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; what part of "shall not be infringed" do people not understand? did the felony thing not start in 1968? if a person has done their ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 74

Thread: Elena Kagan opposes Americans' Second Amendment

  1. #31
    Member Array jughead2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    tenn.
    Posts
    79

    2A

    what part of "shall not be infringed" do people not understand? did the felony thing not start in 1968? if a person has done their time and back one the street get over it. if one cant be trusted out on the street one should still be incarcerated. only reasonable restriction this old man can see is one of violent felonies and aint sure any of those should be on the street any way.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member Array Rollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    3,007
    I find it funny that the article says Obama is the most anti gun president in history however he as attempted to pass absolutely NOTHING to do with guns. Wasn't it the Brady campaign that gave him a "F" in gun control?
    -It is a seriously scary thought that there are subsets of American society that think being intellectual is a BAD thing...

  4. #33
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,659

    re: boattail

    Quote Originally Posted by boatail View Post
    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.
    Maybe you are right in a sense, but not the way you think you are right.

    See, Federal courts have routinely upheld all manner of restrictions on gun ownership and possession throughout almost all of our history.

    What this means is that the word "infringed" isn't quite as blanket and clear cut as you (and many others here, perhaps myself included) would think it is.

    You only need to watch some old western movies to know that Marshals in the territories were enforcing (and sometimes making up)
    gun laws; and of course they were 150 years closer in time to the founders.

    Perhaps the problem isn't even the word "infringed" and its meaning, but what was meant and understood to be encompassed by "the right to keep and bear."

    It is easy to say there is no controversy, as you did, but clearly there wouldn't be either a Brady Bunch or NRA, or a JFPO, or GOA, if NOT for the fact that there is actually controversy.

  5. #34
    Member Array Raspy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Wellington, NV
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by jughead2 View Post
    what part of "shall not be infringed" do people not understand? did the felony thing not start in 1968? if a person has done their time and back one the street get over it. if one cant be trusted out on the street one should still be incarcerated. only reasonable restriction this old man can see is one of violent felonies and aint sure any of those should be on the street any way.
    On the one hand you say "what part of shall not be infringed do people not understand" and on the other you list a reasonable restriction you can see.

    See what I mean about reasonable restrictions?

    And you failed to comment on the mentally ill or children packing at school. Or courtrooms with armed audiences and folks on trial.

    There will always be, and must be, reasonable restrictions. There will always be discussion on what the consequences would be of no restrictions of any kind.

    Not saying I'm anti-gun. Not at all. Far from it. But I'm saying that yelling about how clear it is written doesn't end the discussion. And yet, we must find a way to get back to more sensible laws that "allow", if that's the right word, law abibing and peace loving citizens to have the means to protect themselves and their families against the criminal element that is well armed. The message must go out that we won't be hapless victims.

    Also, on a National scale, banning guns would be un-enforceable and would cause and uprising. It's the local governments and regulations that can eat away at gun rights like a cancer. Local sherrifs, counties and even States that can do the most damage, I think.

    Now, people are really starting to get mad and say NO to unreasonable gun control. Good.

  6. #35
    Member Array Raspy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Wellington, NV
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
    I find it funny that the article says Obama is the most anti gun president in history however he as attempted to pass absolutely NOTHING to do with guns. Wasn't it the Brady campaign that gave him a "F" in gun control?

    This president will be hated by some, no matter what he does, for the rest of his term. So many seem to know his real hidden agenda and are not about to let the facts get in the way.

  7. #36
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,659

    Found on the Net, worth reading

    Quote Originally Posted by Raspy View Post
    This president will be hated by some, no matter what he does, for the rest of his term. So many seem to know his real hidden agenda and are not about to let the facts get in the way.
    FWIW

    Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control


    "Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control

    by Richard Poe

    NEWSMAX.COM - Anti-gun crusaders seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.

    In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

    It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

    It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

    Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

    One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections."

  8. #37
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    FWIW

    Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control


    "Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control

    by Richard Poe

    NEWSMAX.COM - Anti-gun crusaders seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.

    In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

    It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

    It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

    Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

    One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections."
    It isnt about republican or liberal or anyone else. Both those parties shovel exactly the same dirt.

    It is about you are either a constitutional American or you are a citizen of the world.

