as a "liberal" or some other term? Terms that are designed to denigrate and separate.
We need to find common ground with those that agree on gun rights and work together to move forward.
Last edited by Raspy; May 31st, 2010 at 02:48 AM.
May 30th, 2010 09:10 PM
If you took anything I wrote as a personal affront, I apologize. I was merely exercising my right to different opinion and not trying to start an argument, just trying to advance the topic of discussion.
In the final analysis the only thing our government has to fear from the people is their ability to alter or abolish it should their goals be destructive to the welfare of its citizens. While we would prefer the democratic form of voting for change, it's not out of the realm of possibility for our system of checks and balances to run amok to the point our republic is slowly and inexorably morphed to a form of socialism and our constitution amended to mediocrity or completely abandoned. Has our English language changed so radically over the past 200 plus years that the wording of our constitution is no longer relevant? Has our knowledge of American history been lost to the ages to the extent we no longer remember what our founding fathers intended as their legacy? Have the lessons of history faded to dim obscure memories? Has the corrupting influence of power or unflagging arrogance of the powerful diminished over time? I think not! Men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Franklin and others, in their writings warned us against the possibility of letting our government get too large and too powerful. Seems like we don't remember that either.
May 30th, 2010 10:03 PM
Why do discussions as this one usually end up with the dichotomous/black-white option of either, " the government has to fear the people," or, "the people have to fear the government?"
Originally Posted by GunGeezer
There are other options when (as is the case) the people ARE the government.
When the people are the government neither side needs to fear the other because they are the same thing.
Just some personal examples: At the local level, I knew one of our judges in the sense that he was involved in my house closing a million years back; regular guy. I knew our present Mayor, regular everyday person. I knew the husband of our former Mayor. One school board member was my home builder. Nothing to fear from any of these folks.
Plenty of people where I live know or knew our representatives to the state legislature. One was a popular car dealer with a pretty good personal reputation. I never purchased from him, but I certainly knew people who made a point of doing business with him before he got out of the auto biz and into elective office.
Our DA knocks on doors and visits at election time looking for votes. There is nothing special about him beyond an apparent high level of intelligence, integrity and diligence in doing his job.
At the national level I have mostly by accident known several Agency Heads, Undersecretaries of various Cabinet Departments too, and had some social contact (brief but eye opening) with Mrs. Gates. Regular people all. Conversation was about kids, and food, and favorite eating places, nothing scary. I don't know him, but she seemed like "a regular" ordinary person. Now that they are "personalized" to me as human beings, I feel concerned for them for the burden they carry for us. And very appreciative for the personal sacrifice I believe they both make serving us all.
I'm not naive, and I know that power corrupts, and money corrupts, and corporations buy influence, but mostly our government is US. Mostly it is still good people who worked hard to advance themselves and worked harder to get others to support them in their election run.
Given that, isn't it really logically odd that we speak of "them" and "us" as if "we" are natural enemies.
"We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us"
Even that "feared" IRS Agent, or that "feared" OSHA inspector is part of our community. And certainly many of our highest leaders have come from extraordinary "regular" folks backgrounds. Truman, Ike,
Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and O, all started life in humble if not modestly deprived economic circumstances. No royalty in any of them. No one forced the people of Arkansas to elect a boy from Hope as their youngest governor. No one forced anyone to elect an Ike or Nixon to anything.
They all came from amongst us in the most fundamental way imaginable. And too many of us, instead of being grateful that there are people willing to serve us, do nothing but throw dirt and seek to cheer on their downfall.
Again, ""We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us"
June 1st, 2010 01:26 PM
I disagree, and here's why. You're forgetting that the Constitution applies to adult citizens.. Now let's break down the above list of people:
Originally Posted by Raspy
1. Prisoners don't enjoy the usual rights of the citizen because of the crime(s) they've committed. "It's a free country, right?" Not if you commit a crime and go to prison. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to them while they're in prison.
2. School children. This speaks for itself. The Bill of Rights was never intended to promote the misbehavior of children. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to them until they reach adulthood.
3. The mentally insane. See "Prisoners" in Item 1. The same principle applies here. If their behavior was to the point where they had to be removed from society, then their rights are suspended for the good of "We the People." Therefore, the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to them while they're declared mentally incompetent to make rational decisions.
