Sotomayor being grilled on 2A

This is a discussion on Sotomayor being grilled on 2A within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; First off, I am enjoying this heated debate. It sure beats debating liberals because they cannot form an argument and resort to name calling and ...

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 109

Thread: Sotomayor being grilled on 2A

  1. #91
    Member Array Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    217
    First off, I am enjoying this heated debate. It sure beats debating liberals because they cannot form an argument and resort to name calling and cursing. So thank you.

    I cannot speak for SD, but I most certainly do not in any way, shape or form "...not want everyone in this great country of ours to enjoy the full rights and freedoms given to us in the BOR." I think that all of the rights listed in the BoR are fundamental God given rights that should be afforded all people. The point I am trying to make is how the BoR should apply and moreso what powers the Constitution grants to the Federal government.

    Regarding the 2A, under MY interpretation of how things should be I have no worries b/c there will never be an anti-gun law in the Great State of Alabama. Now if you live in the NE (BTW I was born and raised in PA) or on the left coast, under my interpretation, you have a lot to worry about b/c these places have elected liberal politcians that have no qualms about stripping you of your rights.
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

    Steps in the stripping of State's Rights/Sovereignty
    1. War of Northern Agression 2. Coersion to ratify the 14th Amendment 3. Ratified 17th Amendment

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #92
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    So Hopyard, I'm intrigued by your perspective on this. But, since no one addressed by state constitution question, let me bring it back up in another way:

    If what you say is true about the BOR having been intended to bind the states all along, then why were the states required to write and adopt their own Constitutions upon being admitted into the U.S.? In most cases (my opinion), it would appear that the state constitutions mirror the U.S. Constitution and BOR. That would seem redundant if it were understood that the BOR was binding on the states - wouldn't it?
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  4. #93
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Poppycock. Utterly illogical nonsense. The claim that the BOR was utterly superfluous and a mere afterthought flies in the face of the historical fact that the various states refused to ratify the basic constitution until a deal was made to add these provisions.
    Utter nonsense. The Bill of Rights adds NOTHING to the powers of the Federal government. Moreover, your claim that the states refused to ratify the Constitution flies in the face of historical fact. The Constitution was put into effect after the ninth state, New Hampshire, ratified the original document. The Founders wanted unanimity among the states to ensure the cohesive United States. Still, New York ratified (after the Constitution was allready in effect) by a slim margin.

    I really wish you would check your facts.

    That they were added makes them no less a part of the constitution.
    And the same goes for the 14th, 17th, and many others.
    Yes, they are part of the Constitution but the Bill of Rights provides no additional powers to the Federal government. Therefore, they are superfluous. And in every event, the Founders intent was that it DOES NOT APPLY TO THE STATES. Otherwise, the states would never have ratified it. In fact, it was just the opposite. The states ratified the Bill of Rights BECAUSE it only limited the Federal government.

  5. #94
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    there are a whole lot of utters around here all of a sudden

    and, unless I missed it, I'm dissappointed SD never address his comments regarding:

    Second, the Feds can't continue to tighten gun control because THEY NEVER STARTED. The Second Amendment ensures the prohibition of legislation that infringes on our rights.
    and Randy's reply:

    Quote Originally Posted by Randy View Post
    Just to list the major ones....

    National Firearms Act - 1934, Gun Control Act - 1968, Firearms Owner's Protection Act - 1986 (Hughes Amendment), Assault Weapons Ban - 1994

    Randy
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  6. #95
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    If what you say is true about the BOR having been intended to bind the states all along, then why were the states required to write and adopt their own Constitutions upon being admitted into the U.S.? In most cases (my opinion), it would appear that the state constitutions mirror the U.S. Constitution and BOR. That would seem redundant if it were understood that the BOR was binding on the states - wouldn't it?
    This is backwards. The states had their constitutions prior to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights was drafted, sometimes word for word, from the various state constitutions.

  7. #96
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    This is backwards. The states had their constitutions prior to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights was drafted, sometimes word for word, from the various state constitutions.
    And yet the practice continued even after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. If the BoR was intended to be binding, why would the states have bothered to adopt their own constitutions with the same "rights" as the U.S. BoR in them? Seems redundant.

    Colorado's BoR adopted 1876:
    http://www.harbornet.com/rights/colorado.txt
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  8. #97
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    there are a whole lot of utters around here all of a sudden

    and, unless I missed it, I'm dissappointed SD never address his comments regarding:



    and Randy's reply:
    I must have missed it. The legislation like the National Firearms Act was designed to prevent criminals, felons, mentally ill and the like from owning firearms. It is not gun control in any sense of the word and does not infringe on the rights of aw abiding citizens.

    The fact of the matter is that the People must determine if laws are Constitutional and if they do not adhere to the tenets of the Constitutionthen they will be repealed by the People. Some legislation, like the AWB, was unconstitutional and now it is no longer law. That s the way the system was designed to work. And it has NOTHNG todo with the unconstitutional act of a court striking down a law, a power not provided by the Constitution.

  9. #98
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    And yet the practice continued even after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. If the BoR was intended to be binding, why would the states have bothered to adopt their own constitutions with the same "rights" as the U.S. BoR in them? Seems redundant.
    That is exactly right. Hopyard seems to miss that point. As Chief Justice Waite wrote in Cruikshank, we are all citizens of two separate and distinct government, the Federal government and the state government. Each has their own laws and, as you point out, their own constitutions.

  10. #99
    Senior Member Array Shadowsbane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,051
    Somehow I feel that I have been on this Merry-go-round before.

    I would be of the opinion however SD that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was indeed a restriction of rights, because it placed a huge tax on certain firearm items.

    For example, shotguns in 1934 could run around $25 give or take, but to have a shorter barreled one, you would need to pay that $200 fee, or 8 times the price of your firearm. The intent seemed to be pretty clear that they wanted the majority of people at the time to be unable to legally own/purchase such firearms, which would make it a federal law designed to limit rights.
    Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

    www.Lonelymountainleather.com

  11. #100
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The fact of the matter is that the People must determine if laws are Constitutional and if they do not adhere to the tenets of the Constitutionthen they will be repealed by the People. Some legislation, like the AWB, was unconstitutional and now it is no longer law. That s the way the system was designed to work. And it has NOTHNG todo with the unconstitutional act of a court striking down a law, a power not provided by the Constitution.
    Maybe I'm wrong, but the AWB law was written to only last for 10 years. It was never challenged in court. If the political leanings of the congress were different at the time the law was passed (not requiring the 10yr provision to get it passed), and the political leanings of the court were such to allow the law to stand, then we have Federal gun control. I still fail to understand your point that the Fed's "can't" pass a law limiting/controlling guns.

    Isn't that exactly why the appointments to the court are so important?
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  12. #101
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The anti- gun rights posters here (who call themselves conservatives) do not want everyone in this great country of ours to enjoy the full rights and freedoms given to us in the BOR. The misconstrue the word Congress because they think the framers were great writers and said precisely what they meant with no ambiguity, no awkwardness of language usage and great precision.
    You could not be more wrong. I am surprised (and disappointed) that after all these years and so many posts that you still do not understand my view. The Bill of Rights enumerates certain rights that are enjoyed by all men, including the right to keep and bear arms.

    It is up to the People of the many states to protect their rights and most have even more protections enumerated in their respective constitutions.

    What you want is to dissolve the states d have a single national government. That, my frind, will never happen in the United States of America.

    Also, the Constitution is not ambiguous at all. In fact, the Framers were very careful about the wording. That you tryto twist the meaning or try to subvert the intent is outside anyone's control.


    Yet, it takes just a little effort to uncover instance after instance in which grammatical errors, word usage errors, and very poor punctuation cause confusion about meaning.
    All because modern usage has changed does not change the original intent, nor the grammar, of the Constitution.