    BHO is a world citizen, tangoseal is not. I am a citizen of the United States and believe in the constitution.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  9. #38
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,659

    re: Tangoseal

    Quote Originally Posted by tangoseal View Post
    It isnt about republican or liberal or anyone else. Both those parties shovel exactly the same dirt.

    It is about you are either a constitutional American or you are a citizen of the world.

    BHO is a world citizen, tangoseal is not. I am a citizen of the United States and believe in the constitution.
    Good. I'm glad you believe in our constitution. Do you genuinely think that all of the hundreds if not thousands of trial judges who have presided over gun cases throughout our history DID NOT believe in our constitution?

    I don't understand why you would think that all the very many judges, appointed in some instances, elected in other instances, would uphold all manner of gun restrictions if they felt these were unconstitutional?

    You are right, though, the issue has nothing at all to do with Republican, Democrat, Liberal or Conservative.

    That was the point of my post.

  10. #39
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,895
    Our form of government,by far the best that the world has ever seen, works only if it is administrated by moral men.

    If it is administrated by immoral men, then it will cease to work as it was intended.

    Whether you are moral or immoral, your party affiliation will not matter. Your personal views will be reflected in what you say, what you do, how you think and how you interpret things.

    A moral man will interpret things differently than an immoral man.

    The real issue here is morality.

    Ask yourself this...are those running our country, from the President on down to the lowliest mayor in the smallest town in America, moral or immoral?

    When those that are immoral become greater than those that are moral, the system will cease to work for the benefit of the common citizen.

    Are we there yet?

    If not, I'd say we are pretty danged close.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Our form of government,by far the best that the world has ever seen, works only if it is administrated by moral men.

    If it is administrated by immoral men, then it will cease to work as it was intended.

    Whether you are moral or immoral, your party affiliation will not matter. Your personal views will be reflected in what you say, what you do, how you think and how you interpret things.

    A moral man will interpret things differently than an immoral man.

    The real issue here is morality.

    Ask yourself this...are those running our country, from the President on down to the lowliest mayor in the smallest town in America, moral or immoral?

    When those that are immoral become greater than those that are moral, the system will cease to work for the benefit of the common citizen.

    Are we there yet?

    If not, I'd say we are pretty danged close.
    Excellent post.

    Yes we're here. The crisis is at hand.
    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

  12. #41
    Member Array Raspy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Wellington, NV
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Our form of government,by far the best that the world has ever seen, works only if it is administrated by moral men.

    If it is administrated by immoral men, then it will cease to work as it was intended.

    Whether you are moral or immoral, your party affiliation will not matter. Your personal views will be reflected in what you say, what you do, how you think and how you interpret things.

    A moral man will interpret things differently than an immoral man.

    The real issue here is morality.

    Ask yourself this...are those running our country, from the President on down to the lowliest mayor in the smallest town in America, moral or immoral?

    When those that are immoral become greater than those that are moral, the system will cease to work for the benefit of the common citizen.

    Are we there yet?

    If not, I'd say we are pretty danged close.


    As soon as you try to make the case that those you disagree with are immoral, you are making the same case as those that say the people they disagree with are un-American or that they are "deliberately" trying to destroy America, that they have a hidden agenda, etc.

    When the fact is you simply disagree with the policies of someone in power. That someone was duly elected by a majority that believed he or she was the most moral or the most correct or the best of the ones that were running, etc.

    Gun rights arguments are very good at displaying these so called moral issues. Some, on one side, see guns simply as dangerous and often in the wrong hands. Others recognize they will always be in the wrong hands and want to have the right to defend themselves and their families. Each can claim a moral high ground. One says fewer guns in the wrong hands are better others say it's a right and it's constitutionaly guaranteed and that they are patriots because they want to uphold the constitution. Both claim the "moral" high ground. One claims he's a patriot and the other wants peace. Both are moral stances.

    Morality is not so simple, and in your example, that word can be substituted for patriot or immoral or damaging or visionary or peace loving or, bla, bla, bla. It boils down to whether you agree or not that makes the example moral or not. Sadly, that's not a true definition.

