It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sotomayor dodges gun-rights questions

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:10 AM

Sotomayor dodges gun-rights questions

The Supreme Court nominee is choosing her words carefully about the Second Amendment during confirmation hearings.

July 15, 2009

For the second day, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor dodged questions about whether she believes the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

Judge Sotomayor told senators Wednesday that the US Supreme Court had ruled in 2008 that there is an individual right to guns and other weapons. But she stopped short of revealing her thoughts on whether that right was worthy of the kind of judicial protection afforded fundamental rights like the First and Fourth Amendments.

At one point Sen. Tom Coburn (R) of Oklahoma asked Sotomayor whether he had a right to self defense.

“That is an abstract question with no meaning to me,” Sotomayor responded.

Senator Coburn persisted. “That’s what the American people want to know. Is it okay to defend yourself in your home if you are under attack?

Questions about Sotomayor’s views on the Second Amendment stem from her involvement in a New York appeals court decision in January that sharply restricted gun rights.

The three-judge panel of which she was a part said the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision applies only to the federal government. The Sotomayor panel ruled that New York and other states were free to regulate or ban weapons if they have a rational basis to do so.

........The question isn’t just hypothetical. Her panel’s decision is one of three lower court opinions currently under appeal to the Supreme Court. If the high court agrees to hear the cases, they could be argued as early as next term.

I believe that we are getting a reasonably clear view of where Judge Sotomayor stands in regards to the "fundamental right" of someone to protect themselves from life-threatening aggression.

Her response to Senator Coburn's query is tragically laughable!

I wonder if some scumbag junkie was robbing her, that she would also have such a cavalier "abstract" view concerning the question of personal defense???

The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.

"Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

[edit on 17-7-2009 by Snisha]

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:32 AM
As with Obama creating new high level government "Czars", whom he picks, not the American people voting, I believe ALL would not have been voted in by the public.

This also goes for Sotomayor, if the American people voted democratically, she would not have had a chance in hell to win.

However, she now represents the entire United States.


[edit on 17-7-2009 by breakingdradles]

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:20 PM
I just saw a news article where a car dealership was giving away(legally) AK-47s with the purchase of a car. I think you're Gun Rights are safe for now so chill out.

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:21 PM
Guns don't protect you from random acts of violence. Nor do they promote crime, or murder.

I think both sides on the gun debate are wrong.

Poverty creates crime.

Guns shoot things.

Nothing more really needs to be said.

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:38 PM

Originally posted by hawkeye1717
I just saw a news article where a car dealership was giving away(legally) AK-47s with the purchase of a car. I think you're Gun Rights are safe for now so chill out.

So you are telling ppl to chill out eh ?

Why don't I just tell you to STFU.

How about HR 45 homie ?

How about the ammunition accountability act ?

How about them waiting til near the end of his term in office
before they go after the guns.

I don't care a great deal if they renew the assault weapons ban,
but under bush they took gun ownership before the supreme
court and it squeaked by with a 5 to 4 vote.

Now that the council member of the racist hate group of La Raza
pushing for the take over of the SW US into new mestizo nation
called Aztlan will swing that vote the other way.

When that happens and all guns become illegal, you will see some
REALLY bad things happen in short order.

So wake the hell up and smell the CHANGE.

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Kaytagg
Guns don't protect you from random acts of violence. Nor do they promote crime, or murder.

I think both sides on the gun debate are wrong.

Poverty creates crime.

Guns shoot things.

Nothing more really needs to be said.

The first part I disagree with your thoughts on protection. As a tool yes they can protect you, only if you have some basic familiarity with how and when to use them. But I do agree with your assessment on promoting crime.

Poverty does not create all crime. Lots of factors i.e. mental health issues do contribute.

As the current precedent for gun rights have been long fought for the pro second amendment camp wants to know what Sotomayors stance will be. Law abiding citizens comply with the law. The idea of inflicting more unnecessary laws that will not affect the criminal is laughable. And the protection the second amendment grants is a double edged sword. It is also a responsability.

