Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Where did the topic go for the SCOTUS appointee?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    I think it got yanked for promoting real change as directed by our forefathers in the Declaration of Independence, what say you?



  2. #2
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    stainless1911 wrote:
    I think it got yanked for promoting real change as directed by our forefathers in the Declaration of Independence, what say you?
    My bet, it was pulled for violating rule #2 of this forum's rules:

    2) This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life - all posts should relate substantially tothis agenda, even if your comments pertain mainly to freedom andliberty. OCDO is not a general discussion forum on politics, religion, the current President, etc. Take that somewhere else!

    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  3. #3
    Regular Member kyleplusitunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lennon Michigan, ,
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    besides, you gonna go down to washington and yank out the politicians at gun point like you were talking about, stainless?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    Sounds like Political correctness.



    She is anti gun, and anti constitution isn't that enough to warrant discussion?



    http://www.prisonplanet.com/kagan-di...offensive.html


    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    kyleplusitunes wrote:
    besides, you gonna go down to washington and yank out the politicians at gun point like you were talking about, stainless?
    Nothing like discrediting oneself by deliberate misquoting of other members. He did NOT advocate such. You knew that..

    He was making a historical reference.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  6. #6
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    Bailenforcer wrote:
    Sounds like Political correctness.



    She is anti gun, and anti constitution isn't that enough to warrant discussion?



    http://www.prisonplanet.com/kagan-di...offensive.html

    Discussion on this nominee's Anti-Gun stance and how it may affect Open Carry of Handguns: YES

    Discussion on this nominee's stance on any other issue: NO


    Here is what I found on a quick search about this nominee's Second Amendment views:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d11-What-are-Elena-Kagans-views-on-Second-Amendment

    http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d10-Supreme-Court-nominee-finds-no-fault-with-Heller-decision

    So, I take it that this nominee may be in favor of some Gun Control Legislation usually listed within the terms of the Heller decision (see Scalia's position on this).

    Could this impact Open Carry? Possibly, but too much is unknown at this time. Maybe we can write the people who will be asking questions of her to pose some of our own...
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    PDinDetroit wrote:
    Bailenforcer wrote:
    Sounds like Political correctness.



    She is anti gun, and anti constitution isn't that enough to warrant discussion?



    http://www.prisonplanet.com/kagan-di...offensive.html

    Discussion on this nominee's Anti-Gun stance and how it may affect Open Carry of Handguns: YES

    Discussion on this nominee's stance on any other issue: NO


    Here is what I found on a quick search about this nominee's Second Amendment views:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d11-What-are-Elena-Kagans-views-on-Second-Amendment

    http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d10-Supreme-Court-nominee-finds-no-fault-with-Heller-decision

    So, I take it that this nominee may be in favor of some Gun Control Legislation usually listed within the terms of the Heller decision (see Scalia's position on this).

    Could this impact Open Carry? Possibly, but too much is unknown at this time. Maybe we can write the people who will be asking questions of her to pose some of our own...
    God I hope your screen name is a joke. Because if that's your idea of investigating...

    She has stated many times in her articles she thinks the Constitution is up for grabs (my words) she is anti first amendment and says the Government should arrest people and place them in PRISON for disagreements on global warming. This is a NAZI! She has views that make Hitler look like a school girl. So if you believe her half baked opinion on the Supreme court decision where she allows total restrictions in her own words, you could be sold ocean frontage in Utah. Seriously! Read her articles she leaves everything in the constitution up for interpretations and CONTROLS by Government.

    It's all about consistency here, she is consistent in wanting to control and restrict constitutional rights and even REMOVE them when Government deems proper.


    Wow how can anyone see her as pro gun? Shes admittedly anti constitution by her own words. And whats is the second amendment in?????
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  8. #8
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    Bailenforcer wrote:
    PDinDetroit wrote:
    Bailenforcer wrote:
    Sounds like Political correctness.



    She is anti gun, and anti constitution isn't that enough to warrant discussion?



    http://www.prisonplanet.com/kagan-di...offensive.html

    Discussion on this nominee's Anti-Gun stance and how it may affect Open Carry of Handguns: YES

    Discussion on this nominee's stance on any other issue: NO


    Here is what I found on a quick search about this nominee's Second Amendment views:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d11-What-are-Elena-Kagans-views-on-Second-Amendment

    http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d10-Supreme-Court-nominee-finds-no-fault-with-Heller-decision

    So, I take it that this nominee may be in favor of some Gun Control Legislation usually listed within the terms of the Heller decision (see Scalia's position on this).

