Is Sotomayor Anti-Gun?

laojim wrote:

<quoted text>
Fair enough, but in this state we have had no gun play at the schools by parents but we had an eight year old shot dead just the other day after finding uncle's rifle. The fact also remains that the only person likely to be shot by the gun in any home is the wife. Some reasonable control of these things is entirely appropriate.

Then why aren't you whining about THIS?

"Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10% of families in the general population. A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24%, indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general."

- "Police Family Violence Fact Sheet", National Center for Women and Policing
http://www.womenandpolicing.org/violenceFS.as...

laojim wrote:

<quoted text>
He's in Alaska folks, you'll never find him hiding in all those woods.
As for the other two remarks, those arguments are irrelevant because they always presuppose the proposition that control is only exerted on those who wish to be controlled and that legislating against something is useless. By that thinking we would do away with all crimes just because only thieves steal and only forgers forge. I think most of us would like to see angry people brandishing guns disarmed and kept from obtaining new ones, we would like to stop people who publish death threats to have their weapons seized, we would like gun owners restrained in a lot of ways. This is useful. I know of one case where a guy who liked to brandish his pistol and make threats was converted to the gentility of a lamb by the mere threat that a conviction on felonious threatening would disarm him for life.
One need only look at the relative fire arm murder rates in places like the US and Canada to see the efficacy and desirability of gun control. Once their guns are locked up and registered they can yell all they like, as long as they don't wake me up---that's disturbing the peace.

I am an average American: white, male, straight, middle class, veteran, believe in God, have children & grandchildren, no felonies only traffic offenses - speeding, seatbelt vios, I have a job & go to work regularly, I dislike ever increasing taxes & welfare for individuals or corporations, & I am an independent.

And here is what we average Americans have to say to your socialistic, anti-freedom, & registration scheme - stick it upyourass sideways, I am not registering anything, I will not ask permission to exercise a right, I want govt out of my pocket & my business. And then, not just a few, would give you the "bird". I would give you a double bird, and tell you to go back to whatever miserable shithole you came from & try your control schemes.

GSCensored wrote:

<quoted text>
Then move to communist China or Cuba, cowardly traitor.

I believe he came from one of those shitholes.

laojim wrote:

<quoted text>
He's in Alaska folks, you'll never find him hiding in all those woods.
As for the other two remarks, those arguments are irrelevant because they always presuppose the proposition that control is only exerted on those who wish to be controlled and that legislating against something is useless.

Utter nonsense!
.
Do tell: Name —for the rest of here— which man-made law has ABSOLUTELY STOPPED something from happening.
.
Got a law?
.

laojim wrote:

By that thinking we would do away with all crimes just because only thieves steal and only forgers forge.

Isn't =THAT= the truth as it stands now?
.
Has not that ALWAYS been the truth?
.

laojim wrote:

I think most of us would like to see angry people brandishing guns disarmed and kept from obtaining new ones, we would like to stop people who publish death threats to have their weapons seized, we would like gun owners restrained in a lot of ways.

That's a STRAW MAN argument: It falls easily.
.
The problem here is just this: YOU would employ the straw man to DISARM EVERYONE.
.

laojim wrote:

This is useful. I know of one case where a guy who liked to brandish his pistol and make threats was converted to the gentility of a lamb by the mere threat that a conviction on felonious threatening would disarm him for life.

Anecdotes are nice, but where's your evidence?
.
GOT EVIDENCE?
.
Nope. Didn't think so.
.

laojim wrote:

One need only look at the relative fire arm murder rates in places like the US and Canada to see the efficacy and desirability of gun control.

THAT'S BOGUS, and I call BULLSHIT!
.
"Relative fire arm (sic) murder rates" ... Murder has =NOTHING= to do with the availability of a particular device.
.
Your remark therefore, is nought but hype, plain and simple.
.

laojim wrote:

Once their guns are locked up and registered they can yell all they like, as long as they don't wake me up---that's disturbing the peace.

You know? If you don't like it here in the U.S. of A., you can just pack your freaking arse right back to where it was you came from ...
.
Know what I mean, Vern?
.