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Kaytagg
Guns don't protect you from random acts of violence. Nor do they promote crime, or murder.

I think both sides on the gun debate are wrong.

Poverty creates crime.

Guns shoot things.

Nothing more really needs to be said.

The sword does not kill, but the hand that is holding it.

You can kill with a kitchen knife, but there is no call to outlaw them.

You can kill with a roofing hammer, but there is no call to outlaw them,
etc etc ad naseum...

Poverty is largely due to the horrendous greed that has ppl
like the Rothschilds hording massive amounts of wealth,
and the same for the Rockefellers and other tremendously
greedy families around the world.

Their trillions of dollars could give sustainable housing, and
sustainable community food farms, but they will NEVER do it.

The nuevo royalty is what is causing the crushing poverty around
the world.

You will find their true goals on the Georgia Guidestones, in the book
Limits to Growth, and our new science Czar's book Ecoscience.

All of those things calls for billions to die, and never let the population
rise to its current levels again.

They have a sickness where they cannot ever have enough, and
they blame us that they can't have MORE right now.

Ppl like Ted Turner are their poster child.

They are insane.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Ex_MislTech]

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Ex_MislTech]

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:50 PM
I'm neither in opposition to Obama, nor am I a supporter. However, considering Obama's position on Gun Control, it doesn't take that great of a leap of reason to elucidate that his primary nominee for the Supreme Court would have a similar position on Gun Control and the Second Amendment.

Kudos for Senator Tom Coburn calling her out on it.

For the fact that she is being evasive on the subject speaks more loudly of her views than if she had actually replied to his question with a direct answer.

Do I think Sotomayor can do the job as a Supreme Court Justice? Yes, yes I do. Do I think that Sotomayor is purposely being evasive on a subject that she clearly has bias about for the sole purpose of not torpedoing her chances for confirmation to the position? Yes, yes I do. Should that exclude her from appointment? Hmm...that's a tough one, because honestly, would Obama nominate any alternate that didn't share his views on Gun Control? Probably not.

And considering that the US Senate no longer has enough Senators who are opposed to Gun Control to even filibuster the Confirmation, it's already a done deal and we are just going through the motions for a Confirmation that is going to happen no matter what (Senate Republicans Say They Won't Block Confirmaton of Sotomayor).

Regrettably there is nothing that can be done about it now.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by fraterormus]

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:59 PM
reply to post by fraterormus

The gun laws are just one aspect.

The fact she is La Raza and support the Reconquista movement
to make the new Aztlan out of part of the US should give ppl pause.

The fact she is a public racist should be enough.

The fact she openly admits her Belizean Grove membership
should horrify anyone of any religion that doesn't think mock
human sacrifice sends a good msg.

This is just another sign post to the 2nd civil war that is coming.

Good Luck to you all !

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Ex_MislTech]

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by Ex_MislTech

Well, the part about the world population being too large seems to be true. We can't sustain 6,000,000,000 people and have them all live the way Americans live (we're very fortunate in America). There's no debating that. We also can't depend on oil indefinitely, without the cost rising astronomically.

But there's a more important reason to keep population growth in check, and that's the Doubling Time of the world population (eg. how long it will take us to go from the current 6 billion people to 12 billion people) which is within half a human lifetime, or around 40-50 years.

40-50 years after that, you'll have 24 billion, and 50 years after that, you'll have 48 billion, and by 2200 it would be 96,000,000,000 people!

Needless to say, that can not happen. It is truly unsustainable in every sense of the word.

We could thrive on this planet with its current population, if we change the way we live (drastically) or find new sources of energy. But we can't thrive on this planet if people continue having babies unchecked, and the doubling time stays within 1 human lifetime.

Hopefully technology will come to the aid and fix the problem. Maybe by 2200, 1/3 of the population will be living in underwater super-cities. Or perhaps we'll colonize another planet in the solar system. Sounds like a fantasy, but I assure you, the only fantasy is staying on the course we're on right now, without changing anything.