    Could this impact Open Carry? Possibly, but too much is unknown at this time. Maybe we can write the people who will be asking questions of her to pose some of our own...
    God I hope your screen name is a joke. Because if that's your idea of investigating...

    She has stated many times in her articles she thinks the Constitution is up for grabs (my words) she is anti first amendment and says the Government should arrest people and place them in PRISON for disagreements on global warming. This is a NAZI! She has views that make Hitler look like a school girl. So if you believe her half baked opinion on the Supreme court decision where she allows total restrictions in her own words, you could be sold ocean frontage in Utah. Seriously! Read her articles she leaves everything in the constitution up for interpretations and CONTROLS by Government.

    It's all about consistency here, she is consistent in wanting to control and restrict constitutional rights and even REMOVE them when Government deems proper.


    Wow how can anyone see her as pro gun? Shes admittedly anti constitution by her own words. And whats is the second amendment in?????
    Can you read??? I stated quick search, nothing more. You want to share more, then POST CITES not RANTS.

    Again, can you post based upon the forum rules?




    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    PDinDetroit wrote:
    Bailenforcer wrote:
    PDinDetroit wrote:
    Bailenforcer wrote:
    Sounds like Political correctness.



    She is anti gun, and anti constitution isn't that enough to warrant discussion?



    http://www.prisonplanet.com/kagan-di...offensive.html

    Discussion on this nominee's Anti-Gun stance and how it may affect Open Carry of Handguns: YES

    Discussion on this nominee's stance on any other issue: NO


    Here is what I found on a quick search about this nominee's Second Amendment views:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d11-What-are-Elena-Kagans-views-on-Second-Amendment

    http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d10-Supreme-Court-nominee-finds-no-fault-with-Heller-decision

    So, I take it that this nominee may be in favor of some Gun Control Legislation usually listed within the terms of the Heller decision (see Scalia's position on this).

    Could this impact Open Carry? Possibly, but too much is unknown at this time. Maybe we can write the people who will be asking questions of her to pose some of our own...
    God I hope your screen name is a joke. Because if that's your idea of investigating...

    She has stated many times in her articles she thinks the Constitution is up for grabs (my words) she is anti first amendment and says the Government should arrest people and place them in PRISON for disagreements on global warming. This is a NAZI! She has views that make Hitler look like a school girl. So if you believe her half baked opinion on the Supreme court decision where she allows total restrictions in her own words, you could be sold ocean frontage in Utah. Seriously! Read her articles she leaves everything in the constitution up for interpretations and CONTROLS by Government.

    It's all about consistency here, she is consistent in wanting to control and restrict constitutional rights and even REMOVE them when Government deems proper.


    Wow how can anyone see her as pro gun? Shes admittedly anti constitution by her own words. And whats is the second amendment in?????
    Can you read??? I stated quick search, nothing more. You want to share more, then POST CITES not RANTS.

    Again, can you post based upon the forum rules?



    Question 1. Are you jpeirce or a moderator?

    Question 2. Where is the violation of rules when I aptly point out she is in FACT anti Gun by virtue of her saying everything in the constitution is open to control by the Government even to the point of "arresting people who disagree" with the Government?

    fact is you are trying to silence debate on her anti gun anti Constitution writings.

    I know you adore her and think she is so pro gun but her own words say she is in fact NOT. To mention once again in the Harvard review she promotes the arrest and imprisonment of people LIKE US HERE! who dare to disagree with people like her. This is applicable to the very reason we are here. I am pretty much done with you following me around and attacking what I say or do. It's becoming obvious now. So unless you are THE Moderator, please get off my back end the private emails and quit following me around telling me off every chance you get that also violates board rules. It's called harassment.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  10. #10
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Guys by the very fact that the MODS yanked the original I think they made their point!

    I would ask that out of respect for the forum owners wishes that you please cease with the political threads and posts.

    There are other sites where this type of discussion is welcome... however OCDO is not that place.


    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    To respect the constitution and not the rest of the foundations of this country is foolishness. It is cherry picking.

