It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Elena Kagan's threat to gun owners (Obama's Supreme Court Nominee)

page: 1
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   

President Obama poses a real and present danger to the Second Amendment, and he's working to pack the Supreme Court with justices who will undermine Americans' gun rights.

Mr. Obama didn't fess up to this radical agenda when running for the highest office in the land. "I have said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on," Mr. Obama told Fox News in June 2008. Despite the campaign rhetoric, Mr. Obama is appointing judges who strongly oppose that position. The most recent pick, Elena Kagan, ran much of President Clinton's war on guns from 1995 to 1999.

When Ms. Kagan served as Mr. Clinton's deputy domestic policy adviser, she was a feverish proponent of gun control. From gunlock mandates to gun-show regulations, she was instrumental in pushing anti-gun policies, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Every court nomination counts. Two years ago, the Supreme Court barely mustered a narrow 5-4 majority to strike down the extreme District of Columbia gun ban. Should Justice Anthony Kennedy or one of the four more conservative justices retire or die while Mr. Obama is in office, the high court likely will undo such narrow victories for the Second Amendment. While Ms. Kagan was nominated to replace the liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, and thus won't swing the court in a new direction, her being there will necessitate that gun owners concentrate more than ever on fighting outright gun bans.

Ms. Kagan's defenders acknowledge her liberal political views but claim that as a judge, the former Harvard Law School dean will somehow manage to separate her judgments from her political opinions. The hitch is that her legal views correspond with her political views. When Ms. Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, she wrote, "I'm not sympathetic" to the claim that "the District of Columbia's firearms statutes violate [an individual's] constitutional right to 'keep and bear Arms.' "

Her memos to Justice Marshall foreshadow an activist judge who wouldn't hesitate to fall back on her own personal views to override policy decisions made by elected officials. She clearly counseled Justice Marshall on how he should rule based upon whether she thought policies made "sense." Take her advice in the case of Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, in which an appeals court stopped federal agencies from issuing a permit to build a ski lodge in a national forest. Ms. Kagan might feel that stopping ski resorts from such building makes "policy sense," but that isn't the job of a judge.

Ms. Kagan is Justice Sonia Sotomayor's soul sister when it comes to gun control. Last year, during her confirmation hearings, Ms. Sotomayor insisted the Supreme Court had never found that an individual right to self-defense exists. Two of Justice Sotomayor's own appeals court decisions came to the same conclusion. One ruling denied there is an individual right to self-defense. In another case, even after the Supreme Court struck down the District's gun ban, Judge Sotomayor opined that any restrictions on self-defense would pass constitutional muster so long as politicians who passed it said they had a good reason...

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Source: www.washingtontimes.com...

It looks like this Elena Kagan is a nightmare to freedom, liberty, justice and the American way of life. A month or two ago, I started a thread, titled "Elena Kagan's role in the 9/11 cover-up (Obama's latest Supreme Court nominee)", about Kagan's extraordinary effort to aid in the cover-up of 9/11 and skirt justice for those affected by 9/11. In addition, member "boondock-saint" started a thread about Elena Kagan's financial ties with Saudi Arabia and the Bin Laden family, titled "Kagan Has Saudi, Bin Laden Money Ties".

I truly fear that gun-owners are going to be targeted next and if Obama is re-elected in '12, banning fire-arms will be on the top of his agenda, if he doesn't do it this term. The people that Obama chooses to surround himself with are scary to say the least. We have Elena Kagan, who is not only against the 2nd Amendment but also appears to be complicit in the 9/11 cover-up. Then, we move along to Cass Sunstein, an advisor to Obama who is against the very notion of the 1st Amendment and who has proposed "Stalinist" measures (far worse, actually) to clamp down on free speech on the internet, among other horrible things.

The 1st and 2nd Amendments both are extremely important to preserve or win back freedom for all, regardless of where you are on the false left-right paradigm of our current two-party political system. The 1st Amendment is particularly important so that the people can organize against political corruption and voice our opinions to preserve, or try to preserve our own interests. The 2nd Amendment is important to ensure that our other liberties are preserved.

"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

Our founding fathers did not include the 2nd Amendment because we have the right to hunt, collect or use fire-arms for sport. Our founding fathers included the 2nd Amendment in our Bill of Rights to ensure that the will of the people is maintained. The 2nd Amendment has already been belittled so much that it would hardly be affective for its intended purpose, but at least it is something. Without it, we would not have a safety net.