4. Violent felons. See Items 1 and 3 above.
Now let's address the courtroom issue. Would you allow firearms in an extremely emotion-charged atmosphere? What if one of your loved ones was falsely accused of rape or murder, for example. Would you want the "victim's" family packing in there? That's a valid and just law as far as I'm concerned.
"I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."
June 1st, 2010 10:41 PM
Maybe you misinterpreted what I meant here.
I am all for certain restrictions, for the reasons and examples I cited. I am just making the point that if you read the 2nd and take it literally, those examples are a problem. Some folks don't want any restrictions. I realize that there will be and must be some restrictions. Therefore, some interpratation is necessary.
Yes, the constitution applies to adult citizens. Many of which can be crazy, or felons. Or they can be in a courtroom filled with emotion.
See what I mean? Where do we draw that line, and how does that line square with the actual writing of the 2nd? Some interpretation is necessary in spite of all the argument about how clear it is written.
June 3rd, 2010 11:50 PM
Yeah. I can see that, so I apologize if I came across as abrasive. I guess that's just from years of the anti's taking the interpretations too far in the wrong direction.
Originally Posted by Raspy
"I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."
June 4th, 2010 12:13 PM
I am a great fan of Japanese Movies and one of my favorite series is the Lone Wolf and Cub series. The hero, Ogami Itto makes the statement to his son " We are demons and doomed to live in Hell."
If you get too deep into the arguments about the Constitution and the 2dA in particular you will find some of the loudest critics fit the description of the quote.
First: the U.S. Constitution (before the later Amendments), was not written for adults. It was written for adult, white, property owning gentlemen of British Ancestory. It later went through many agonizing interpretations to try to become a document for all of us.
Second; If you read the 2d Amendment directly it can be read to mean that all citizens , regardless of mental state or criminal record have the right to carry guns anytime and anywhere that they feel like.
Third: I do not like to be judgemental, therefore I will accept all of the arguments of my fellow citizens. Based on this unbiased acceptance of all arguments I have reached the following conclusions:
a. All Democrats are Communist liberals who yearn to return to the days of the Bolshevik Revolution.
b. All Republicans are Nazis who desire to return to the Third Reich of 1934.
c. All Libertarians are Dope Ridden Hippies who desire to return to the days of Haight-Ashbury iof 1967.
d. All black people should either pick cotton or go back to Africa.
e. Anybody with a Hispanic name should go back to Mexico.
f. All people with slanted eyes should go back to Asia.
g. Any citizen should be able to carry a gun, regardless of personal history, anywhere and anytime they want and be able to shoot anybody that they feel threatens them, in any way, to include their feelings
Having decided to be accepting of all of arguments set forth, I have come to the final conclusion:
Ogami Itto had it right!
Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.
June 4th, 2010 07:30 PM
This was Obama's intent all along. Back door Chicago style politics. This is no surprise to me. With all thats going on I'm sure he's P.O'd that it came out before he could get her confirmed. Just another Obama dog and pony show. I hope the Conservatives go for the juggler.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
June 4th, 2010 09:31 PM
No controversy here, it IS crystal clear if one just reads the printed words and quit trying to interperet them. Remember, better men than us and the bench already argued about this BEFORE they put it in the Constitution in the first place.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Light travels faster than sound...thats why some people appear bright before they speak
June 4th, 2010 09:52 PM
Originally Posted by wjh2657
What about those of us with Hispanic names, but no ties to Mexico...
Can we go someplace else???
"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."
June 6th, 2010 07:49 PM
Sara Palin ought to take her hunting...and not just for beavers.
June 7th, 2010 06:05 PM
Originally Posted by Bark'n
Could not have stated it better. She is no surprise under this administration. Let's hope the rest can hang in..
Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. PSALM 144:1
I CLING to my guns and my Bible.
June 12th, 2010 10:38 PM
This has been a most interesting, civil, and educational thread. Thanks to all who participated.
By DaveH in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: October 25th, 2010, 08:34 PM
By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: September 26th, 2010, 02:59 PM
By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: July 1st, 2010, 10:38 PM
By Sgt Z Squad in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: June 30th, 2010, 08:53 PM
By JonInNY in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: November 18th, 2009, 10:01 AM
Search tags for this page
elena kagan opposing american second amendment
Click on a term to search for related topics.