Friday, July 31, 2009
Congress / Kotz / Law and Order / Legislature / Politics Ron Ramsey Urges Vote Against Sotomayor; She Ain't Gun Enough
Posted by Pete Kotz on Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:30 PM
In an announcement this afternoon, Ramsey called on Tennesseans to urge their senators to vote against the nominee. He doesn't actually mean this, since he knows that Lamar Alexander already plans to vote yea, while Bob Corker will vote nay. But it does offer him the chance to snuggle up to gun nuts in the Republican primary:
As sponsor of Tennessee's right-to-carry law, I am deeply concerned that she will continue to ignore the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees both an individual's right to own firearms and a right to self-defense. However, Judge Sotomayor ignored this ruling and held in 2009 that the Second Amendment applies only to federal gun control measures, NOT state gun control. She is clearly willing to allow state governments to enact gun control measures which fly in the face of the constitutional right to defend our loved ones as well as ourselves. This could undo Tennessee's right-to-carry permit law in addition to other Second Amendment protections passed by the state legislature, one of which was passed over a gubernatorial veto just this year. Judge Sotomayor should not be elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court. She is a liberal judicial activist who has shown a willingness to disregard the fundamental rights found within the Second Amendment. All Tennesseans who value their right to own firearms and defend themselves should be deeply troubled by the possibility of Judge Sotomayor's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Comments (11)
Showing 1-11 of 11
OMG, this is our next Goobernor? I would have thought he would be all in love with her position on state's rights. Ain't that what his ancestors fought the War of Northern Aggression over?
like
dislike
What an idiot.
To begin with, the very case on which Ramsey relies (D.C. v. Heller)says the following: "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Justice Scalia, the opinion's author, also wrote that the opinion "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
So Ramsey is anti-states-rights now? And is he suggesting that Sonia Sotomayor is pro-states-rights?
Aye, caramba!
Tennessee might consider Arizona's suggestion: Sell the Capitol to the NRA, AT&T, etc., so there isn't any confusion about "the people's house" and such.
They should all be voting against Sotomayor anyway. If we let Obama have his way this country will be doomed.
Ramsey had my vote before this..this just confirmedhe was the best man for the job. Being pro gun has never been an electorial negative in this state. Being anti gun however is the kiss of death to political careers in this state--that's why antis like Alexander and Bredescum hide their true views!
It's long past for gunowners to start flexing their financial muscles and start contacting the anti gun Scene's advertisers and boycotting them.
Well Mark:
Scalia was wrong in that part of the decision. Shall not be infringed means EXACTLY that. Any weapon, anytime, anywhere and in any manner by anyone (whose rights have not been SUSPENDED by DUE PROCESS).
And the reason this is true is the purpose of the Second Amendment (2A) to whit: to protect the right and the ability of the people to overthrow the government if it moves on the path of tyranny. Think about ot: 3% of the gun owners are 2.7 MILLION armed citizens. How hard would it be for the government to stand against that 3%, let alone more--and many in the military and police would side with the people---as they well should!
Heller does state that, but it does state
"[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
What that says is that it is a right like the first amendment right of Free Speech--you can't say anything you want with impunity--there is slander and libel. You may be prevented from speaking your mind on private property, and there are other limitations on "free speech."
I would ask everyone to learn more about the subject. Read
1. The Bill of Rights;
2. Read the Federalist Paper #10;
3. Understand James Madison's reasons for wanting the Bill of Rights included in the original Constitution and his thoughts on the subject...
The USA population will never all agree on any subject. We need to accept the fact that people will disagree. Disagreeing with someone does not mean that "they are wrong." Remember, what is "right" for you may be "wrong" for someone else.
Hot topics where many people disagree
1. Abortion;
2. Environment;
3. Guns;
4. Other rights;
5. ...
The list is long. If we are saying those that disagree with us are wrong and that they don't need to have (insert whatever it is here...), then we are NOT trying to protect everyone's rights. What we are trying to do is become a straight democracy-something the Founding Fathers did NOT create for specific reasons (go read federalist paper #10).
We have a Republic. The Republic is supposed to, based on the Constitution, have powers given to it by the Constitution. Other "rights" are reserved to the States and to the Citizens.
In closing, I'd ask everyone to go look up the word Empathy and to think about how most of us do not use any empathy in a discussion. Rather, most people are simply arguing to support what they think is "right" rather than thinking, critically, about the issues involved in the discussion.
If you can not let go of your emotional tie to any issue, you can not have any discussion to resolve anything--you are too tied up in your emotional state to try and see the "other" side's thoughts, feelings, and beliefs.
Just a thought...
I'm not too concerned with her supposed anti-gun stance, to be honest. I really don't think she'll have a profound impact on my right to carry. The reason I don't want her on the supreme court is she's shown that she's not impartial through statements and court decisions. She's very heavily racially biased and she lets that sway her decisions in a way not befitting a supreme court justice. And if she can't act with integrity in that regard, what other facets of the job will she lack integrity in?
