NRA lying in wait to ambush Sotomayor -- with popguns
By David Neiwert Tuesday Jul 14, 2009 1:00pm
Sen. Orrin Hatch doggedly pursued Sonia Sotomayor today on a series of questions about the Second Amendment, since the matter of gun rights -- especially the evil President Obama Secret Plan to Take Your Guns Away -- is probably the biggest legal issue on the minds of most Utahns.
As you can perhaps see from the excerpts, Sotomayor handled them all ably (one of the rulings Hatch raised, she pointed out, was a very narrow case involving nunchucks and not guns). At one point, she had to point out that Hatch essentially wanted her to issue a ruling on cases that she might actually have before her on the Supreme Court, so she couldn't answer those.
Nonetheless, you can rest assured that the National Rifle Association and the various gun fetishists out there -- convinced that their gun rights actually are what keep us safe from government tyranny -- will find whatever she says unconvincing and denounce her anyway.
Last night, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA was on Glenn Beck's show, and he made it abundantly plain that they were going to go through the pretense of listening to Sotomayor patiently before they denounced her.
Essentially, the NRA is demanding that Sotomayor prejudge all her Second Amendment cases and pay fealty to their often cockamamie legal positions, or else they will denounce her.
Count on more of the same from the Senators they have in their pocket. Orrin Hatch being one of the more prominent.
The only thing amusing about it is realizing just utterly impotent they all really are.
Login or Register to post comments.
Or can he no longer tell the difference between his rifle and his gun?
gun nuts think that only their guns can keep them from US government tyranny but couldn't imagine why Saddam Hussein had WMDs or why the Iraqi civilians and terrorist used their guns to fight our troops by any means necessary.
If we can't even trust our own government to keep us free, why would foreigners?
Utah is number one in incest and sexual abuse. The Mormons only recently made African Americans officially human.
Orrin Hatch has blood on his hands! lots of it!
Never has any controversial excess by the right wing emerged that Orrin Hatch wasn't right there carrying water for it. You should have seen his performance at the Iran/Contra hearings back in Poppy's day, throwing puffball questions and praise at treasonous bastards like Oliver North and John Poindexter, who should have been facing a firing squad.
Venomous snakes won't bite Hatch for fear that they will themselves get poisoned.
"Utah is number one in incest and sexual abuse."
Is there anything else to do in Utah?!?
I was about to ask how powerful are they in this situation but your last sentence confirmed what I thought. They'll need viagra ammo that lasts way more than four hours to stop this nominee from becoming the next Justice of the Supreme Court.
I found it funny that they used the nunchucks case. I doubt if the founding fathers had those in mind when they wrote the constitution. She was smooth as silk today as she had to deal with some real twits. Lindsey Graham went down some long and winding road about 9-11, detainees and of course most of it was all about him.
Hey NRA member, is that a Senator in your pocket or are you just delighted to see me.
shows up to tell us about the flaming liberal that was Wayne La Pierre agin.
My dad was an NRA member and yes he had all sorts of guns plus he was a racist. I wonder if he were alive today if he would be one of these crazy people who fears the "black" president will take away all the white man's guns so they can get even for the years of slavery and the way black people have been treated for so long. I'm afraid he would have taken the bait and fallen right in line.
My dad still owns a LOT of guns. I don't know, maybe it's a Montana thing... Actually, it's more likely that competitive shooting (of all kinds) is one of the things he really enjoys in retirement.
He was a card caring member of the NRA for years, Though recently he's revealed that he's not longer a member. Hasn't been for a while. Guess they went to far into crazy town for him. No, he's not afraid a "black" president taking away his guns.
My dad was a hunter and a bragger. He liked to talk about how many guns he had and what he would do if anyone tried to break into his house. Of course when he was falling down drunk having those guns in the house and in his reach was not a reassuring feeling for a little kid.
I hate. My cousin's husband has literally an armory in his closet, he has everything from Old West era lever-action rifles to SKSs. No once have I heard him bragging about how many he has (he brags about certain rare pieces though, but it's in the same way someone brags about their classic car and he only brings it up around other gun enthusiasts). But people that who brag all the time about how many they have, just make all gun owners look like loons, then it gets even worse when they fail to properly lock their guns and someone gets shot.
wondering what he'd do to you if he reached that gun while drunk and pissed at you... aaaarrgh! so many people leading lives of quiet desperation wanting to feel big and strong, hiding behind guns and booze, scaring the bijeezy outta their families. Home oughta be the safe haven in the world and for far too many that's just not the case.
Thanks for sharing your story... my dad stopped carrying a gun when he got out of WWII. He had other ways he'd scare us, usually when booze was involved too. That behavior stopped with him though...
