9mm v. .45

We shall see. If anyone of the people mentioned by you and JD propose legislation on the national level within say, the next 6 months, to totally ban handguns,I will come to you, hat in hand, and say you were correct. On the other hand, I would expect the same from you and JD if nothing like that happens. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Let's say, "four years", and remember, Sotomayor has already ruled that individuals have no Constitutional right to bear arms; which is the very judicial activism the Kool Aid sotted libertards have been seeking as the threshold to banning all guns.

I will repeat, and I'll try to type veeeerrrrry slowly so even you can understand.

It does not matter what anyone said in the past. Their current positions on the subject are what matters. NO ONE on the national political scene is calling for a ban of all handguns. When Obama, Biden, Feinstein, et. al. come out TODAY and do so, then I'll believe you. Until then, it's just BS that you are spreading.

I once said I'd never vote for a Democrat for President. That was until the Republican party put up McCain/Palin as candidates. Times change. Conditions change. People's opinions change. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

What a naive, uninformed statement...even for a libtard on this board. Of course what people said, did, or didn't do in the past has a bearing on any current political situation.

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it..." (George Santayana, Reason in Common Sense)

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it..." (George Santayana, Reason in Common Sense) Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Speedy, remembers the past. His purpose here is to obfuscate the past actions of Odumbo, et al, until they can enact their anti-gun agenda.

Let's say, "four years", and remember, Sotomayor has already ruled that individuals have no Constitutional right to bear arms; which is the very judicial activism the Kool Aid sotted libertards have been seeking as the threshold to banning all guns. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Let's say until legislation comes down for increased gun control of any kind. That will be step 1 in proving you wrong.

Sotomayor's responsibility is to interpret the law. She cannot initiate legislation. So she will not be involved at all in any gun control law coming before Congress. She interprets the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution as saying there is no "fundamental" right that she can find in it that gives individuals the right to bear arms for private self-defense purposes. NOWHERE in the statement in your post #46 does she say she personally does not believe that individuals do not have the right to bear arms for private self-defense purposes.

What a naive, uninformed statement...even for a libtard on this board. Of course what people said, did, or didn't do in the past has a bearing on any current political situation.

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it..." (George Santayana, Reason in Common Sense) Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Sorry Conservatard. You believe what you will no matter how incorrect. Comparing the U.S. today to Nazi Germany in 1930 is an unbelievable stretch, even for you Conservative idiots.

I'll be more than happy to add you to my "bet" with the other 2 Conservatards regarding future gun legislation. Deal? Or chicken?

Barack Obama, "I don't think people should be able to own guns." See also questionnaire @:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM43...re_091096.html

Janet Reno, “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Janet Reno's quote seems like something a politician might think but probably wouldn't say out loud.

Do you have a link to some video of her saying that or a transcript of an interview or speech?

Let's say until legislation comes down for increased gun control of any kind. That will be step 1 in proving you wrong.

Sotomayor's responsibility is to interpret the law. She cannot initiate legislation. So she will not be involved at all in any gun control law coming before Congress. She interprets the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution as saying there is no "fundamental" right that she can find in it that gives individuals the right to bear arms for private self-defense purposes. NOWHERE in the statement in your post #46 does she say she personally does not believe that individuals do not have the right to bear arms for private self-defense purposes. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Justice Sotomayor, ‘I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as “fundamental” insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes. Nor can I find any justification for interpreting the Constitution as transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms from democratically elected legislatures to courts or from the States to the Federal Government. I therefore conclude that the Fourteenth Amendment does not “incorporate” the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear Arms.”’

Janet Reno's quote seems like something a politician might think but probably wouldn't say out loud.

Do you have a link to some video of her saying that or a transcript of an interview or speech? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Google is your friend.

It is always hard to look at a comparison between the times, culture, or tactics of Nazi Germany and the United States without the progressives just losing it. I have never heard anyone directly compare the two entities. What I have seen, and what I have done, is compare the culture or tactics. Look at the culture of the 1920s and 30s in Germany. The Nazi party pretty much set out to shout down anyone who disagreed with them using intimidation and violence. They wore matching outfits and moved in units just like SEIU and union thugs. They were not there to discuss, they were there to beat people down and disrupt. When they got in power they increased their efforts insteading of being happy just being in charge. They controlled the majority of the media and the legislature. If anyone who could not be physically beaten down like a party of important person they were attacked in the press.

The same could be said about almost any totalitarian regime; Franco, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Pol Pot, but Hitler has always been the go to guy because he got followed the rules and got elected which makes Hitler very unique among dictators.

Justice Sotomayor, ‘I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as “fundamental” insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes. Nor can I find any justification for interpreting the Constitution as transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms from democratically elected legislatures to courts or from the States to the Federal Government. I therefore conclude that the Fourteenth Amendment does not “incorporate” the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear Arms.”’
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Very good!!! Now show me where she states a personal opinion by her that states she is against guns in the hands of citizens for personal protection. She interpreted the Second Amendment to the Constitution, as is her job. She, and 3 other justices, did not believe the Second Amendment as written applied to individual rights to gun ownership. Neither do I, but I fully support everyone's right to bear arms for personal protection.