    Guns ARE politics people. If that were not true, we wouldnt Need OCDO or the NRA or any other gun advocacy group. Guns and politics have been jouned since the forefathers intensionally bound them to the pillars of our government and society.

    Go read the Decleration of Independence. It is very clear about the peoples ability to forcibly remove a government from power when that government exceeds its bounds. There are many other refrences given to citizens for such actions, but unfortunately, I am not an expert in history, so I cant provide adequate references.



  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    Im sick of gun owners who want the benifits of freedom without the awareness of, or willingness to pay the price for their freedom.

  13. #13
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    Bailenforcer wrote:
    PDinDetroit wrote:
    Bailenforcer wrote:
    PDinDetroit wrote:
    Bailenforcer wrote:
    Sounds like Political correctness.



    She is anti gun, and anti constitution isn't that enough to warrant discussion?



    http://www.prisonplanet.com/kagan-di...offensive.html

    Discussion on this nominee's Anti-Gun stance and how it may affect Open Carry of Handguns: YES

    Discussion on this nominee's stance on any other issue: NO


    Here is what I found on a quick search about this nominee's Second Amendment views:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d11-What-are-Elena-Kagans-views-on-Second-Amendment

    http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d10-Supreme-Court-nominee-finds-no-fault-with-Heller-decision

    So, I take it that this nominee may be in favor of some Gun Control Legislation usually listed within the terms of the Heller decision (see Scalia's position on this).

    Could this impact Open Carry? Possibly, but too much is unknown at this time. Maybe we can write the people who will be asking questions of her to pose some of our own...
    God I hope your screen name is a joke. Because if that's your idea of investigating...

    She has stated many times in her articles she thinks the Constitution is up for grabs (my words) she is anti first amendment and says the Government should arrest people and place them in PRISON for disagreements on global warming. This is a NAZI! She has views that make Hitler look like a school girl. So if you believe her half baked opinion on the Supreme court decision where she allows total restrictions in her own words, you could be sold ocean frontage in Utah. Seriously! Read her articles she leaves everything in the constitution up for interpretations and CONTROLS by Government.

    It's all about consistency here, she is consistent in wanting to control and restrict constitutional rights and even REMOVE them when Government deems proper.


    Wow how can anyone see her as pro gun? Shes admittedly anti constitution by her own words. And whats is the second amendment in?????
    Can you read??? I stated quick search, nothing more. You want to share more, then POST CITES not RANTS.

    Again, can you post based upon the forum rules?



    Question 1. Are you jpeirce or a moderator?

    Question 2. Where is the violation of rules when I aptly point out she is in FACT anti Gun by virtue of her saying everything in the constitution is open to control by the Government even to the point of "arresting people who disagree" with the Government?

    fact is you are trying to silence debate on her anti gun anti Constitution writings.

    I know you adore her and think she is so pro gun but her own words say she is in fact NOT. To mention once again in the Harvard review she promotes the arrest and imprisonment of people LIKE US HERE! who dare to disagree with people like her. This is applicable to the very reason we are here. I am pretty much done with you following me around and attacking what I say or do. It's becoming obvious now. So unless you are THE Moderator, please get off my back end the private emails and quit following me around telling me off every chance you get that also violates board rules. It's called harassment.
    1. Neither. The moderators of this forum have asked us to play by their rules. Every post here reflects upon OC as a whole. I asked John Pierce (One of the Forum owners and moderators) to review the other thread as it was started as a politics thread - clearly against the forum rules. John Pierce agreed and deleted the thread (and probably will with this one as well).

    You have a problem with their forum rules, take it up with them. Many other good sites to post political info - the people over at JustOneMinute would probably like the additional information you have.

    2. Since you asked:

    A. Thread is mainly a politics thread and did not substantially relate to Open Carry of Handguns (Forum Rule #2). Your post in that original thread was exactly that, same with those in this thread. If you have links that show her anti-gun stance by her writings or words, by all means post them as this would be within the purpose of this forum. I believe that it should be posted at the top level for all OCDO Members to know about.

    B: "God I hope your screen name is a joke. Because if that's your idea of investigating..." Personal Attack (Forum Rule #5). BTW - the "PD" is simply my initials, I post many places with the same ID and selected it long before coming to this forum.