Jesus.
Will the NRA fart in Judge Sotomayor's general direction? That's about the only way they are going to be able to raise a big stink over her taking her seat on the court.
I'm more concerned about what my dumbass state government (California) will do than the Federal Government.
Look at this state, it's laws are still as if the Assault Weapons Ban was still in place. So I don't get the point of all this fretting about what the Federal Government is going to do about guns... oh wait, it's just right wing distraction tactics isn't it?
Guns and bibles: when Obama misspoke the truth, the right wing howled because he came close to tampering with two of their biggest manipulation devices.
That bit about the Nunchucks got me a bit confused, since I go to school in New York and have a friend who practices the Nunchucks as part of her Martial Arts training, so I decided to look up the court case they're discussing here...and I became very confused. The most recent decision made in the case, (by Sotomayor I believe) states something to the effect of "The Bill of Rights does not apply to the States, and is mainly designed to restrict Federal actions against guns."
While I like Sotomayor, this surprises me a LOT. Doesn't the 14th amendment state that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well as the federal government as a matter of Due Process?
Here's a link to the case in question...maybe someone could help me connect the dots.
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~jmm257/mvc.html
Yes, the 14th Amendment does apply the Bill of Rights to the states by it's plain language. BUT, the Supreme Court never really liked that idea. So, instead of the "full incorporation" of the Bill of Rights that the 14th plainly demands, the Court began a process of "selective incorporation" on a piecemeal basis.
So, according to the Court: states may not abridge the rights contained in the First Amendment (for example), but the right to indictment by a grand jury doesn't apply to the states.
As far as the Second Amendment, there is simply no law on the subject one way or the other. The Court has avoided Second Amendment questions for many decades until the recent D.C. case in which Second Amendment rights were found to be individual rights and the D.C. gun ban was declared unconstitutional.
But that case involved D.C., clearly Federal. What the Court will do as far as incorporating these rights as against state authority is an open question.
... only applies to the federal government.
After the 14th Amendment was passed, the protections of the Bill of the Rights were extended -- on a case-by-case basis, one amendment at a time -- to the states.
For example, after the 14th was passed: When a free-speech issue got up to the Supreme Court, the supremes decided that the 1st Amendment was extended to all the states.
Likewise the 4th (no unreasonable search & seizure) was later on extended to the states.
But some Bill of Rights issues have never been extended. For example, the 3rd Amendment which prohibits the quartering of soldiers in YOUR home (unless you want them there). The issue has never come up to the Supreme Court. So that amendment has never been extended to the states. That means that your state legislature can decide to commandeer YOUR house as living quarters for your state national guard. It's a states-rights issue. Would be an interesting case, if it ever happened.
Likewise, the 2nd Amendment has never (yet) been extended to the states because the supremes have successfully avoided having to rule on it. They've dodged the issue for decades. It's still a states-rights issue. If a person doesn't like their state gun laws, they can move to a state that suits them better. That's individual freedom.
My question to the NRA: Why do you hate states-rights so much? Why do you hate our constitution?
[Obviously, the NRA is trumpeting their bullshit to rouse the rabble -- they know perfectly well that the 2nd Amendment has never been extended to the states, and that Sotomayor applied the law judiciously. So the NRA wraps the issue in very emotional language, blended with half-truths, just to get the salivating response that they depend on.]
While I am generally sympathetic to most "liberal" positions, I do have a soft spot for firearms, both in a sporting and self-defense sort of way.
My feelings about guns are similar to my feelings about drugs: If you make them illegal, only criminals will have them. I can understand much of the anxiety that gun rights advocates have about the current state of political affairs in DC. It is unfortunate that in the past, gun rights advocates have generally ignored the other, more prescient rights of their fellow Americans (separation of Church from State, Gay and Minority rights, _Human_ rights, the right of the people *not* to be utterly fscked over by corporations, etc) in favor of some paranoid end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it fantasy where they get to kill lots of people with their AKs.
Don't get me wrong, I would like to retain possession of my assault rifle(s)... you know, in case the wingnuts actually succeed in starting their revolution and I have to defend myself against _them_.
Where it was found that 80% of guns in possession of people arrested were from friends/family, or illegal sources. Strong argument that gun bans aren't going to work too well.
Personally with the loons getting more and more agitated, I'd prefer to have a FAL if/when they start resorting to domestic terrorism. Though I agree, there are bigger fish to fry than gun laws, like health care.
about gun rights, but they're not the only people who support a wide interpretation of the Second Amendment. If anyone doubts why the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution by the men who had recently fought a war of independence: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."-Thomas Jefferson. Anyone doubt that Bushco and its followers wouldn't like to get the US disarmed?