    In our democracy you must gain the support of the majority to win on an issue. You must stand up and argue your case in front of your fellow citizens that vote. You must use examples that ring with the listener. It's hard. Simply denigrating all in power is not a real strategy. Saying all those in power are wrong means all those that elected them made a mistake or are deliberately trying to ruin the country or ar stupid or easily duped, or are immoral.

    It's a desparate "throw the bums out" strategy that offers nothing but other candidates that will take advantage of anger. I could name some I consider very immoral who are making a handsome profit from stirring the pot of anger simply for their own personal gain. Now that is immoral in my book.

    So the first thing I suggest is to come out from hiding behind the word "moral" or "patriot". Simply stand up and say you personally disagree and state why. In other words take responsibility for your position instead of seeking moral cover for it. Cite issues and examples instead of trying to make the case that someone you don't agree with is immoral. Just make the case that they are incorrect on an issue and why. If you can't find the facts, you may have an agenda of your own and that agenda may seem immoral.

  13. #42
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,895
    Disagreeing with someone and not liking the way that they are operating does not in any way imply that they are immoral.

    You obviously missed the whole point.You are implying things that are not there. You are reading into this and twisting the whole meaning.

    You may be right however. Morality is not easily understood by those that have none.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  14. #43
    Member Array Raspy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Wellington, NV
    Posts
    19
    Hot,

    I may have missed your point.

    You broke down the entire group of representatives to those that are moral and those that are immoral. Just two groups. Then you asked the question if more of them were immoral than moral. And stated that if we were not there yet we were "pretty danged close"

    I simply responded to your premise or question by pointing out that your interpretation of what's moral might not be the same as others. That the word immoral is often code for something else and the number is not really measureable in a way that can be agreed on.

    We may agree that there is a lot of immorality in government, but we may completely disagree on who is immoral. See what I mean?

    Better to stick to specific issues and deal with actions and facts. Opposite points of view can both be morally justified.

  15. #44
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,895
    I simply responded to your premise or question by pointing out that your interpretation of what's moral might not be the same as others. That the word immoral is often code for something else and the number is not really measureable in a way that can be agreed on.
    I agree and understand.

    Thats part of the problem. What used to be easily measurable is now not and at this stage of history it is more muddled up than it used to be.

    What passes for "moral" today would not have made muster when this country was founded.

    As an example, at one time if a man was divorced for any reason, they could not hold public office, be a deacon or elder in a church,they had to be "above reproach".

    Now, fast forward to the year 2010. How many know divorcée's,those of party affiliation known to be hostile to the ways of the American people, radical activists of known subversive groups, and even deviants are now members of Congress or Senators?

    The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves. Much of what they have written has been perverted or ignored outright. What used to be right is now wrong and what used to be wrong is now right.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  16. #45
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,659

    re: Hot Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    What passes for "moral" today would not have made muster when this country was founded.
    As an example, at one time if a man was divorced for any reason, they could not hold public office, be a deacon or elder in a church,they had to be "above reproach".
    HG,
    Not to derail the thread, morality is a fairly fluid thing. What one man holds as moral, another might hold as extremely immoral. No better example than the one you gave here, divorce. There are many who equally believe that to deliberately remain in a bad marriage is an act of immorality.*

    Our problems in this country don't stem from loss of morals. They stem from the fact that we have 300 million people, each with their own very different ideas about almost everything--including what is and isn't moral, what is and isn't constitutional, what is and isn't acceptable.
    __________________________________________________ _____
    *Once upon a time I read somewhere that we have between 3000 and 5000 different definable faiths practiced in the US. Each has their own version of morality. Even among very similar faiths there are differences of opinion on the morality of various matters.

    We make our national problems more difficult to solve when we label those we don't agree with as immoral, and thus demonize them.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Elena Kagan at gun range???
    By DaveH in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 25th, 2010, 08:34 PM
  2. Halloran Opposes Proposed Rule Amendment Regarding Gun Licenses
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 26th, 2010, 02:59 PM
  3. Fight Elena Kagan nomination at SCOTUS
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: July 1st, 2010, 10:38 PM
  4. NRA Issues Gag Order to Its Board Members on Anti-Gun Elena Kagan Hearings
    By Sgt Z Squad in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: June 30th, 2010, 08:53 PM
  5. Second Amendment Protects All Americans, Supreme Court Told
    By JonInNY in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    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.