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
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.
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
", 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
" 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
"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
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
Edit: italic tags
[edit on 14-6-2010 by airspoon]