John R. Lott on Kagan @ Fox, 'A Vote for Kagan Is a Vote to Take Away Your Guns'

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...sotomayor-gun-ownernship-self-defense-second/ [Excerpts]

Obungler said:

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.

Click to expand...

Kagan said:

It has long been thought, starting from the “Miller” case, that the Second Amendment did not protect such a right. . . . Now the Heller decision has marked a very fundamental moment in the court's jurisprudence with respect to the Second Amendment. And as I suggested to Senator Feinstein there is not question going forward that ‘Heller’ is the law, that it is entitled to all the precedent that any decision is entitled to and that is true to the ‘McDonald’ case as well...

Click to expand...

John R. Lott said:

There are two big problems with Kagan’s remarks: she inaccurately describes the 1939 "Miller" case and her claims to follow stare decisis are meaningless.

Click to expand...

Miller did no such thing. The Miller case was centered around a type of arm which was questioned as to whether or not it was an acceptable military weapon.

There is virtually zero evidence one way or the other on Kagan. Lott relies on the thinnest reasoning.

The Donkey said:

There is virtually zero evidence one way or the other on Kagan. Lott relies on the thinnest reasoning.

Click to expand...

Kagan's non-documentable stance on the 2A isn't what scares me the most (although what little we know about her in that area isn't very comforting, like she was one of the main writers on the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban verbiage...).

What I'm most troubled by with Kagan is her outspoken stance on the 1A, and her belief that the government has a right (and in some cases, a duty and obligation) to limit, restrict, and regulate speech, print, and media, if the message being sent is anti-establishment. She is cut from the same cloth as Cass Sunstein, and is a clear and present danger to Free Speech and a Free Press.

Her attitude on the 1A, in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling in "Holder, Attorney General, Et al. vs. Humanitarian Law Project", does not bode well for the future of Free and Open Discourse. Under this decision, groups like the NRA, SAF, GOA, and even OCDO could be labeled "terrorist organizations" for teaching people how to change laws, exercise unpopular rights, and sue the government or LEAs for breach of their rights. They don't need to ban guns if they can criminalize education, civil disobedience, and political activism...

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11945

Consider who picked her, and the previous pick. Everything about her screams 'I'm lying!!" to anyone with a brain.