    The Fact is that political views do not belong here at OCDO unless they relate substantially to Open Carry of a Handgun.

    You sir, know nothing about my views of this nominee as I chose not to share them here yet. I have not yet seen much info about her anti-gun stances and have asked you to post cites if you have them. I want more information and gladly welcome discussion of such.

    I have sent you 2 PM's and 1 forum post about the Lowe's Incident - I felt that the information would be better shared outside of a MI Open Carry Experiences thread - all of OCDO could benefit from it. I have posted 3 times here in response to you, including this one. If you feel that is against forum rules, please contact the forum moderators to review it. I stand by my posts and PM's.
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    stainless1911 wrote:
    To respect the constitution and not the rest of the foundations of this country is foolishness. It is cherry picking.

    Guns ARE politics people. If that were not true, we wouldnt Need OCDO or the NRA or any other gun advocacy group. Guns and politics have been jouned since the forefathers intensionally bound them to the pillars of our government and society.

    Go read the Decleration of Independence. It is very clear about the peoples ability to forcibly remove a government from power when that government exceeds its bounds. There are many other refrences given to citizens for such actions, but unfortunately, I am not an expert in history, so I cant provide adequate references.


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440

    Post imported post

    Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.

    Kagan, whom President Barack Obama nominated to the high court this week, made the comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall, urging him in a one-paragraph memo to vote against hearing the District of Columbia man’s appeal.

    The man’s “sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”

    Kagan, currently the U.S. solicitor general, has made few public remarks about the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The Supreme Court in 2008 ruled, in a case that overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, that the Constitution protects individual gun rights.

    As a nominee to be solicitor general last year, Kagan told lawmakers that she accepted that 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as a precedent of the court.

    “There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” she said.

    Review Denied

    The Heller decision left room for states to require registration of weapons. The majority also said the ruling didn’t cast doubt on laws barring handgun possession by convicted felons and the mentally ill, or restrictions on bringing guns into schools or government buildings.

    The lower court ruling in the 1987 case, issued by the District of Columbia’s highest court, said the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to raise militias, and not individual gun rights. The ruling upheld Lee Sandidge’s conviction for carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.

    The high court refused to hear the case, known as Sandidge v. United States. The memo to Marshall, found in his papers at the Library of Congress, includes a handwritten “D,” indicating that he was among those who voted to deny review.

    White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the position taken in the memo to Marshall reflected the prevailing view of the law at the time.

    Reflecting Marshall

    During her confirmation hearing to be solicitor general, the federal government’s top Supreme Court advocate, Kagan said she was trying to reflect Marshall’s views when she evaluated so-called petitions for certiorari, or cert petitions. She called herself a “27-year-old pipsqueak” working for a “90- year-old giant in the law.”

    “He was asking us, in the context in those cert petitions, to channel him and to think about what cases he would want the court to decide,” Kagan said. “And in that context, I think all of us were right to say, ‘Here are the cases which the court is likely to do good things with from your perspective, and here are the ones where they’re not.’”

    Marshall was a civil rights icon before becoming the first black justice. He led the legal fight to dismantle the “separate but equal” regime in public education, arguing the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case.

    As a justice, he opposed the death penalty and backed abortion rights and affirmative action. Kagan, now 50, clerked for Marshall during the court’s 1987-88 term and has described him as one of her heroes.

    Clues to Kagan

    The memos provide clues to Kagan’s potential approach as a justice. Much like Marshall, Kagan might find herself playing defense, at least in her first few years, working strategically to thwart the agenda of a more conservative majority.

    Kagan on numerous occasions urged the justice to vote for so-called defensive denials, rejecting appeals from criminal suspects and defendants to prevent his more conservative colleagues from giving more power to police and prosecutors.

    She urged rejection of an appeal from an Illinois man whose burglary conviction hinged on evidence discovered when he was stopped, ordered to lie down and searched by police. The search took place even though police lacked the “probable cause” required to make an arrest, Kagan said.

    Kagan said she thought the court, if it heard the case, would uphold the conviction. That “would be an awful and perhaps quite consequential holding,” she wrote.

    In recent years, Chief Justice John Roberts and four colleagues have joined forces in 5-4 decisions to strike down campaign finance regulations and limit shareholder lawsuits, as well as to protect gun owners’ rights.