Sheriff of Rock Ridge wrote:

<quoted text>
Ladies? Don't you mean laddies? Shoot, other than Plant Lady, how many women post in this forum? LOL.
Wife Control? Huh, good luck with that. If our grandfathers and great grandfathers couldn't control their wives what makes you think you can. That's a good one.

LOL...your comprehension skills are showing again...(lack of).

Wolverine wrote:

<quoted text>I believe he came from one of those shitholes.

I tend to agree with that assessment as well.
.

GSCensored wrote:

<quoted text>
Then move to communist China or Cuba, cowardly traitor.

It is a pity that so many people attend school and still can't thing of any better argument that that. Put down the beer and start thinking a little more. I don't have to move to some other country just because I disagree with you. That's silly. Perhaps after you sober up you'll see your mistake.

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You know? If you don't like it here in the U.S. of A., you can just pack your freaking arse right back to where it was you came from ...
.
Know what I mean, Vern?
.

You mean I have to go back to Illinois just to have an opinion? Nah, I like it here. Anyway, I like it, to borrow your phrase, "here in the U. S. of A." I just like to be here and watch Chinese Opera on the TV. I just don't like drunks with guns.

Judge Sotomayor is an American who will be a great Supreme Court Justice. She will protect the rights of all Americans.

http://murder-homicide.blogspot.com/

Marauder wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL...your comprehension skills are showing again...(lack of).

Laddie,

Well, that's an ironic put down considering that you aparently didn't comprehend my post (and that slight of yours was not terribly original or creative).

You see laddie. I think it would be news to most of us guns forum posters to find out that there were a lot of female posters in this in this sausage fest of a guns forum.

Nah wrote:

<quoted text>
Laddie,
Well, that's an ironic put down considering that you aparently didn't comprehend my post (and that slight of yours was not terribly original or creative).
You see laddie. I think it would be news to most of us guns forum posters to find out that there were a lot of female posters in this in this sausage fest of a guns forum.

I comprehended your post fine...and maybe your "wife" is a "laddie"...but I don't care...to each his own.

And as far as other "ladies" being on guns forum...maybe you should move around to some of the other threads, they are out there.

"I think it would be news to most of us guns forum posters..."...maybe if some of you "control freaks" took off those "progressive" blinders...simple things like this wouldn't be "news" to you.

Marauder wrote:

<quoted text>
I comprehended your post fine...and maybe your "wife" is a "laddie"...but I don't care...to each his own.
And as far as other "ladies" being on guns forum...maybe you should move around to some of the other threads, they are out there.
"I think it would be news to most of us guns forum posters..."...maybe if some of you "control freaks" took off those "progressive" blinders...simple things like this wouldn't be "news" to you.

Nah.

Most of the self professed 2nd Amendment Scholars are really just frightened little rabbits who believe having a gun will make them safer.

You're all pathetic wimps.

You pretend that its some sort of constitutional right but all you do is make the world more dangerous because you're afraid that your weakness will make you vunerable.

Your fake bravado and hand gun aren't fooling anyone. If you are really so committed to keeping this country safe why don't you march your chicksh1t @ss down to your local recruiter and put your money where your mouth is.