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 09:42 PM
reply to post by Kaytagg

Like wild life population stabilizes right now naturally, so will the
human population on earth.

I have read your exact arguments out Limits to Growth and
Ecoscience by our new science czar.

We don't need mass sterilization of the population following
nazi eugenics programs.

Oil does not determine what the population of the earth should be,
we even know how to make oil from algae.

100,000 gal of oil per acre per year via Algae in the desert

With composting techniques mentioned in "How to save the world" our
food problems would be a non-issue.

Rabbits could feed the World

Right now farmers by law have to keep the rabbit population down in
Australia, and if the rabbits got two types of medicine there would
be a rabbit population explosion.

All this over population mumbo jumbo is just propaganda put
out by CFR, Bilderberg, the Club of Rome and other Eugenics
freaks who have Ted Turner as their poster child.

It is all a pack of lies.

I think we need to get off fossil fuels and we even now how the means
to do that via wind, solar, geo thermal, tidal power, river flow power,
ocean current power, jet stream power, and cold fusion being
experimentally confirmed.

If you put ever single human on earth in Texas they would all get
1,000 sq. ft.

Build it multi-story and you get much more space.

Just because someone takes ink and puts it on paper does not mean
it becomes the truth, many books have later been found to be wrong.

We don't live on a flat earth do we ?

The wright brothers were ignored for years and eventually it
was accepted they had achieved heavier than air flight.

We can and should stop the fossil fuels in the next 50 years.

We can and should stop the population eugenics elitists from
doing the Georgia Guidestones genocide.

If you think we need to kill off billions so the planet will live you
are either brainwashed or evil like the ppl pushing this propaganda.

Good Luck to you all !

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 10:48 PM
reply to post by Ex_MislTech

The biofuel thing sounds like a pretty good idea. If we can make that work, then our oil problems will be solved completely. Here's a little math I did on the specifics, just to be sure:

According to BP, in 2007, the USA consumed 20,680,000 barrels of oil a day.

1 barrel of oil = 42 US gallons

That's 868,560,000 gallons a day. 1 acre of land produces 274 gallons a day.
That means we would need 3,169,927 acres of land producing nothing but biofuel.

While that sounds like a lot of land, it's actually only 1/10 of 1 percent of the continental USA. However, whenever you talk about energy, you have to look at energy input to energy output (EI:EO).

That's a little ratio that tells you, for example, how many barrels of oil you have to spend to extract 1 barrel of oil. When the first oil wells went online in Saudi Arabia, that ratio might have been 1 barrel of oil to extract 70 barrels of oil. Now it's significantly higher.

What the EI:EO of biofuel is, I don't know. You also have to look at construction costs, maintenance costs, operating costs, refining costs, etc. You might be looking at spending 1 gallon of biofuel to produce 20 gallons of biofuel. That's a really bad EI:EO. I can't find any specifics on biofuel, so this aspect of the technology shall remain a mystery to me.

It does sound promising, though. I think it would be worth looking into as an alternative.

At $65.00 a barrel of oil (roughly), biofuel would need to be cheaper than $1.50 a gallon. If biofuel can do this, I'm looking forward to it.

Edit to add:

In terms of energy equivalence: 1.53 Gallons of ethanol = 1 gallon of gasoline. That means it has to be cheaper than $2.25 a gallon to produce.

It means we need more than 4,754,890 acres of land producing nothing but Biofuel.

I also went to the largest biofuel companie's website in the world, which dow chemical is investing in, and they can only produce 6000 gallons of fuel per acre per year. There is a wiki entry on them here

Which leads me to doubt the claim of being able to make 100,000 gallons per acre per year as in your youtube video.

If you go by the 6000 gallons per acre per year figure, then it's 16.4 gallons a day per acre, which would require ~53 million acres, which is actually quite a bit of land. Still not enough to make biofuel unfeasible, but startup costs would be so high they would have to be subsidized, unless you want to wait for oil to be astronomically expensive.

