NRA Members Must Oppose Sotomayor

Bruce from Illinois asks me:
"Would you suggest we have an election for President in 2012? Or does "Obama must go" mean something should be done before the next scheduled election?"

-- Whether I "suggest" a presidential election in 2012 or not is irrelevant. Barring some innovation by the Obama emirate and the Pelosi-Reid mafia, we are going to have one.

If the dimwits responsible for the Obama calamity have acquired a minimum of sense by then, we can be rid of him at that time. If we can be rid of him sooner, of course, so much the better.

Then again, the question of just who we can get to replace Obama when the time comes seems to loom rather large, doesn't it?

Bruce asks:
"What do you suggest we...

You said,

"Would you suggest we have an election for President in 2012? Or does "Obama must go" mean something should be done before the next scheduled election?

What do you suggest we should do if he runs in 2012 and wins re-election by a majority of American citizens?"

Impeachment would be nice. A trial for treason would be even better.

Were you hoping that somebody would say something that might get them in trouble with the Secret Service, or at least something that would embarrass those who oppose the Messiah? Sorry to disappoint, but we are the ones who obey the law.

My post had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It isn't really a topic that I care very much about. But I always hear righties talking about how liberals want to legislate from the bench and are judicial activists. It seems to me that Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito are doing a lot of legislating from the bench and no one here ever seems to mention it.

So if your post really is true and you care about personal freedom, then tell me why the government should be able to prevent a person from adequately defending themselves in court by denying them a DNA test, especially if they are willing to pay for it themselves?

In case you haven't noticed, Roberts consistently rules on the side of corporations and the state over...

You say "In all of this she (Sotomayor) is just like Obama. We have to get rid of her. And Obama must go too."

Would you suggest we have an election for President in 2012? Or does "Obama must go" mean something should be done before the next scheduled election?

What do you suggest we should do if he runs in 2012 and wins re-election by a majority of American citizens?

Unless you are wiling to get up from in front of your computer and join with others in on going protest such as the Tea Party people and the patriot movements that are springing up around the country and call your Senators and Representatives on a regular basis all other conversation is worthless. We are a slip and a slide away from being completely enslaved by the leftist elite in a Socialist swamp than most can imagine. If we can not un-elect all those who are the enemy of The Constitution on this next go in 2010, it is my opinion that we are finished. That means defeating Nancy "The Nazi" Pelosi,Barney Frank, Schumer Reid and so on. A tall order. The only way you do this is to be very very very active and similarly loud, but...

Thanks for the calming words. Idiots still get to me no matter how mellow I try to be.

Kerry
NRA Life
SASS 71937
WR 469

“Throughout her career,” Froman writes, “Judge Sotomayor’s record is one of consistent opposition to the private ownership of firearms.”

Well, I say it’s that, plus a record of consistent failure and refusal to furnish explanations of her opinions and rulings, as Froman also points out.

Judging from what I read here and other places, Sotomayor is most certainly cunning and shrewd, like a serpent, but seemingly not very intelligent. Even worse, she is overbearingly arrogant. What is the idea of making these sweeping and unconstitutional statements and then neglecting to explain?

I don’t give a fig what are Sotomayor’s personal opinions on anything. I do care about the rule of law and the authority and principles of...

Please tell me what being Jewish has to do with this article or the 2nd Amendment? Other than your simple minded view of how you think Jewish people "should" be. Group/identity politics at it's finest. Thanks for the display.

See, dimwit, not all Jewish folks are mush minded Obamatons, like you. There are even some who believe in 2nd Amendment rights. Here's MORE stuff to burst your simple minded bubble:

http://www.jpfo.org/

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage & keep the invader & the plunderer in awe, & preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be...

One of the things about this list of "domestic" terrorists that really distrubs me is that everyone who isn't a Democrat is on the list. Does this mean that the Democrats have the right/obligation to arrest as a terrorist anyone who runs against them for office? I am beginning to believe that they believe it does. Therefore they aren't worried about anyone protesting anything they do now since they intend to use this to insure they cannot be voted out of office ever again. And they intend to insure that only Democrats will ever be in control in the future.

I just hope that I'm wrong!!

This week we saw Iranis trying to fight back against oppression, however, because the do not have access to arms, their protests are being suppressed by Basij thugs and Republican guards. Imagine a time to come when Martial Law is imposed because "domestic" terrorists, ie, Christians, anti-abortioniusts, veterans,etc, are on the list to subjucate. Would there be more caution exercised if the domesticated hounds knew the citizenry could fight back? Think hard, your future and your kids rely on a "well regulated " citizenry...