    There are folks here who want to return our country to the ways of the mid-19th century, and they mask their reactionary purposes behind lofty proclomations on what they proclaim the constitution to mean.
    We KNOW what the Constitution means. And yes, I want to return to the late 18th century in terms of understanding the basic principle of this nation: state sovereignty. Obviously, that has been lost on many.

    Bottom line though, we don't know what 2A means in terms of binding the states.
    Yes, we do! For someone that adores the robed oligarchs, they have 'ruled' on the matter. You simply do not agree. You are exactly the type of person that thinks the Court is doing a fine job, if and only if, their opinions agree with your own.

    It was in fact quite clear from the start that the BOR applied to the states as well.
    I suggest you review Barron v. Baltimore. You are so wrong and it is tiresome to continue to correct misinformation. It has been posted many times on this forum.

    We as a people get a choice. We can have one nation indivisible with guaranteed rights for all or we can continue to play games with the true meaning of the BOR and watch our rights as gun owners go down the toilet
    More nonsense. My rights expanded because MY STATE has passed legislation to allow concealed carry in restaurants. Your statist view is completely inconsistent with the designed governance of the United States.

  13. #102
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158

    So, redundancy is a means of preserving rights

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    So Hopyard, I'm intrigued by your perspective on this. But, since no one addressed by state constitution question, let me bring it back up in another way:

    If what you say is true about the BOR having been intended to bind the states all along, then why were the states required to write and adopt their own Constitutions upon being admitted into the U.S.? In most cases (my opinion), it would appear that the state constitutions mirror the U.S. Constitution and BOR. That would seem redundant if it were understood that the BOR was binding on the states - wouldn't it?
    The redundancy doesn't nullify the BOR, it preserves the rights and strengthens them. I don't think the fact that states have their own constitutions has anything much to do with the application of BOR.

    FOr example, Texas has a huge complex constitution that covers everything; and in consequences we are constantly voting on one or another amendment to the Texas constitution each two years. That is how Texas chose to run its state. That doesn't mean it is lawful for Texas to deny 5th amendment rights; anymore than it was for AZ to ignore Miranda's 5th amendment rights.

  14. #103
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    I'm only going to point out now that if the 14th amendment wasn't a BS attempt to get states under the federal government then 2A wouldn't need incorporated. Incorporation is judicial activism at it's finest. If the 14th amendment binds the states, it would do so for all 10 amendments and not just the one's the robes fancy.

    For the record, I carry because my state allows me too. Why hasn't Chicago been overturned and most of Illinois when D.C. was overturned? Because D.C. is not in a state and follows FEDERAL laws. D.C. is a town that is MOST subjected by the Constitution. Heller should have blew Chicago out of the water. Instead, the NRA is NOW working on them but haven't proven successful.

    I wish all states were to the level of freedom Vermont is (and Ohio isn't far from it in this regard) but that currently isn't the climate, which it would be if the BoR applied to the states.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

    NRA Member / Ohio Conceal Carry Instructor
    CHL Holder

  15. #104
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,631
    Lets get this thread back on track.

    This isn't a thread about stuff that could be argued forever, it's a thread about Sotomayor and her stance (or lack of it) on the second amendment and her responses to such.

    Lets confine it to that.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

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

  16. #105
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    If people were truely serious about the 2nd amendment they would question her about Federal Laws restricting firearms and not State Laws. There would be no question as to whether or not it aplied then.

    If questioned on the constitutionality of the background checks or Machinegun restrictions would they say the 2nd doesn't apply to the Federal Government? These are all Federal Laws that clearly infringe on a persons right to own a weapon.

    Michael

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 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. Millions Of Gun Owners Reject Sotomayor
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 8th, 2009, 07:22 PM
  2. Analysis of Sotomayor and 2A issues
    By miklcolt45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 5th, 2009, 08:42 AM
  3. Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court
    By miklcolt45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: June 1st, 2009, 11:14 PM
  4. More About Sotomayor on Gun Control
    By CPTMO in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 29th, 2009, 09:35 AM
  5. Grilled out for the first time this year today...
    By TN_Mike in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: March 12th, 2007, 05:41 PM