Louis
Member
from washingtonindependent.com
See that web site for complete article.
See that web site for complete article.
Last edited by a moderator:
"Gun possession NOT a fundamental right" - Sotomayor
- Thread starter Louis
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
7.62foryou
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 242
- Reaction score
- 2
That's because: "That legal doctrine uses the word fundamental, but it doesn't have the same meaning that common people understand that word to mean". We're just common people we can't understand rights!
USAF385
US Veteran
I'm tired of this lady.
DougE
Member
I'm tired of this lady.
Hope you were using the term "lady" loosely ............ lady is the last term that comes to my mind when she's the topic of discussion.
7.62foryou
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 242
- Reaction score
- 2
sub-moa
US Veteran
Yep, get used to that face 
...
Can you spell "Lifetime Appointment" boys and girls?
The fix is already in
...
We're toast in this one folks
...Can you spell "Lifetime Appointment" boys and girls
?The fix is already in
...We're toast in this one folks
Spotteddog
Member
The only positive to come out of the whole debacle, is that at least for the time being(?) she's replacing one that would have voted just like her anyway? And I mean that's the ONLY plus to it!
Last edited:
7.62foryou
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 242
- Reaction score
- 2
Damn shame we have to twist oursleves up into knots to find a positive side. I guess we'll say the same when Ruthie is replaced too.
jpwhel
Member
This woman scares me. I read the transcript of the hearings re. 2nd Amend rights. What a dance around the issues. Yes we do have one liberal replacing another liberal, I guess we were just hoping for that one liberal who also supports RKBA, if such a person exists.
The Rabbi
Member
I have to say she's right on that score.
Can you state the definition of a fundamental right versus a right?
m657
Member
I'm as clueless on the difference of the legal notion of "fundamental" as anyone else.
Here's one explanation: Fundamental right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strange they list such as "right to VOTE" as fundamental....the last I heard it was not listed in the Constitution.
And I truly fail to understand how the Bill of Rights is not the PRIME definition of "Fundamental Rights" in the USA
Here's one explanation: Fundamental right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strange they list such as "right to VOTE" as fundamental....the last I heard it was not listed in the Constitution.
And I truly fail to understand how the Bill of Rights is not the PRIME definition of "Fundamental Rights" in the USA
The Rabbi
Member
Because our legal system is built on more than the Constitution.
But thanks for providing the informative link.
But thanks for providing the informative link.
gunlovingirl
Member
While I'm no lawyer, it seems to me that the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, makes the right to keep and bear arms a "fundamental" right. I also understand that Obama and anyone he appoints, will more than likely disagree. Sotomayor will get in, you can be sure of that. And while some folks may say we haven't lost anything, because one liberal is replacing another, I have to disagree. If we're not gaining something, we're losing. And we'll continue to lose, in one way or another, as long as Obama is in the White House.
R. Walter
Member
Well, some folks are just going to have to get used to the fact that they lost the last election across all fronts. 2010 is not far off; get geared up for it now.
The Rabbi
Member
I think the court was clear that they weren't going to rule on whether it was a fundamental right or not.
7.62foryou
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 242
- Reaction score
- 2
So the upshot is if every state in the union decided to ban guns, because it's not a
"fundamental" right then there would be no recourse at the federal level. Which makes the founders belief that an armed population can protect itself against a tyrannical government wrong. The right to be safe and secure in your home isn't much of a right if you can't defend it. So the law of the land the, Constitution isn't.
Might as well put the Constitution on a roll, perforate it and use it in the bathroom.
"fundamental" right then there would be no recourse at the federal level. Which makes the founders belief that an armed population can protect itself against a tyrannical government wrong. The right to be safe and secure in your home isn't much of a right if you can't defend it. So the law of the land the, Constitution isn't.
Might as well put the Constitution on a roll, perforate it and use it in the bathroom.
Not really a plus since Soto is in her 50's?? I believe I saw something about her mother still getting around pretty well and she is in her 80's. Unfortunately it looks like she comes from a good blood line of long life.
Yup - she'll be around for a while
The Rabbi
Member
Except most state constitutions contain similar language to the 2A. How far that extends would have to be hashed out in state and federal courts.
I'm sorry ConLaw is giving you such heatburn but that's how things are.
Except she's a long-time diabetic. So I wouldn't count on her being around, at least on the court, for more than 10 years or so.
shortranger
Member
Don't get caught up in conflicting word definitions. Fundamental is like any other word - it means what people say it does. Any/all words change in definition as popular usage of them evolves. Check succeeding copies of any dictionary and you will see definitions morph over the years.
Basing your idea of rights on the definition du jour of any particular word is a fool's errand. It is far better to hold to a general idea than a specific definition. The 2A is not about an individual's "right" to own firearms, it is about any human's natural instinct to protect themselves by any means necessary, and parsing words will not change that.
Yes, practitioners of the law have evolved a jargon of their own using definitions that often puzzle others. The trick is to remember that their philosophy places the system and its definitions over any individual, and that is counter to both the spirit and the intent of the founding principles of our country. It doesn't matter what assorted lawyers, judges, politicians, and sundry drones say. If a definition, statement, or law runs counter to your common sense, then it's wrong.
Otherwise, you might just as well give up and entrust your entire being to people who think that they are wiser than you are.
David
Basing your idea of rights on the definition du jour of any particular word is a fool's errand. It is far better to hold to a general idea than a specific definition. The 2A is not about an individual's "right" to own firearms, it is about any human's natural instinct to protect themselves by any means necessary, and parsing words will not change that.
Yes, practitioners of the law have evolved a jargon of their own using definitions that often puzzle others. The trick is to remember that their philosophy places the system and its definitions over any individual, and that is counter to both the spirit and the intent of the founding principles of our country. It doesn't matter what assorted lawyers, judges, politicians, and sundry drones say. If a definition, statement, or law runs counter to your common sense, then it's wrong.
Otherwise, you might just as well give up and entrust your entire being to people who think that they are wiser than you are.
David
Similar threads