    B-Minus in Torts

    The Marshall papers also include Kagan’s Harvard Law School transcript and glowing letters of recommendation to the justice from her professors. “She is soft-spoken and delightful to be with, but razor-sharp and iron-hard in intellectual give and take,” wrote one, Abram Chayes.

    One professor referenced her transcript, which showed Kagan got off to a slow start as a law student. She received a B in criminal law and a B-minus in torts in the fall of her first year, later receiving predominantly A’s in classes including constitutional law.

    “Whatever was in her way on those fall term exams, it wasn’t affecting her class performance even during the fall, and evidently was gone by exam time in May,” wrote Frank Michelman, who taught her in a spring property law course and said he had contact with his students starting in September.

  16. #16
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    Scot - can you provide a source link for the information you posted? I would like to share this with others.
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440

    Post imported post

    Sorry, I pulled that from the Huffington Post app on my iPhone which doesn't provide links. Here it is..

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-argument.html

  18. #18
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    Thanks Scot. Looks like my friends at JustOneMinute have this too.

    http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai....html#comments
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    PDinDetroit wrote:
    Bailenforcer wrote:
    PDinDetroit wrote:
    Bailenforcer wrote:
    PDinDetroit wrote:
    Bailenforcer wrote:
    Sounds like Political correctness.



    She is anti gun, and anti constitution isn't that enough to warrant discussion?



    http://www.prisonplanet.com/kagan-di...offensive.html

    Discussion on this nominee's Anti-Gun stance and how it may affect Open Carry of Handguns: YES

    Discussion on this nominee's stance on any other issue: NO


    Here is what I found on a quick search about this nominee's Second Amendment views:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d11-What-are-Elena-Kagans-views-on-Second-Amendment

    http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d10-Supreme-Court-nominee-finds-no-fault-with-Heller-decision

    So, I take it that this nominee may be in favor of some Gun Control Legislation usually listed within the terms of the Heller decision (see Scalia's position on this).

    Could this impact Open Carry? Possibly, but too much is unknown at this time. Maybe we can write the people who will be asking questions of her to pose some of our own...
    God I hope your screen name is a joke. Because if that's your idea of investigating...

    She has stated many times in her articles she thinks the Constitution is up for grabs (my words) she is anti first amendment and says the Government should arrest people and place them in PRISON for disagreements on global warming. This is a NAZI! She has views that make Hitler look like a school girl. So if you believe her half baked opinion on the Supreme court decision where she allows total restrictions in her own words, you could be sold ocean frontage in Utah. Seriously! Read her articles she leaves everything in the constitution up for interpretations and CONTROLS by Government.

    It's all about consistency here, she is consistent in wanting to control and restrict constitutional rights and even REMOVE them when Government deems proper.


    Wow how can anyone see her as pro gun? Shes admittedly anti constitution by her own words. And whats is the second amendment in?????
    Can you read??? I stated quick search, nothing more. You want to share more, then POST CITES not RANTS.

    Again, can you post based upon the forum rules?



    Question 1. Are you jpeirce or a moderator?

    Question 2. Where is the violation of rules when I aptly point out she is in FACT anti Gun by virtue of her saying everything in the constitution is open to control by the Government even to the point of "arresting people who disagree" with the Government?

    fact is you are trying to silence debate on her anti gun anti Constitution writings.

    I know you adore her and think she is so pro gun but her own words say she is in fact NOT. To mention once again in the Harvard review she promotes the arrest and imprisonment of people LIKE US HERE! who dare to disagree with people like her. This is applicable to the very reason we are here. I am pretty much done with you following me around and attacking what I say or do. It's becoming obvious now. So unless you are THE Moderator, please get off my back end the private emails and quit following me around telling me off every chance you get that also violates board rules. It's called harassment.
    1. Neither. The moderators of this forum have asked us to play by their rules. Every post here reflects upon OC as a whole. I asked John Pierce (One of the Forum owners and moderators) to review the other thread as it was started as a politics thread - clearly against the forum rules. John Pierce agreed and deleted the thread (and probably will with this one as well).

    You have a problem with their forum rules, take it up with them. Many other good sites to post political info - the people over at JustOneMinute would probably like the additional information you have.

