Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: NRA Opposes Sotomayer

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News....aspx?ID=12702


    Joint Statement On Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Nomination To The United States Supreme Court

    Thursday, July 16, 2009
    WAYNE LAPIERRE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
    AND
    CHRIS W. COX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION - INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION

    Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate’s role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee – if confirmed – would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America’s 80 million gun owners.

    From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

    It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.

    Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.

    In last year’s historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual’s right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.
    This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms – it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.
    We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

    - NRA -
    Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
    This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
    11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683




    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  2. #2
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    Why did the NRA wait until the last minute to oppose this lamer?
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    519

    Post imported post

    The NRA probably came to the conclusion that Sotomayor will get confirmed no matter what they do and no matter when they do so. Perhaps they concluded it was a waste time fighting the inevitable. The forces of darkness and oppression in the Senate pretty much have enough votes to do whatever they want. I'm hoping and praying that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito remain healthy and survive this president.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    After watching the confirmation hearings closely, I would be willing to bet that Sotomayor would vote in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment unless the Maloney case is reviewed.

    If Maloney goes forward she will recuse herself.

    I also do not think that she will vote to overturn Heller: while she would probably have voted against it if she were on the Court last year, she now views it as settled law.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    After watching the confirmation hearings closely, I would be willing to bet that Sotomayor would vote in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment unless the Maloney case is reviewed.

    If Maloney goes forward she will recuse herself.

    I also do not think that she will vote to overturn Heller: while she would probably have voted against it if she were on the Court last year, she now views it as settled law.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    After watching the confirmation hearings closely, I would be willing to bet that Sotomayor would vote in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment unless the Maloney case is reviewed.

    If Maloney goes forward she will recuse herself.

    I also do not think that she will vote to overturn Heller: while she would probably have voted against it if she were on the Court last year, she now views it as settled law.
    The votes are there for incorporation with or without her.

    That is not what scares many here Donkey and you know it.

    Now that the 2A has been confirmed as an individual right there will be 30 years of future litigation before the Supreme Court over what that means, and have no doubt that Sotomayor will lead the charge toeviscerate the 2nd like SCOTUShas done to the 4th A.


    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    What are they doing? Why would they oppose a gun hater like her? The NRA is a Gun hating organization right?

    :quirky

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NE Wisconsin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    Huck wrote:
    Why did the NRA wait until the last minute to oppose this lamer?
    True indeed, did they (NRA) think time would change her view on the second amendment. When questioned on the second, she brought up New York law; get this Sotomayer, you are nominated to the Supreme Court of the U. S., not the freaking state of New York. I really believe that the eastern part of the U.S. is a different country than where I live. If europeanism is what the east desires, give it to them. Separate us, I can live without wall street, bailing out AIG, government takeover of our society. Let us take back our country. Stand up.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Huck wrote:
    Why did the NRA wait until the last minute to oppose this lamer?
    No one has yet to give a satisfying answer to this question.

    If I had to guess, I'd say there was probably a debate among NRA leadership over whether to make a statement or remain silent.

    Remaining silent would be par for the NRA course; NRA doesn't like to jump in front of losing causes, and Sotomayor is a done deal.

    I suppose the other side of the argument was that if NRA doesn't say anything, they open themselves up to criticism for not having opposed the nomination, and may lose membership and money as a result.

    Unless we hear from the NRA honchos (and we won't) it's all speculation, though.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Huck wrote:
    Why did the NRA wait until the last minute to oppose this lamer?
    No one has yet to give a satisfying answer to this question.

    If I had to guess, I'd say there was probably a debate among NRA leadership over whether to make a statement or remain silent.

    Remaining silent would be par for the NRA course; NRA doesn't like to jump in front of losing causes, and Sotomayor is a done deal.

    I suppose the other side of the argument was that if NRA doesn't say anything, they open themselves up to criticism for not having opposed the nomination, and may lose membership and money as a result.

    Unless we hear from the NRA honchos (and we won't) it's all speculation, though.
    Of course, you could always accept the statements the NRA honchos have provided for us, which I have quoted in this thread already.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Huck wrote:
    Why did the NRA wait until the last minute to oppose this lamer?
    No one has yet to give a satisfying answer to this question.

    If I had to guess, I'd say there was probably a debate among NRA leadership over whether to make a statement or remain silent.