It is always hard to look at a comparison between the times, culture, or tactics of Nazi Germany and the United States without the progressives just losing it. I have never heard anyone directly compare the two entities. What I have seen, and what I have done, is compare the culture or tactics. Look at the culture of the 1920s and 30s in Germany. The Nazi party pretty much set out to shout down anyone who disagreed with them using intimidation and violence. They wore matching outfits and moved in units just like SEIU and union thugs. They were not there to discuss, they were there to beat people down and disrupt. When they got in power they increased their efforts insteading of being happy just being in charge. They controlled the majority of the media and the legislature. If anyone who could not be physically beaten down like a party of important person they were attacked in the press.

The same could be said about almost any totalitarian regime; Franco, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Pol Pot, but Hitler has always been the go to guy because he got followed the rules and got elected which makes Hitler very unique among dictators. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Well said. However, to compare the U.S. to any of those regimes and say that we should worry about that happening here -- well, I'll let you and I B worry about that. I have much more relevant things to worry about.

She can't find it because that is how SHE views it.

This is the problem

I can read a bible and say it means I can kill anyone I want that kills someone because the eye for an eye thing.

Liberals will look at it as no you cant and conservatives will look at it as yes you can.

Its simple.

Who ever controls the tree house makes the rules till they no longer control the tree house. Then the rules change again.

Over and over and over again.

Very good!!! Now show me where she states a personal opinion by her that states she is against guns in the hands of citizens for personal protection. She interpreted the Second Amendment to the Constitution, as is her job. She, and 3 other justices, did not believe the Second Amendment as written applied to individual rights to gun ownership. Neither do I, but I fully support everyone's right to bear arms for personal protection. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Justice Sotomayor, ‘I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as “fundamental” insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes. Nor can I find any justification for interpreting the Constitution as transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms from democratically elected legislatures to courts or from the States to the Federal Government. I therefore conclude that the Fourteenth Amendment does not “incorporate” the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear Arms.”’

Quit being disingenuous, Speedy. That IS her personal opinion; otherwise, she would have ruled according to the "intent" of the Founding Fathers and the interpretations provided by subsequent generations of Constitutional experts and scholars.

Justice Sotomayor, ‘Quit being disingenuous, Speedy. That IS her personal opinion; otherwise, she would have ruled according to the "intent" of the Founding Fathers and the interpretations provided by subsequent generations of Constitutional experts and scholars. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If you can find a statement by her stating that then I will believe it. Otherwise, it is simply your OPINION. Times change and what our Founding Fathers thought to be correct is not always correct in today's world. Blacks can vote. 15th Amendment Women can vote. 19th Amendment. Slavery is wrong. 13th Amendment. On and on. So the intent of our Founding Fathers was not perfect. Countless court decisions at every level have shown that gun control laws are legal, and have withstood challenges for the most part.

Also there were 3 additional Justices who were in the 5-4 decision in the DC Vs. Heller ruling that agreed with Sotomayor. I assume you believe that all 4 are out to take all your guns? Even Judge Scalia in the majority opinion wrote:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

So, believe it or not, the 2nd Amendment and its interpretation varies from person to person. It is up the courts, unfortunately, to decide what is correct in TODAY'S world.

If you can find a statement by her stating that then I will believe it. Otherwise, it is simply your OPINION. Times change and what our Founding Fathers thought to be correct is not always correct in today's world. Blacks can vote. 15th Amendment Women can vote. 19th Amendment. Slavery is wrong. 13th Amendment. On and on. So the intent of our Founding Fathers was not perfect. Countless court decisions at every level have shown that gun control laws are legal, and have withstood challenges for the most part.

Also there were 3 additional Justices who were in the 5-4 decision in the DC Vs. Heller ruling that agreed with Sotomayor. I assume you believe that all 4 are out to take all your guns? Even Judge Scalia in the majority opinion wrote:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

So, believe it or not, the 2nd Amendment and its interpretation varies from person to person. It is up the courts, unfortunately, to decide what is correct in TODAY'S world. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Sotomayor's ruling is her opinion. Notice how you delineated amendments to the Constitution that substantively changed the Constitution, not the interpretation thereof. The Founding Fathers quite clearly stipulated what they intended when they adopted the Bill of the Rights, and your and Sotomayor's 'opinions' in no manner reflect or honor their intent.

So, believe it or not, the 2nd Amendment and its interpretation varies from person to person. It is up the courts, unfortunately, to decide what is correct in TODAY'S world. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No, no, no. That is NOT the court's job. The Court's job is to apply the law as it was intended to be applied by those who wrote it. "Well, the Constitution says green, but green is out of date, so we say they meant red." Bullshit. There is an abundance of material that explains EXACTLY what the Founders meant when they wrote the 2nd amendment. In this case, the Justice is either lazy or stupid.