You always hear the politicians say something to the affect that "we don't need weapons that are engineered with purpose of killing people, such as assault rifles. They aren't made for hunting and therefore the American people shouldn't own them". I have to completely disagree. We do need the weapons that are made to kill people. Remember, our 2nd Amendment was created as a last resort to beat back a tyrannical government, not so that we could hunt and not even so much that we could protect ourselves from criminals. The people need a way to compete with government in a physical manner, if it ever comes to that. This is why it is paramount for the preservation of freedom and liberty, that we are allowed to arm ourselves with weapons that are built for the purpose of killing.

I'm not violent and don't agree with violence but the reality is that others will use violence to achieve their political goals and if we are to survive in this big bad world with the freedom to pursue peace, we need to ensure that we can meet that violence and over-come it, if need be. Regardless of whether you are left, right or somewhere in between, we can all agree on freedom and the pursuit of happiness and those ideals aren't obtainable if have no way to pursue them.

If you don't like weapons, then don't arm yourself. Leave the weapons to those who are comfortable with using them. You shouldn't keep others from those weapons because in the end, it will be those weapons that your freedom will rely on. This is not a left-right issue, rather it is an issue of freedom. If you are scared about crime or criminal violence, just know that these criminals don't abide by the law anyway and so will arm themselves regardless. You are only disarming the good-guys.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." --Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccararia in 1764

--airspoon

Edit: italic tags

[edit on 14-6-2010 by airspoon]




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
great thread

flagged, Obama hates Americans, and loves power, big government and the ability to castrate us all



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Great thread..
You just have to wonder why the "founding fathers" scripted a constitution so open to interpretation..
Or is it just the Supreme Court making it sound that way???

BTW, In Australia they took our guns in a few years.....
Hope you yanks keep yours to save us...



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   
The Japanese Emporer when asked why he didn't attack mainland America said something along the lines of "In America there is a weapon behind every blade of grass".

This is what keeps countries out.

The country that invaded China didn't want to come our way, because our citizens are armed to the teeth, and that's how we like it!



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by At0mZer0
 


True, we were just an average household in Australia but we had 3 shotguns and 2 rifles for sport....

They all dissapeared in the Gun Control following the BS in Port Arthur,
where one guy supposidly killed over 30 people with an accuracy that an SAS vet cant match....BTW, the guy had zero gun training......

We in Australia were the test bed..Hang tough US....
Check this out...Tell me it makes sense...

On the 28th April 1996, an unknown marksman opened fire on diners in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Australia. In less than 20 minutes at this and five other crime scenes, the marksman killed 35, injured 22, and crippled two cars with only 64 shots.

conspiracynews.org...

Yes you can question the site but you can also look elsewhere, even the Goverment cant change the facts...



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by At0mZer0
 

Thank you for your contribution and while I agree with the premise (though I've never heard of it), I think we have more to worry about our own internal threats, rather than external.

“I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principles of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale” --Thomas Jefferson

I think this could be applied to corporatism and fascism as well.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   
This is scary for gun owners however; I imagine the PTB could take everything away from us at this point. But when Deputy Dog shows up on the doorstep, that will be the final straw.
I live in a neighborhood full of old WWII veterans these guys are hard core about how America used to be and how it is now.
I know one thing these guys are of the “from my cold dead hands” slant.
Any enemy foreign OR domestic better pack a lunch.
S&F to the OP



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   
So tired of hearing about this guy Obama and all his chronies blatant anti American policies, it makes me sick! You are right btw, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting it's about the people protecting themselves from an out of control government, much like the current mess. They have indeed managed to really take the sting out of the amendment, which I truly think should protect the right for folks to carry anything they choose. Some would argue the thought of a citizen with say a tank is ridiculous but it is not. There will always be bad/ignorant people and current laws still don't stop criminals from owning what they want but a real American has the right to defense from the tyrannical government and would learn to use their weapons correctly and responsibly. Long live the Republic and down with the NWO!



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


Yeah, I agree. However, when those old-timers die off and this newer more liberal generation takes over, there will be nothing to stop them. The new generation in this country has been indoctrinated to believe that government is the answer to everything and that we really should have no say in the government's policies. It's sad but true.

I was just looking over the gun laws in my own state and couldn't help but to think that our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves. The entire intent behind the 2nd Amendment has been completely lost. In a lot of places, people have to get permits (seek permission) to purchase fire-arms (not carry) and then there are so many restrictions to who can even purchase fire-arms. In one state in particular, I would say a good 60 - 70% of the people are ineligible to even purchase a fire-arm or possess one at home. Then, the guns you can have, are only those that are made for sport, with limited ammunition capacity and even those have to be registered and you need a permit to purchase. Just jumping through the hoops to purchase one is a daunting task. The 2nd Amendment has been rendered almost completely ineffective. These are sad times that we are living in.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 

Kagan...walks like a duck, talks like a duck, is a duck. Not surprised, really, in the least.