    2. Since you asked:

    A. Thread is mainly a politics thread and did not substantially relate to Open Carry of Handguns (Forum Rule #2). Your post in that original thread was exactly that, same with those in this thread. If you have links that show her anti-gun stance by her writings or words, by all means post them as this would be within the purpose of this forum. I believe that it should be posted at the top level for all OCDO Members to know about.

    B: "God I hope your screen name is a joke. Because if that's your idea of investigating..." Personal Attack (Forum Rule #5). BTW - the "PD" is simply my initials, I post many places with the same ID and selected it long before coming to this forum.

    The Fact is that political views do not belong here at OCDO unless they relate substantially to Open Carry of a Handgun.

    You sir, know nothing about my views of this nominee as I chose not to share them here yet. I have not yet seen much info about her anti-gun stances and have asked you to post cites if you have them. I want more information and gladly welcome discussion of such.

    I have sent you 2 PM's and 1 forum post about the Lowe's Incident - I felt that the information would be better shared outside of a MI Open Carry Experiences thread - all of OCDO could benefit from it. I have posted 3 times here in response to you, including this one. If you feel that is against forum rules, please contact the forum moderators to review it. I stand by my posts and PM's.
    I verified you are not a or The Moderator. I do take exception to your demands that I post elsewhere. the post was entirely relevant to the original post in the very same thread. It was a problem solved, not complaining like a few do.

    Again you might take my original advice and quit trying to moderate me. You seem to have this nasty habit of telling people what they should do, fortunately from what I am told most just ignore the Pseudo moderator role you wish to play. One time was enough sending me followup PM's after I made my self entirely clear borders on overbearing in the very least so at this point I am ending this conversation and I ask you do likewise. I am not your wife nor your child so dispense with telling me what I NEED to do.

    Thank You and have a great day!

    Oh and yes I am just like this in person, but always with a smile...
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    Here is more on Kagan's extremist Anti Constitutional views. yes the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, so this isn't a political debate.



    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...;pageId=153157


    http://www.infowars.com/elena-kagans...to-gun-rights/


    http://www.campaignforliberty.com/bl...5454&cpg=1


    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=152209

    We all know leftists hate our Constitution and most of all our Second amendment.

    Kagan's 'liberal principles,'December 1980:
    "I absorbed liberal principles early," Kagan writes in The Daily Princetonian newspaper in 1980, a few weeks after Ronald Reagan's election to the presidency. "More to the point, I have retained them fairly intact to this day." Her call for a more "leftist Left," says Daniel Foster in the National Review, is a "revealing glimpse" at her liberal political beliefs


    She has views on Gun rights too.

    Kagan on gun rights, 1987:
    During her clerkship in Justice Thurgood Marshall's office, the young Kagan writes a memo saying she was "not sympathetic" toward a man convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol in violation of a Washington, D.C., gun law. The man, Lee Sandidge, had argued the conviction violated his constitutional rights. Kagan said the Second Amendment right to bear arms was "strong" but not "unlimited." The White House now says Kagan's view "reflected the prevailing view of the law at the time" — she based her argument on a legal precedent the Supreme Court didn't overturn until 2008. Nevertheless, says Brian Darling at The Heritage Foundation, this "should open up an inquiry about Elena Kagan's views on gun rights."

    She feels the very Document that enumerates our rights is "defective".

    The 'defective' original Constitution, February 1993:
    In a Texas Law Review obituary piece about Thurgood Marshall, the Supreme Court justice for whom Kagan clerked in 1987, Kagan wrote that Marshall had "declared that the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was 'defective.'" RNC Chairman Michael Steele says Kagan's apparent endorsement of Marshall's view raises questions about her legal philosophy. Others say this is to Kagan's credit, because Marshall was referring to the Constitution's language on slavery. "Presumably the RNC agrees this was a defect that needed to be corrected," says Greg Sargent in The Washington Post.
    Kagan's article went on to endorse the belief that the Supreme Court should "show special solicitude" toward the "despised and disadvantaged." Sargent, in the Post, says that "seems like Civics 101." But Doug Heye says at GOP.com that the majority of Americans want justices who base their decisions on the Constitution, not some personal agenda or "empathy standard."


    http://theweek.com/article/index/202...nts-a-timeline








    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

Posting Permissions

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