(Opinion) Gun Owners Say Rabidly Anti-Gun Sotomayor is Unacceptable

By Gun Owners of America

You are seeing 3 Comments. See all 13 Comments on this Opinion.
Regarding Opinion
Gun Owners Say Rabidly Anti-Gun Sotomayor is Unacceptable
  • Stark Raving Sane
    Are all gun supporters high?

    Okay, I'm a moderate, and I do believe that the second amendment speaks to a right to own guns . Common sense dictates that limits are in the best interest of all, gun owners or not. But if I do decide to get a pistol for target shooting or a shotgun for, well never mind, it's a fundamental right. Like the right to life (universal health insurance ), or the right to free speech (make a fool of yourself on talk radio - for money ), but I don't believe for a minute that it's possible to assemble a Supreme Court which would invalidate the fundamentals of the Constitution.

    Because political control of the government tends to swing from right to left, it would take a hundred year rule by anti-gun radicals to actually pass the bills, get them signed and have the Supreme Court uphold new law that effectively changes the Constitution.

    It would be far easier to pass a Constitutional amendment repealing the second amendment. That effort would most likely bankrupt the NRA with media buys. But relax folks, the majority only wants to stop the silliness and make sure that criminals don't get their hands on guns. Slippery slope arguments have been around forever and frankly just don't hold water.

    If you believe that the right to bear arms was codified so that a hostile government couldn't take control of America, you are, by definition, thinking like an anarchist at a minimum, and a terrorist at the outer limits of logic. Stop it. Nobody but Bank of America wants your crummy little house. Yes, Sotomayor is tough on crime , but that's a good thing....unless you think the golden rule is "quaint".

    The American system begins with the notion that all rights are granted by our creator to the individual. From there, the people assign responsibility to protect them, and their rights to the government (consent of the governed). Independence Day is almost here, so relax, thank God you live in a great and powerful country which allows you to go out to the gravel pit and plink at tin cans with your Winchester or Glock. BTW, when buying your next gun support your neighbors by buying American.

    And support Judge Sotomayor for confirmation. Most likely she has your best interests in mind, and most likely isn't going seduce Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia into taking a "liberal" stance.

    Let me be the first to wish you a happy Independence Day.

    - Stark Raving SaneUS May 30, 2009 2:26AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • KentMcManigal
      "Common sense" is often wrong

      Fundamental rights are not subject to limits. That would be a "privilege"; not a "right".

      The supreme court has already chosen to invalidate government protections of many fundamental rights. Fortunately, rights do not come from government or The Bill of Rights. If the Second Amendment were repealed, the right to own and to carry weapons would still exist just as strongly as ever, just as it does in states, cities, and countries around the world whose criminal governments have chosen to violate that right. The violation of individual rights is a litmus test to see if a particular government is legitimate or not. None pass.

      A "right" can not overlap someone else's rights. That is why there is no right to "universal healthcare ". In order to provide that, you must violate other people's right to keep their own proporty (through "taxation"), and violate the rights of the doctor's to run their business as they see fit.

      There is nothing you can do to keep "criminals" from getting guns . All such "laws" only affect the honest person. This is why all gun "laws" cause crime rates to increase. Aggressors on both sides of the badge love unarmed targets.

      The right to "keep" (to own) and "bear" (to carry) arms is a basic human right. A right can be respected or it can be violated. It can not be legitimately "limited", "rationed", "licensed" or otherwise infringed, regardless of what control freaks may say.

      It is like the false statement about not having a right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You DO have that right, but you will also be held accountable if you do it and cause harm.

      You have an undeniable human right to own and to carry, everywhere you go, any type of weapon you wish, in whatever manner suits you without asking anyone's permission. Ever. You do NOT have a right to use that weapon to harm innocent people. Will that offend anti-liberty types? Yes, but since there is no right to not be offended (such a right would necessarily overlap other peoples' REAL rights), that is just too bad.

      - KentMcManigal June 1, 2009 1:46PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • richardsonkr
      We are not high, we are not crazy.

      We just understand that we have rights, and these rights are important. We also understand that just because "common sense" dictates that our rights be overruled, does not mean that they should be. A few years back, a big deal was made over illegal wire tapping. It was a common sense part of the War on Terror. It also violated the Constitution. Gun/arms control, of any kind, is absolutely wrong for the same reason. Notice I added "arms" in there, and not just guns . There is a reason for this. The Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is what keeps all of the others around. We cannot rely on the government to stay honest. The government must be afraid of the people, NOT vice versa. For this reason, the right to own military grade not only firearms but ALL arms, is not to be infringed. Taking our Constitutional rights away and justifying it with "safety" is absolutely wrong, whether it's wiretapping or disarmament.

      Now, safety cannot be completely disregarded, of course. The way to maintain order is to punish harshly those who use their arms inapropriately. The reason, the real reason, that the liberal leadership wants to restrict our rights is because they want to abolish the death penalty and harsher punishment. Note, I am not an advocate of cruel and unusual punishment, as that would be Unconstitutional, but the death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual, and the Constitution specifies that it must be both to be forbidden. Taking away our weapons to justify abolishing punishment is logical, but not Constitutional, and must be stopped. The same is true of attempting to promote healthy living. If they are going to be paying for your health care , they have a right to dictate how you live. I say this is unacceptable. If I want to drink, smoke, and eat my way into an early grave, that is my RIGHT, no matter how logical it may be for the government to stop it.

      - richardsonkrUS June 1, 2009 9:01PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.