The good news is biofuel can still work, and algae is the way to go. The bad news is cost for a gallon of gasoline equivalent is still going to be over ~$3.00.

So get use to paying $3.00 for gas at the pump. It truly is here to stay. However, it may (and probably will) become significantly higher before there is enough biofuel alternatives to replace the majority of oil being used for fuel.

Eventually, though, when biofuels replace oil completely, the price per gallon could be as low as ~$1.00 a gallon, or less

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Kaytagg]

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:10 PM
If you think things are bad now..wait till he is in office as a lame duck with a Democratic/socialist House and Senate and gets to pick the next 3-5 replacements in the SCOTUS. We will become the most regulated citizens in the world with no way out but to take the problem in hand and institute justice under the flag of restoring a true Republic! We must get our friends and relatives to the poles and show them what we are in for. A 30% show at the poles in 2010 will assure us of a second or even a third lame duck term and law will no longer matter!

[edit on 7/18/2009 by ZindoDoone]

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by Kaytagg
It does sound promising, though. I think it would be worth looking into as an alternative.

At $65.00 a barrel of oil (roughly), biofuel would need to be cheaper than $1.50 a gallon. If biofuel can do this, I'm looking forward to it.


Yeah it won't be easy, It won't be free, nothing ever has been.

A lot of ppl forget the hidden cost of us being in the middle east.

Multiple wars, tons of cash for contracts to corrupt companies
like halliburton with "no bid" contracts.

Those giant oil tankers are not free, or the fuel to run them.

All those oil wells were not free to drill.

What price do we put on the lives of all the dead soldiers or
all the dead Iraqi's that were not fighting.

This will provide jobs, a good place for the oil companies to transition
their work force in the long to mid term.

There are lots of other solutions too like the giant solar thermal
plant going into the Sahara for Europe, large wind farms being built
here in my state of Oklahoma.

We can beat the oil addiction at some point once we get biological
hydrogen production perfected.

Biologial hydrogen production

we also just figured out how to make nano tube hydrogen fuel tanks
from carbonized chicken feathers of all odd things.

Chicken Feather Fuel Tank design ?

We have the way, we just need the will.

Good Luck to you all !

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Kaytagg
Guns don't protect you from random acts of violence. Nor do they promote crime, or murder.

Actually, a gun has on several occasions in my life protected me from a random act of violence.

Hell, there was a time when I was in college, that a WINE BOTTLE protected me from a random act of violence.

Originally posted by Kaytagg
I think both sides on the gun debate are wrong.

I'm not trying to be an ass, but why then do you feel compelled to debate this topic?

Originally posted by Kaytagg

Poverty creates crime.

Actually, would it not be a logical conclusion that a lack of morality and ethics is a far greater cause of crime?

Was Bernie Madoff poor?

Originally posted by Kaytagg

Guns shoot things.

Hammers hit things, cars drive upon things, knives cut things, paint brushes paint things, stoves cook things, pens write on things, boots walk on things, light bulbs brighten things, coolers chill things, beer cans hold things......mmmmm BEER

Originally posted by Kaytagg

Nothing more really needs to be said.

BRAVO!!! Spoken like a good Buddhist!

Your beatific statement reminds me of the Buddha's "Flower Sermon", I salute your swipe at sublime pontification!

A good teacher is better than the most sacred books.

Books contain words, and Chan cannot be transmitted by mere words. I suppose you will think, "Well, if this old man says that words are useless why does he talk so much?"

Religion has many mysteries and why teachers say that words can never suffice and then talk and talk until their students' ears turn to stone is perhaps the greatest mystery of them all.

The Buddha stood beside a lake on Mount Grdhakuta and prepared to give a sermon to his disciples who were gathering there to hear him speak.

As the Holy One waited for his students to settle down, he noticed a golden lotus blooming in the muddy water nearby.

He pulled the plant out of the water- flower, long stem, and root. Then he held it up high for all his students to see.

For a long time he stood there, saying nothing, just holding up the lotus and looking into the blank faces of his audience.

Suddenly his disciple, Mahakashyapa, smiled. He understood!

What did Mahakashyapa understand? Everybody wants to know. For centuries everybody's been asking, "What message did the Buddha give to Mahakashyapa?"

Grasshopper... Tell me now, what is the sound of one hand clapping?

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:22 AM
reply to post by Snisha

If guns protected you from violence, cops and soldiers wouldn't wear bullet proof vests. They could just block the enemy bullets with their guns, right?

Nothing is going to protect you from being assassinated, or shot in the back of the head by some gangsters out having fun. That would be what I call a "random act of violence."

If somebody drives by your house and unloads 1000 rounds from a couple semi automatic weapons, a gun is not going to do anything to protect you. Maybe if you fortify your walls and windows, you'll be safe.

White collar crimes are non-violent, and therefore the need for protection never even enters the debate. Bernie Madoff used financial manipulation and scheming to steal his money. How is a gun going to protect you from that kind of crime?

Bernie had the same motives as a random thug who holds up a liquor store -- they both wanted money and weren't willing or couldn't earn it legally.

It's tautological to say that all crimes involving theft of money are carried out to have more money. It doesn't matter who does it, or why. Could be a fortune 500 CEO, or a poor minority that just got kicked off welfare and can't get a job anywhere. The reasons they steal it are all the same.

The point I was making is that poverty leads to violent crimes, like stabbings, shootings, etc. There's a big difference between shooting somebody in the face with a shotgun, and manipulating figures on the balance sheet to fake your returns.

Money isn't at the center of all crime, that's for sure. But it does cause a hell of a lot of it. Often times the poorest of the poor resort to violent crimes to make money, while the super rich hire lobbyists to write legislative loopholes or use black box marketing to fudge the figures.

When it comes to violent crimes, IE shooting somebody, poverty is the leading cause.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:27 AM
reply to post by Snisha

Oh well its not the worst. I believe Souter dissented on DC Vs. Heller anways, no big loss but nothing gained.

I'd say that she should lose the spot because she won't answer the questions.

Don't want to let us know how you feel and what you think about issues? GTFO. We'll find someone with guts to say what they believe and that won't back down even if it loses them their job.

I find it funny that this wise, bold, latina woman won't even answer a simple question honestly. She's interviewing for a life time making, court ruling, decision position, not a job at a check stand at the super market.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Miraj]

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Miraj]

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:35 AM
reply to post by Miraj

All the judges are like that, for whatever reason.

Before you attack her for this, you should study up on the supreme court, the judicial branch of government, and law. Otherwise you're just getting angry about something you don't understand.

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:50 AM
reply to post by Kaytagg

But making fire arms illegal will solve that? The past gun laws did not make it any harder for them to be acquired illegally. As a gun owner I can safely say that I have no problem with some regulation on who can and cannot own a gun. But I do have a problem with the making of gun laws that regulate law abiding citizens under the pretense of stopping crime.

Oh and by the way a semi-auto would take some time to throw out that kind of fire. What you are thinking is a full-auto which requires a very difficult permit to own. Have you ever handled a firearm before?

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:00 AM
reply to post by hangedman13

I've shot plenty of firearms, but never owned one.

You can modify semiautos to make them automatic.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're jumping to conclusions based on reasoning similar to: "This guy doesn't say the things I say, so he must be against the things I'm for!"

I think prohibiting guns is as stupid as prohibiting drugs.

No, I don't think banning guns will solve anything. That should have been clear from my first post on this thread.

Guns and crime do not have a causal relationship (unless you make owning guns illegal

Edit to add: I also said semi autos (plural). Insert amount of guns arbitrarily to determine how fast you could shoot 1000 bullets.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Kaytagg]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in