    Remaining silent would be par for the NRA course; NRA doesn't like to jump in front of losing causes, and Sotomayor is a done deal.

    I suppose the other side of the argument was that if NRA doesn't say anything, they open themselves up to criticism for not having opposed the nomination, and may lose membership and money as a result.

    Unless we hear from the NRA honchos (and we won't) it's all speculation, though.
    Of course, you could always accept the statements the NRA honchos have provided for us, which I have quoted in this thread already.
    Your honcho doesn't say why they waited until the last minute. So, no, the statements your honchos provided do not answer the question. Nor do they plan to.

    But you keep sending them money and trolling the internet on their behalf, if you think that's best.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Huck wrote:
    Why did the NRA wait until the last minute to oppose this lamer?
    No one has yet to give a satisfying answer to this question.

    If I had to guess, I'd say there was probably a debate among NRA leadership over whether to make a statement or remain silent.

    Remaining silent would be par for the NRA course; NRA doesn't like to jump in front of losing causes, and Sotomayor is a done deal.

    I suppose the other side of the argument was that if NRA doesn't say anything, they open themselves up to criticism for not having opposed the nomination, and may lose membership and money as a result.

    Unless we hear from the NRA honchos (and we won't) it's all speculation, though.
    Of course, you could always accept the statements the NRA honchos have provided for us, which I have quoted in this thread already.
    Your honcho doesn't say why they waited until the last minute. So, no, the statements your honchos provided do not answer the question. Nor do they plan to.

    But you keep sending them money and trolling the internet on their behalf, if you think that's best.
    No, I merely am willing to understand that they will not be likely to make the statements that you need to see to believe them. If you simply accept that they have stated their reasons and their position, they DID answer your question; just not to the level you desire. I understand their answer, and you seem to not.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview.

    There are various levels of 'understanding' as there are more and less comprehensive worldviews.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview.

    There are various levels of 'understanding' as there are more and less comprehensive worldviews.
    LOL, I would disagree. There are various levels of "interpretation" and "opinion" based upon those worldviews. The statement is most likely to be factual. How a person interprets it and opines is where the difference is most likely. Otherwise, a person (such as you or tomahawk) is left alleging the statement is a falsehood.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote: Of course, you could always accept the statements the NRA honchos have provided for us, which I have quoted in this thread already.
    Your honcho doesn't say why they waited until the last minute. So, no, the statements your honchos provided do not answer the question. Nor do they plan to.
    But you keep sending them money and trolling the internet on their behalf, if you think that's best.
    First off, the "honchos" in question are the NRA spokespersons, not "my" honchos.
    The statements they have currently made, and which they have made in the past, clearly stated their reasons for the times of disclosure. Your choice to disagree or discount that statement (or statements) does not make them magically disappear. It merely shows that no matter what the NRA states, you will not accept it.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    The NRA is a weak-livered sellout group of political cronies who make a sham of having political power to represent gun owners.

    If NRA is so 'politically powerful' why can't it get Sotomayor bounced out on her ear? Why didn't the all powerful NRA get the Sotomayor nomination ditched?

    Hmmm?

    Becausethe NRAis w-e-a-k. That's why.

    The GOA is taking over for Obama's next SCOTUS nomination.

    Step aside, NAR, The GOA will show you howto get thejob done.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post

    The NRA has made some bad press and people (antis) have made them appear to be the absolute in any political battle, I wonder if that might have played into them waiting so long. If you take them at their word they were just not wanting to speek up out of respect for the process. I personally don't care, it doesn't matter how I feel or the NRA feels it's out of my control when Obama picked her I knew it was over.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    The NRA is a weak-livered sellout group of political cronies who make a sham of having political power to represent gun owners.

    If NRA is so 'politically powerful' why can't it get Sotomayor bounced out on her ear? Why didn't the all powerful NRA get the Sotomayor nomination ditched?

    Hmmm?

    Becausethe NRAis w-e-a-k. That's why.

    The GOA is taking over for Obama's next SCOTUS nomination.

    Step aside, NAR, The GOA will show you howto get thejob done.
    1/300th of the population does not have the clout you desire.

    How many are in the GOA? The power is in the numbers.