"to the final 'conflict'..."


[edit on 14-6-2010 by davidmann]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Great, well thought out thread.
Good job, as always.


Here's what it boils down to.
These people don't understand enough.

They will NEVER get my guns, because they cannot abolish my 2nd amendment right.
Put me in jail along with millions of others...good luck.
There is no more arguement beyond that.
This new justice can say or write down whatever opinion she has, and it still is meaningless.
I know my rights...
I know when they are infringed, and I will not accept any form of gov't that goes against my constitution. Period.

They wanna try to strip away the 2nd?

Bring it!




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


Thank you! Anyway, this is how I see it playing out:

There will be an incident like a school shooting or even a mall shooting by a tea-party activist and then maybe another one within weeks. The government will then use this as an excuse to ban all weapons except for hunting rifles - as in bolt action and small caliber hand-guns. This way, they can say that our 2nd Amendment is still upheld.

Then, anyone who refuses to hand over their weapons, will be labeled as terrorists and quickly rounded up and prosecuted. The government will have almost the full support of the American people and any forceful action on their part will be completely justified. Due to the advancement of less than lethal weapons, many gun owners who refused, will still be taken in alive. Most people however, like to say, "from my cold-dead hands" but when it comes down to it, they will give up their weapons. In another 30 years (if our economy hasn't yet collapsed), people will still think they have a 2nd Amendment because of their "allowed" bolt-action 30-06 or 30-30.

It will most likely play out in a similar way, though give or take a variable. It could also come about as some new world government or even North American government, which would render our Constitution obsolete. Any opposition to this new gun-ban, will be seen as opposition to the new government and you will be made to look like a racist and bigoted terrorist for not wanting world peace and diversity through the new government. All of these submissive, brainwashed and indoctrinated sheeple will be lead to believe that since the Constitution was written so long ago, it doesn't take into account our current sociopolitical climate, though it certainly does, it's called the Amendment process. I know that I for one, would rather die than live oppressed with no hope of freedom, though due to our 1st Amendment being gone, I won't have a means to communicate and organize any kind of opposition.

The truth is, people are being indoctrinated to accept an authoritarian state. Another thing why people can seem to wake up, is because the authoritarian state of tomorrow is not maintained the same way as that of yesterday. In the times of past, governments would use physical force to control their people. In these times, governments use other methods, such as economic and psychological, though the end results are the same.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
I love the obvious hypocrisy of all these anti-gun politicians.

Disarm our military and then we'll talk about disarming the citizens.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFinalTruth14
 


That's a good way to put it. People have lost contact with the Constitution or its intent. We are indoctrinated (or brainwashed, call it what you like) since before grade school. How many times have you tried to awaken people, only to hear them use the excuse, "so what, there isn't much we could do about it anyway". This way of thinking is due to the indoctrination. We have been indoctrinated to believe that the government is bigger than us, when in reality, our government is supposed to only be an extension of us. We are being made to think that we don't have a say in what our government does. Collectively, if we believe this, then we don't. Because this way is the only way that we've known, we don't see anything that wrong with the idea. We think it's the norm or "just how it is".

I am convinced that TPTB are using the collective to control us.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I would LOVE to argue this with you and tell you that you are 100% wrong, but I would be the fool so...



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


Yeah, it's kind of a shame. Did anyone else read the thread about the US trying to get drones to fly in the US? We wouldn't have a chance in hell with those things.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


What is this weird fearful obsession some people have with guns ? if there were no guns people would kill with knives if there were no knives people would kill with sticks if there were no sticks people would kill with rocks if there were no rocks people would kill with there bare hands if people had no hands people would kill with there feet if people had no feet they would kill with there heads and so on and so on and so on .
You cant take away peoples ability to kill we should take away there desire to kill .



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hiluxxulih
 


Right! What we definately can't do, is create an inequality in the methods to kill because a balance is all we can really hope for. Disrupt that balance and things won't be pretty. The balance is already disrupted enough.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
With the drones that will soon be flying the skies, any resistence at all we be futile anyway, lest you want your family murdered.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Oh, I have a feeling Obama will be reelected. after looking at his palm on this thread I will have to say he will be reelected in 2012. He has too much luck and fate on his side.

Somebody wants to take America down and they know first they have to take away the guns from american people.

Sad indeed.....



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join