jump to navigation

Sotomayor 2nd Amendment 07/14/2009

Posted by Hotonis in Government.
Tags: , , , ,

The new Supreme Court nominee Judge Sotomayor has been questioned about her view of the second Amendment of the United States Constitution.  According to a case DC v. Heller, Sotomayor judged that states have the right to control firearms that have nothing to do with militia.

The second amendment reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The idea that Nunchaku could be banned from New York was used in her case to say that firearms could be regulated.

I am no lawyer, but I believe that when something that says “the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” means that they will not be infringed (or regulated). I shall be posting more on Sotomayor as she continues to be interviewed.



1. Greg Dildilian - 07/14/2009

Any excuse to take away our rights to own any weapon will be encouraged by this nominee. Judge Sotomayor is narcistic in her views as is the President. They are building to a crecendo of complete government control and the statist elites are the real threat.

Hotonis - 07/14/2009

I agree completely. I worry that the President will attempt to break constitutional law by using Sotomayor as a puppet. I also wonder if the President pushes GE through fast enough so that the Supreme Court does not realize how much is happening.

2. Alfred Koppel - 08/21/2009

The Second Amendment of the American Constitution is necessary to defend the First which is freedom of speech. Governments are acknowledged to be the biggest criminals-terrorists on earth, and if these gobs of malfeasance can not be held accountable to the U.S. citizens who are in fact the law of the land, then these politicians, and as God knows lawmakers they are not, will misrepresent Americans to over-throw our Federal and State governments thus to control-regulate the talk shows and the U.S. media, then ban trans-oceanic multi-band radios, under penalty of death, to keep us ignorant of the rest of the world; arresting Americans not for breaking then non-existent laws, but for being identified intelligent and capable to do away with dissent against the heinous crimes now planned to be perpetrated upon U.S. citizens and the lawful residents among us in this American Republic, indefinitely, for what the U.S. “congressionalistas”, as they now prefer to be called, plan to establish as “Terrorism For A Whole New Industry”! It is to realize that public servants paid our U.S. tax dollars to serve and to protect Americans and our lawful residents, are now incarcerating these civilians if caught with a copy of the American Constitution to de-estabilize law and civil order that they might over-throw our institutions of juris prudence, invade our privacy to then put Americans and the lawful residents among us under the will of those who disrespect our people, our decrees and our U.S. governments!

And the hell with Sotomayor, and the rest of the Supreme gang of monkeys with kinky tails as they are directly accountable for all the wars of aggression now being perpetrated not only on people who have never done us harm, but on the very Americans they are paid to represent as the law in this United States! Seeing as they are nothing more than political appointees to carry out the mandates of criminals manipulated into our U.S. governments by the miscount of our votes, it is time to rid us of them as they are truthfully good for nothing worthwhile, progressive or constructive!

3. jc levie - 08/21/2009

When the constitution was written, the necessity of own firearms was obvious. However, as we have matured and sophisticated during the past 200+ years, we have local police, state police, national guard, and a superb standing military. These units are in place of citizens being armed to the teeth.

Firearms for sport (hunting and target shooting) must be allowed. But allowing the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and various semi-automatics defies all sense.

Hotonis - 08/22/2009

I want you to think back to those history classes we all had in High School and/or College. Remember that we had a king that was above us with the strongest military in the world. These were fighters that believed in “sophistication.” These were people who believed citizens should not have to defend themselves. They decided to take control away from the people. In other words this was the reason for the revolution.

Now, do you really think that a government that “has matured and sophisticated during the past 200+ years,” and has “local police, state police, national guard, and a superb standing military” will be able to protect its people? Probably yes, but if you include the fact that the government is doing a pretty poor job at representing its people, and refuses to let its citizens defend themselves should be allowed to regulate the ownership of weapons?

4. Jonathan a.k.a. DryBone. - 08/21/2009

First off, I am a gun owner. And the only reason I have not killed someone to obtain a gun, is because I can go out and buy my own, and carry my own. But as soon as guns are banned, and I am restricted from buying my own, the cold blooded, neck slicing, hatchet swinging, screwdriver in the heart stabbing, stone cold heartless killing will start in order for myself to obtain a gun. Thats correct, a bullet proof vest does not stop a screwdriver, or a knife. Just remember this saying! If you need firepower to protect yourself and the innocent, kill someone who still has it. And another thing, I am running for the 2012 Presidential election. I will run America! And the assult on our rights will end, this I guarentee. I will protect your rights, because I love mine.

Hotonis - 08/22/2009

I agree with that statement completely. I will do anything to protect my family, and I do not need a gun to do that. What I need are the resources to make myself stronger, faster, and smarter then the person trying to hurt my family. If a gun is the best answer to this, I would not hesitate to ensure that I have one.
Another point, the people that we should be worried about obtaining guns are going to probably have them anyway. If I have a need to be worried about a person pointing an AK-47 at me, I sure as heck should be able to have a P-90 to point back at them. As a free citizen of the United States, I should have the freedom to protect myself when necessary with whatever means necessary.

5. Joseph Marciona - 08/21/2009

The 2nd amendent is clear,citizens have the right to own guns and amunition. The assult weapon dialog is mute when you consider that when the 2nd amendment was determined all weapons were assault weapons were assault weapons, the musket as the only firearm around. The power of the individual citizen was equal to the government.

Hotonis - 08/22/2009

I like all that you say except the ending, it should be “the power of the individual citizen was [greater than] the government.” Remember that it was the individual citizens that made the revolution a success.

6. ThePeople - 08/21/2009

The second amendment is the second amendment and there is no interpretation other than what is says. Our country was founded and is to remain in place by this and other stated amendments. Keep your eyes and ears open for those with silver tongues that try to twist ‘their interpretation” as not to exist for the people. Shame on them and to those who do not expose them for attempting to take away our rights.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: