Comments on: Gun Rights Advocates Hope to Flip Red-State Dems on Sotomayor

By: Tuci78

Tuci78 — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:28:58 +0000

Nah. Guns are PROPERTY. They are a specially and explicitly protected class of property as the result of the Second Amendment (with protections purposefully expanded by the Fourteenth Amendment following the War of Southern Secession) because the right to own, carry, and use these implements are important to the individual's protection of his own primary rights to life, to liberty, and to property, against the depredations of criminals both freelance and government-employed.

Material property has, in itself, no rights. People do. The owners of guns have inalienable rights which cannot be abjured. The exercise of those rights, per the U.S. Constitution, cannot be infringed or otherwise limited by officers of the federal, state, or local governments without criminal malfeasance in office.

How far up your distalmost sphicter did you have to cram your hand to grab that "guns are people too" lump of stool, kiddo?

By: toptwome

toptwome — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:21:03 +0000

No. Just so you know there are twelve Democrats voting on Judge Sotomayer's nomination and seven republicans so it aint going to happen.

By: toptwome

toptwome — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:16:55 +0000

Judge Sotomayer said nothing to offend you. But by all means be very offended. Ken Blackwell is a corrupt republican who is as likely to hunt as Santa Claus. Him speaking for the NRA says all anyone needs to know about what party they belong to. Hint: Republican. Even though there are just as many Democrats who love to hunt and own guns galor.

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:04:13 +0000

“he right to “keep and bear arms” (to own and carry guns) is simply the most basic of those rights which underpins all the others.”

This is part of why a lot of people see the NRA and its more outspoken members as more than just enthusiasts, but more of gun-fetishists or gun-obsessive-compulsives. Gun ownership is more fundamental than freedom of religion/speech/conscience? Really?

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:58:53 +0000

“NRA or similar groups” … “those who oppose far-left racial power groups”

Dude – are you high? Those groups already overlap by 99%, and they're clearly nowhere near 2/3 of the entire country.

By: runfastandwin

runfastandwin — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:15:29 +0000

That would be true in a perfect world. Unfortunately we live in a world that is not perfect. If we don't agitate for our rights, the government will surely take them away. Like Bush did with Congress. I know it's popular to deride Congress, but like it or not they are the people's representative in our government, and every bit of check and balance they abdicate to the executive, the executive will inevitably take. The Democrats are almost as guilty as the Republicans in that regard. Every time they refuse to investigate credible allegations of crime in the executive, they cede another sliver of power away from the people and into the government.

By: ConspiracyTheorist

ConspiracyTheorist — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:15:48 +0000

Again, I agree with John Bates Thayer. Guns are people too! Guns have human rights!

If you prefer handguns over shotguns, obviously you're violating the 14th amendment equal protection clause. That's discriminatory, because guns are people too.

By: John Bates Thayer

John Bates Thayer — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:50:05 +0000

The Bill of Rights is a bill of individual rights, not a bill of government rights.
Is the First amendment's right of freedom of speech or religion a right of government or of the people?

The B.O.R. does not establish any rights. It merely affirms the pre-existing and non-deniable rights of Americans under the laws of God or Nature or Providence as was understood at the time.

By: John Bates Thayer

John Bates Thayer — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:48:43 +0000

Sotomayor, 55, told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. I have friends who hunt."

What a bigoted comment for a sitting judge to make!

What if I were to say that, "I understand how important the right to non-discrimination is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NAACP. I have friends who are Hispanic."?

Our rights are important to all of us. To imply that rights only apply to some who are directly affected by them or that having friends who belong to a certain group makes one open-minded is outmoded thinking and unacceptable for a Supreme Court justice today.

By: ConspiracyTheorist

ConspiracyTheorist — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:12:41 +0000

Try open carrying into an airport, or for that matter, your state legislature, and see what reaction you'll get. Then tell me you have an unfettered right to carry a gun anywhere no matter what.