THE GUNS FORUM
.
FORUM ISSUE: Employees' right to keep guns in car upheld, but customers can ...
.
POST# 15
.
Via The Bald Guy
.
Why do all the gun bigots claim this? They always claim that "smart" people don't need guns. While intellegence and mind set certainly do play a major role in the defense of one's self and one's loved ones, it does little good unless that person is ALSO properly equipped to handle the threat.
.
Look at it this way, you COULD know how to change your spare tire. Unfortunately, if you get a flat, that knowledge isn't going to do you a bit of good if you don't have a jack...
.
When you push the topic, however, on what THEY plan to do if they ever find themselves the victim of a violent crime, you get one of three responses:
.
1. They claim that a person can simply avoid crimes entirely (100% of the time) by avoiding "bad" areas. This of course completely neglects the facts that:
.
A. Violent crime DOES occur in the so called "good" areas.(No, surprisingly there is no invisible force field keeping criminals out of "good" neighborhoods, nor is there a truce between the law abiding and the lawless on where an innocent can and can not be victimized. Do they REALLY think that there is an anual meeting where states are divided up?) Of course when you bring this up, your argument is either ignored or dismissed as rediculous, regardless of how many examples of horific crimes which occured in "good" neighborhoods you post...
.
B. Regardless of "A", some people don't have the luxury of getting to choose not to go to the "bad" areas. Once again, arguing this is pointless. The gun banners obviously think that these people are insignificant. Who cares if they are victimized? Who cares if they are killed? The =>IMPORTANT<= thing is that those wanting gun bans CAN avoid the "bad" neighborhoods. Unfortunately, you'll find that more often than not, when it comes right down to it, the gun bigots value the life of the violent criminal above the life of the person that criminal is trying to victimize. Deep down, they are appalled at the thought of a law abiding citizen using lethal force to defend their lives or their family. This gives you a bit of insight into the sick mind of the gun bigot.
.
End of part 1 of 2

Begin part 2 of 2
.
2. The Jet Li wannabes who will swear up and down that they can handle any and all threats (whether that threat is armed or not) with only their bare hands. To all of you gun bigots out there who fall into category 2: LIFE IS NOT A MOVIE! It's called reality, people. Get in touch with it! Those of us who carry defensive firearms accept that we are not superman, and as such are not so deluded. Regardless, however, they *feel* that since (they claim) THEY believe they can physically overpower an attacker, then EVERYONE should be forced to rely on physical resistance, or submit to being victimized. The elderly, the handicapped, and the women of small stature are unimportant. "Acceptable loss" I guess would be the term..
.
3. They admit that, if it were to come right down to it, they would either run away (those who know how to deal with threats can tell those who reckon, feel, and figure that turning your back on a threat is NOT a good idea) or cower in the hopes that someone will come to their rescue.
.
Of course, this someone comes in the form of someone armed with a gun. Whether it be a police officer, or an armed citizen, they DEPEND on the very people they call dumb to get them out of a jam when their personal philosophy leaves them helpless to attackers. And they call them dumb for the VERY REASON they end up depending on them. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
.
But, there really is no point arguing with people like this, because the truth is that they don't REALLY think, they certainly don't reason, and they are completely unable or unwilling to look at the facts and arrive at a logical conclusion. All they can muster is to "feel" that their opinion is right, and (by extension) everyone else is dead wrong. Kind of similar to the old saying "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story."

THE GUNS FORUM

FORUM ISSUE: Guns: What now?

POST# 89

BY: The Bald Guy

FACT: Violent crime exists, and innocent people ARE victimized.
It happens every day, and there is no denying it.
Now, people can take two approaches to this:

1. They can pretend that they will be unaffected for whatever reason.

A. They pretend violent crime doesn’t exist. This is called “denial,” which is “a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality.”
( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/den ...)
.
This is commonly considered to be an act of fear or weakness. I can’t help but associate this with my little nephew hiding his eyes during the “scary” parts of Scooby-Doo.
.
B.”I avoid bad neighborhoods/areas.”[Said the trembling voice from under his/her bed] Some people CAN’T avoid the so called “bad” areas. Other people don’t wish to have their actions governed by the lawless. It kind of irritates me that people actually feel there are areas where they can’t go because criminals are there, and expect me to abide by this rule as well. I go where I want, when I want. To let criminals choose for you doesn’t seem very “brave” to me…
.
Or the corollary: "Hey, I only go to 'good' neighborhoods, so I won't be affected" Unfortunately, criminals don't respect the imaginary borders between "good" neighborhoods and "bad" ones. The fact is that violent crimes can and do happen anywhere at any time. Deep down, everyone HAS to know this. I don’t know, doesn’t this sound like denial again?
.
C. "The police will protect me. It's their job." I can't speak for the UK, but here in the US the police have no legal responsibility for the safety or well-being of individual citizens. They can actually choose not to help. Couple that with the fact that the vast majority of the time, there won't be an officer present when you need them. Let's face it, only the dumbest of criminals would attack someone right in front of law enforcement... So to claim this is yet another example of denial, and yet another act of fear.
.
D.“I use my brain to handle threats.” I’ve already covered this in another post, but I can’t help but wonder what they think they will do if they are ever attacked.“LOOK! A DISTRACTION!” Denial again?
.
Similarly, they claim they can use their fists to handle it. In selecting D they claim that they are prepared, and ready to handle it. But in reality, they are just pretending. They are convincing themselves that they will be able to handle it naturally so that they won’t have to deal with their deep down crippling fear of ever actually being faced with a threat.
.
Or 2: They can honestly prepare themselves to deal with it. This goes far beyond claiming you can think your way out of it or handle it with your bare hands.
.
Of course, I take the *ahem*…“cowardly” approach, No. 2. I accept that a threat does exist, and that is it VERY real. I properly equip myself and prepare myself mentally to face this threat, should (god forbid) it ever come to that.
.
And then, I go where I darn well please, whenever I darn well please knowing that, no matter what happens, I’ve done the best I can to prepare for it. There aren’t many situations I’ll run into that I won’t be able to handle. Sounds like I’m just full of fear, doesn’t it?