BTW, Dave Niewart, if not gun rights, what keeps us "safe from government tyranny"? A well-reasoned argument? Sarcasm? Happy thoughts? Or the stranglehold we the people have on our representative government?
I'd like to know just what it is that keeps us safe from the criminals who run our country--you claim to know, so let's hear it!
these guys need all the votes they can get and tehyll take the "guns are the most important thing in the world" crowd and all they have to do is lie to them that theyre manhood is threatened. they use these people just like everyone else.....
i can think of about a hundred other issues more important than protecting gun ownership and firmly believe that in general if the big bad governemnt "as glen beck over-does it constantly" wants to de-weaponize its public it is heading towards a dangerous path.
and im someone who has zero interest in ever owning a firearm. i am in extreme favor of keeping them out of the hands of felons and making it harder to get rather than going to the local walmart.
Their manhood must be pretty damn fragile to begin with.
NRA = Selling BS to Bedwetting Pansies since 1871
The only part of our economy that's booming right now is gun and munitions manufacturers. Sad that that's about all we make anymore.
porno, some of the finest in the world.
--to answer directly any of the questions posed to him, this time by Glenn Beck. But here even Beck appeared weary of LaPierre's three-and-four time regurgitation of his "fundamental rights" shtick as response to any Beck question. LaPierre has done more than anybody to foment the gun confiscation fear, and continues to do so here. He is the worst representative of gun owners. Last January, as the Obama fear reached rampant levels, my gun shop owner told me he was selling two AR-15 carbines an hour. Now, as everyone wises up to LaPierre's self-interest fear mongering, sales have dropped to two carbines a day.
But as the fear and fear mongering subside and the economy worsens, many of those newly purchased guns will come back on the market (and only lightly used!)
The gun clinging instinct fades when the belly gets empty.
guns to put meat on the table. (It's safer and more sanitary than using your car.)
"in their pockets."
Shame on you Mr. Neiwert! The NRA does not have Senators in their pockets. They keep Senators in their holsters and Congressmen in their clips.
He knows Sotomayor will be confirmed. Just as he knew Obama would win. In each case he has preemptively taken to the airwaves to warn gun owners of the imminent danger upon their Rights, that Obama and Sotomayor are going to take away their guns. He is a pathetic parasite, cravenly self-interested, and probably clinically paranoid. He falls far short of speaking for the gun owners I know.
he works for the gun manufacturers...and himself
It's Christmas every day for gun manufacturers.
ago. But LaPierre toes a predictably paranoid, corporatist, right-wing line, so he gets to talk on our airwaves.
This guy is an... now wait for it........ asshole. Obama is going to take your guns, Obama is going to take your guns, Obama is going to take your guns, Obama is going to take your guns!!!
The only people who have taken guns away from anybody was when the Bush goons were sent to New Orleans during Katrina and started disarming the negroes. This happened right before they shot them I think but I can't be sure.
Interesting topic to me. Especially on the day after Governor Jan Brewer, (R) (replacing Janet Napalitano) signs into law the ability for people to carry handguns into Arizona area Bars. Of Course, the gun carriers aren't supposed to drink when they are in the bars, but heck...if they are carrying a concealed weapon, who's gonna know if they have a few drinks?
Yeah. Alcohol and Guns sound good together, don't they?
As good as guns and churches. Well, maybe not that good. Or guns and National Parks.
that law. Because if there is a place you want people packing heat is somewhere that has lots of alcohol, drunkards and high potential for drama.
"what could possibly go wrong...." (tm)
What's the proper alcohol for a .45? I think shots of JD would compliment it nicely.
Wild Turkey is really the beverage of choice for .45 users - it brings a little more "heat".
injuries. I like to think of this law as "Darwin's little helper," but I hope Arizona's bars have "shooting" and "non-shooting" sections.
Worked for Cheney.
Didn't Tennessee recently pass that same law? Mixing gun powder and alcohol just doesn't seem wise to me.
"Bitter Clingers"
disregard
If you want to bust the NRA's Second Amendment scam, Try to buy a 50 cal. machinegun and a rocket propelled grenade launcher, then fight all the way to SCOTUS for the right to do so.
If certain weapons operable by an individual are reserved for military use only, then assault rifles can similarly be restrricted.
http://www.countrysurvival.com/wp-content/upl...
http://www.losgatosobserver.com/los-gatos/art...
How f### u# is a political party that would promote the possession of Nunchuks as a basic right but deny the same for health care, food, housing?
but don't distort the argument. You can have weapons, health care, food and housing IF you can afford them. If not, well, good luck trying to find some of that "compassionate conservatism" we've heard so much about.
Login or Register to post comments.