    Who here has made the claim that "the NRA is so 'politically powerful?' Strawman.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    FunkTrooper wrote:
    The NRA has made some bad press and people (antis) have made them appear to be the absolute in any political battle, I wonder if that might have played into them waiting so long. If you take them at their word they were just not wanting to speek up out of respect for the process. I personally don't care, it doesn't matter how I feel or the NRA feels it's out of my control when Obama picked her I knew it was over.
    And many "anti-NRA" types here see bad press that points out NRA as being an organization of "compromise." Quite the dichotomy of views.

    The Anti-gunners claim the NRA is "no compromise" on gun rights.

    The Anti-NRAers claim the NRA is "compromise" on gun rights.

    Each position is based mostly upon the world view of the person stating the position. The reality is likely somewhere in between those extremes.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  21. #21
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    1/300th of the population does not have the clout you desire.
    How many members is that, approximately?

    What does "1/300" equate to?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    1/300th of the population does not have the clout you desire.
    How many members is that, approximately?

    What does "1/300" equate to?
    From another thread here:

    wrightme wrote:
    Many interesting points have been raised in this thread, but there is a critical element missing. For the premise to be valid, the prior action (or words) of the NRA must be known. In other words, what did the NRA do during the passage of the legislation that caused the premise to be valid?

    Some of the posts that speak against the NRA present the point of "go along to get along," or "compromise." The arena that the NRA plays in is the political arena, and those are de riguer for success in that arena. Failing at that will disarm the NRA in the political arena, whether we like it or not.

    I have seen the NRA blamed for allowing specific laws to be passed, or for allowing a President to be elected! In other words, the NRA continually gets blamed for "allowing" such events.


    The NRA represents gun owners, but the reality is that the "clout" is most likely based on the membership number of ~4,000,000. With the US Population currently at ~307,000,000 some people expect a group the size of 1/300th of the population to be able to truly effect change without compromise.



    It ain't gonna happen. "No compromise" can be replaced with "no effect." In politics, unless operating with a clear majority, compromise is the only way to effect change.

    Without the reported political clout wielded by the NRA, where would we already be with firearms regulations?
    In other words, according to you, the NRA with only 1/300th of the population, should be able to get Sotomayor denied in the hearings? I seriously doubt it.
    The real strength of ANY organization like the NRA, or the NAACP, or the GOA, or the AARP is in the numbers, and in the ability of the organization to get the members to place pressure on their Representatives and Senators. Otherwise, they are simply lobbyists with no effect.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  23. #23
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    1/300th of the population does not have the clout you desire.
    How many members is that, approximately?

    What does "1/300" equate to?
    From another thread here:

    wrightme wrote:
    Many interesting points have been raised in this thread, but there is a critical element missing. For the premise to be valid, the prior action (or words) of the NRA must be known. In other words, what did the NRA do during the passage of the legislation that caused the premise to be valid?

    Some of the posts that speak against the NRA present the point of "go along to get along," or "compromise." The arena that the NRA plays in is the political arena, and those are de riguer for success in that arena. Failing at that will disarm the NRA in the political arena, whether we like it or not.

    I have seen the NRA blamed for allowing specific laws to be passed, or for allowing a President to be elected! In other words, the NRA continually gets blamed for "allowing" such events.


    The NRA represents gun owners, but the reality is that the "clout" is most likely based on the membership number of ~4,000,000. With the US Population currently at ~307,000,000 some people expect a group the size of 1/300th of the population to be able to truly effect change without compromise.



    It ain't gonna happen. "No compromise" can be replaced with "no effect." In politics, unless operating with a clear majority, compromise is the only way to effect change.

    Without the reported political clout wielded by the NRA, where would we already be with firearms regulations?


    Ah, so your "1/300th" is 4 million over 306,943,000 (see census.gov).

    This is spinning at its finest.

    You have one of the correct numerators (4,000,000)...but the wrong denominator. My gosh, why didn't you figure out a way to use 6,771,869,000 AS the denominator.

    Tsk, tsk, the resulting fraction would have been really small!

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783

    Post imported post

    Say When.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    WELL, I say that the late arrival of the NRA into this matter is due to three things:

    (1) In the wheeling and dealing of DC lobbying, favors get burned or must be returned.

    (2) Issue an ultimatum too often and it will have little effect. Draw the line only to have it stepped over and you will look like a fool to draw another.

    (3) As I have written before, replacing Souder with Sotomayor is like scooping up a cow flop and relacing it with a road apple (that's a horse poop, for those of you GenXers and younger). In light of that fact, risking items (1) and (2) might just be a bad idea.

    But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.......

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •