Comments on: Awkward: Justice Sotomayor’s Bodyguard Shoots Would-Be Carjacker Outside Her DC Residence

By: Goodeye

Goodeye — Sat, 13 Jul 2024 15:35:17 +0000

Guns for me and not for thee.

By: Alan L Robinson

Alan L Robinson — Fri, 12 Jul 2024 21:44:03 +0000

So, according to Breyer, the “People” as written in the 2nd Amendment are NOT the same “People” as in the First and Fourth???
The very fact that he wrote that bunch of nonsense should discount his status as a Judge as well as his Law Degree.
It is an INHERENT part of Law that that which is referenced in one Law as established Law is in ALL Laws.
One can argue nonsense in many matters, but NOT in Law. In Law, words and definitions MEAN just that, otherwise we would have a bunch of willy nilly garbage in our Justice system. Had he said that in an actual Court as an Attorney, the Judge would have his fanny for such a preposterous claim.
As for the rest of it, the Federalist Papers are chock full of the Founding Fathers thoughts on that subject, and ONLY a fool would argue otherwise. Which is why I believe MOST Democrats are fools.
The man is a Buffoon, plain and simple.

By: Hush

Hush — Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:57:57 +0000

Sotomayor and those like her twist and attempt to redefine the clear text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights while tromping the rights of We the People underfoot. She and others seem to think: 1- they know better, 2 – their views are correct just because they say so. Something is missing in their education when they cannot read and comprehend what We the People have no problem understanding. They are hypocrites. Their disdain for the Constitution, they swore to protect, should be sufficient grounds for their immediate dismissal.

By: .40 cal Booger

.40 cal Booger — Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:26:47 +0000

“…the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’ No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental.”

That’s a lie.

There is nothing in the constitution or Bill of Rights that says civilian (or federal) ‘law enforcement’ has a ‘fundamental’ ‘right to self-defense’.

Its derived from the very principal of ‘private rights’…that an individual has certain fundamental inherent rights privately and personally held – one of which is ‘self defense…. be they federal/civilian law enforcement OR a individual citizen not law enforcement, has an inheret natural, private, and personal ‘right to self-defense’.

If its not true that individuals have fundamental inherent rights privately and personally held, then why, for example, was slavery abolished ?

SCOTUS has for 200 years established an underlying theme that fundamental inherent rights privately and personally held exist and are a thing intended by the founders.

By: Johnny LeBlanc

Johnny LeBlanc — Wed, 10 Jul 2024 03:08:50 +0000

Breyer was a communist.

By: Dad

Dad — Tue, 09 Jul 2024 21:37:33 +0000

Breyer was an idiot too.

By: Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR

Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR — Tue, 09 Jul 2024 20:31:30 +0000

I hope SNW will call her office to see if her opinion on armed self-defense has changed since the incident…