Via The Bald Guy
.
You'll find that what it all seems to boil down to is gun control advocates place a higher value on the life of criminals than they do on the lives of victims.
.
They ALWAYS look down upon people who are forced to resort to lethal force to defend their lives.
.
They ALWAYS make wild assumptions and accusations about that victim.
.
They seem to believe that law abiding citizens should willingly give criminals whatever they want (including the victims life, if that is what the criminal is after) in order to prevent any harm whatsoever coming to the criminal.
.
It's really rather perverse.

Sotomayor does not believe the constitution bestows the right to bear arms to individual citizens. She interprets the right to bear arms as a civilian militia ... as in National guard.
She would absolutely vote to revoke gun ownership.

Glasnos wrote:

Sotomayor does not believe the constitution bestows the right to bear arms to individual citizens. She interprets the right to bear arms as a civilian militia ... as in National guard.
She would absolutely vote to revoke gun ownership.

In the main, the U.S. Constitution (the USC) DOES NOT bestow ~any~ right upon us.
.
Rather, the USC is nought but a document of enumerated POWERS.
.
Not even the Bill of Rights (BoR)'gives' us anything.
.
Rather, it too is nothing but a 'bill of prohibitions' AGAINST government actions regarding ALL OF OUR rights.
.
There's not a thing in the BoR which says: The People have this, that, or any other right.
.
Virtually ALL of our rights were intact long before the USC or BoR were penned into existence.
.
Remember: Nobody can give to you that which they didn't own to begin with.
.
THINK: How can any mere man give you your rights? Where would ~he~ have gotten them?
.
If a mere man has NO authority to give that which is not his to give to begin with, then no collection of men has any authority either.
.
Therefore, no group of men —no matter how powerful— has ~any~ authority to give anyone anything which they themselves INDIVIDUALLY didn't have the power to convey.

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
In the main, the U.S. Constitution (the USC) DOES NOT bestow ~any~ right upon us.
.
Rather, the USC is nought but a document of enumerated POWERS.
.
Not even the Bill of Rights (BoR)'gives' us anything.
.
Rather, it too is nothing but a 'bill of prohibitions' AGAINST government actions regarding ALL OF OUR rights.
.
There's not a thing in the BoR which says: The People have this, that, or any other right.
.
Virtually ALL of our rights were intact long before the USC or BoR were penned into existence.
.
Remember: Nobody can give to you that which they didn't own to begin with.
.
THINK: How can any mere man give you your rights? Where would ~he~ have gotten them?
.
If a mere man has NO authority to give that which is not his to give to begin with, then no collection of men has any authority either.
.
Therefore, no group of men —no matter how powerful— has ~any~ authority to give anyone anything which they themselves INDIVIDUALLY didn't have the power to convey.

Yikes! You sound like a crazed anarchist! Certain rules must be abided by in a society.
You may shoot a rabbit from your front porch in rural areas ... but certain restrictions must apply in urban cities. You must give up certain liberties for the safety of all.