Since TX has more CCLs than most in the U.S., I have checked here for CCLs getting into trouble too. ONE man went to a bar with a CCL and gun - which is against the law here - got drunk and wounded a man. There are a few - very few! - cases of someone going into a place where even CCLs can't carry and getting a ticket for it. Other than that, nothing. On the other hand, I've seen several cases where someone with a CCL was able to stop a crime and/or save lives by having the gun with him. Just recently in a carjacking attempt, the carjacker decided to shoot the car owner after he had given up his car. When the car owner (who had a CCL and a gun) realized the car jacker was not going to just take the car, he pulled his own gun and...

You are right. Many Jewish people are intelligent and thoughtful thinkers. Unfortunately, you can't tell the difference between things like that because you are ignorant of Constitutional law, common law, and written law. Further, you are mentally handicapped. So how could you expect to know what is intelligent and what isn't? You should check yourself into a hospital so they can care for you. And you should also get rid of your gun before you harm yourself. Everyone insists that the mentally handicapped shouldn't own one and I agree.

I agree with you. Suzanna could have saved her parents. When cops at a nearby restaurant came in (after nearly twenty people had been killed) the murderer shot himself. She wouldn't even have had to have shot him herself - just shot to let him know she was armed. Although I am also certain she could have killed him.

Many of us in Texas are good shots. But the MSM doesn't want any one to know that having a gun can save lives. One shooting at a college (think Tennessee but I can't remember for sure) had three people shot when students "subdued" the shooter according to the MSM. What the media refused to tell people was that they did it by having their own guns. When they showed up with their guns and gave the shooter the...

ABC ran a "story" claiming to "prove" that legal guns can't prevent crime. They re-enacted some famous shooting(s) and inserted gun owners who all (not surprisingly) got shot dead and the outcome was not altered.

This is an article of faith and not fact. In Killeen,TX a lunatic drove his car through a plate glass window, entered Luby's and executed numerous patrons including the parents of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp who is now a Congresswoman from TX.

Dr. Gratia had a .357 in her car but TX didn't have CCW laws then. She was classed as expert with that gun and could have saved at least some of the lives lost. Her story became a rallying cry and the useless Ma Richards was blown out of office because Dubya SIGNED the CCW law she...

Libs can't HANDLE the idea that the former president of the NRA is a Jewish grandmother and a university professor from San Francisco. To them that's heresy.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

analysis of one of the several reasons why this nominee is not qualified to sit on SCOTUS. If only it were as difficult for criminals to obtain guns as it is for law abiding citizens. The 2nd amendment is one of the simplist sections of the Bill of Rights. I've never understood how anyone could allow ANY legislation controlling the right to keep and bear arms. ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", seems clear to me. If the Founders meant for the states to be allowed to regulate arms, they would have said so in so many words.

by clicking on my name.

There, you'll see my current essay: "Sotomayor, Liberal Thought, and Judicial Activism"

In it, I outline why Sotomayor's unqualified to be confirmed to SCOTUS. Feel free to copy and paste it into an email or letter to your Senators, or members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I emailed it to each member of the Judiciary Committee last weekend, and suddenly this week we have Sessions bucking her confirmation, using almost the exact same language I used in that essay.

You can use this link: http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm

to contact the members of the committee by email.

I urge all who support gun rights to make those contacts.

Jay/Jesus,
Your post was sic(k) in more ways than one. It seems to have been so far off track that no one has found a way to respond in almost 3 hours!

All I can say is that your rant was such a typical liberal move in that you stoop to attacking the messager because you can not refute the message that it really shouldn't be responded to at all, just flagged for removal which I have done.

Do you have a lisp too?

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder

Robert thanks for the info.
Talent Scout, I need stats on crimes and non-defense killings. I've already seen the stats on legal shootings. But thanks for the try.

Just a thought? What does your post have to do with the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms?

I've heard various accusations against the current court about legislating from the bench, but I never heard the same people complaining about the former court for doing the same thing from a liberal standpoint. I suspect that the examples you give are not exactly what they seem to be to you. I've investigated other claims of denial of freedom against the conservative jurists, and have always found them wanting.

I hope you never get fired from a job because your boss thinks you are getting too old. Because if you do, the good old SCOTUS just made it harder for you to take your boss to court.

And I also hope that you never get wrongly convicted of a crime, because, depending on the state you live in, you may not be able to get a DNA test to prove you are innocent.

To me, these all also issues of personal and economic freedom. The conservatives on the Court seem to be denying those freedoms and legislating a little too much from the bench.

It is absurd for millions of gun owners, with hundreds of millions of guns and thousands of tons of ammunition, to fear having to turn in those weapons because one or two liberal intellectuals use their expensive degrees to engage in linguistic trickery and distort the clear meaning of our constitution, written by men of wisom and courage who mean us to be armed.

If this happens, then we deserve to be made slaves. How shameful it would be for long lines of so called men to meekly hand over their guns, knowing that they will be tyrannized afterword.

Fear is an emotion for slaves.