|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
NEWS FROM THE SECOND AMENDMENT SISTERS
900 R.R. 620 S
Suite C-101, Box 228
Lakeway, TX 78734
World Wide Web: www.2asisters.org
==============================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 7/2/2009
==============================
For additional information contact:
Marinelle Thompson, President
Phone: 877-271-6216
E-mail: mthompson@2asisters.org
==============================
Lakeway, TX - SOTOMAYOR - AN ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT ACTIVIST
Second Amendment Sisters urges all freedom-loving Americans to contact their
Senators and tell them "NO!" regarding the nomination of anti-freedom, anti-gun,
activist Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor's record
indicates that she suffers from the misconception that the Second Amendment does
not apply to individual citizens. In fact, in 2009 Maloney v. Cuomo case.
Judge Sotomayor's court didn't even believe that the Second amendment applied to
the states but only to the limitations that the Federal government might seek on
individual gun rights.
We cannot afford one more anti-gun judge on the Supreme Court; if we let the
Supreme Court misconstrue the Second Amendment, the demise of the rest of the
Bill of Rights will surely follow. Contact your Senators today. We can't
overstate the importance of your participation to help preserve our freedom and
the Constitution as it was written.
Second Amendment Sisters Inc. is a women's advocacy group dedicated to
preserving the basic human right of self-defense as recognized by the Second
Amendment of the United States Constitution |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:16 pm |
|
|
back again
F L I N T O I D
|
i see silly season has returned  |
|
|
|
Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:43 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
The second ammendment is silly??  |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:28 am |
|
|
pan8
F L I N T O I D
|
If I may quote the libs, "I believe in choice" and my choice is to keep and bear arms.
I am sure all you libs understand. Not?
Pan8 |
|
|
|
Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:01 am |
|
|
Dan Moilanen
F L I N T O I D
|
"
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So do you agree that everyone has a right to a nuclear warhead, tank, artillery battery, and any other modern implement of warfare?
Currently you'd need just that in order to over-throw the government, that was the intent of the founders. They just over-threw their imperial authority and the last thing they wanted was another King George III.
Back in the 1780s, a rag-tag group of farmers with muskets could still overthrow the government. In addition, it took a very long time for the congressional army to mobilize and get to locations, so militias were common practice in frontier states/territories.
If you ask me, the second amendment is constantly taken out of context by the NRA and other gun rights activists. The second amendment says nothing about self-defense or other gun rights, it says only that gun ownership is necessary to secure a free state through a
well-regulated
militia.
Since the founding however, there have been numerous judicial interpretations of the second amendment, and some include the right to self-defense. For the sake of accuracy, I would reference those interpretations before referencing the second amendment itself.
Personally, I think the second amendment is out of date and no longer necessary... warfare and revolution have completely changed since the 1780s and frankly the context of the second amendment, in regard to well regulated militias, no longer applies. |
_________________
-Dan
"I am not a Marxist."
-Karl Marx |
|
|
Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:37 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| So you agree with Sotomayor no big surprise there. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:17 pm |
|
|
Dan Moilanen
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
twotap schreef:
So you agree with Sotomayor no big surprise there.
Just saying that you make gun ownership a bigger issue than what it really is... |
_________________
-Dan
"I am not a Marxist."
-Karl Marx |
|
|
Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:30 pm |
|
|
mutt of flint
F L I N T O I D
|
sounds to me that he agrees with the second amendment. see, most gun nuts can't even recite the 2nd amendment, but they sure as hell can tell you what it means. its a foggy, poorly worded clause from the 1700s that didn't take into account such things as kids shooting up schools or semi automatic weapons, for that matter. they didn't think ahead in this clause and I believe its the only clause they didn't attempt to think ahead about. yet, its still the only clause that republicans will defend. it took 5 minutes to load one bullet into a musket. in 5 minutes with a semi automatic weapon, you'll have already been through 3-4 clips.
and nevermind the poor safety measures taken by gun owners or the fact that they'll point out times someone killed someone who broke in their house & hypocritically condemn abortion as murder in the first degree. the 2nd amendment does not help your point of view, because its worded like miss teen south carolina. doesn't really help those who want stricter gun laws either. if we're going to have guns and have the unbelievable things that happen with gun laws that are too lenient, we should take into account reevaluating the 2nd amendment only. we should be looking into precautions for weapons.
let me tell you what one gun nut told me in defense of having a semi automatic rifle for deer hunting: "it's the best gun I ever had." I asked him again why he needed so much of a devastating weapon and he repeated how awesome it was and that it increases his ability to kill deer and that the 2nd amendment tells him he can have it. seriously? is that the best arguments you people have? |
|
|
|
Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:44 pm |
|
|
back again
F L I N T O I D
|
yes it is.
"FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS"
my god how feeble...... |
_________________
even a small act of goodness may be a tiny raft of salvation across the treacherous gulf of sin, but one who drinks the wine of selfishness, and dances on the little boat of meaness, sinks in the ocean of ignorance.
P.Y. |
|
|
Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:22 pm |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
mutt of flint schreef:
sounds to me that he agrees with the second amendment. see, most gun nuts can't even recite the 2nd amendment, but they sure as hell can tell you what it means. its a foggy, poorly worded clause from the 1700s that didn't take into account such things as kids shooting up schools or semi automatic weapons, for that matter. they didn't think ahead in this clause and I believe its the only clause they didn't attempt to think ahead about. yet, its still the only clause that republicans will defend. it took 5 minutes to load one bullet into a musket. in 5 minutes with a semi automatic weapon, you'll have already been through 3-4 clips.
and nevermind the poor safety measures taken by gun owners or the fact that they'll point out times someone killed someone who broke in their house & hypocritically condemn abortion as murder in the first degree. the 2nd amendment does not help your point of view, because its worded like miss teen south carolina. doesn't really help those who want stricter gun laws either. if we're going to have guns and have the unbelievable things that happen with gun laws that are too lenient, we should take into account reevaluating the 2nd amendment only. we should be looking into precautions for weapons.
let me tell you what one gun nut told me in defense of having a semi automatic rifle for deer hunting: "it's the best gun I ever had." I asked him again why he needed so much of a devastating weapon and he repeated how awesome it was and that it increases his ability to kill deer and that the 2nd amendment tells him he can have it. seriously? is that the best arguments you people have?
Why do people like residents in Flint need guns when they have police to protect them?
Unarmed civilians in places like Ruwanda and Darfur are doing great aren't they.
Must be nice for communists in China to limit free speech and not have to worry about an armed rebellion.
Without guns I wouldn't be suprised if we would already be officially living in the Unitied States territory of the UN.
We've seen how well unarmed citizens in New Orleans did unless you consider women getting raped a good thing.
I don't trust Master Obama or the Flint police to protect me in a state of crisis any more then Bush and the New Orleans police did during Katrina.
If you go back in history in Flint I've heard stories that while Detroit burned during the riots armed civilians in Flint were standing guard and Flint for the most part came away unscathed while many areas in Detroi8t burned to the ground and were looted.
Even the United States Government advises citizens to be prepared for an emergency. I don't care how dedicated what's left of our decimated Flint police force is. Even if they all stayed on the job and left their families to fend for themselves it's clear they have serious trouble keeping things under control now even in a non state of emergency.
Call me paranoid but that "Hope and Change" message just isn't getting through to me. I'm still seeing 500,000 jobs lost every single month while we wait on Obama's "Green Jobs" program to come through. In case you didn't know Granholm has been a leader in the "Green Jobs" movement. In Other words Obama is on Michigan's job creation plan which hasn't been going to great in case you didn't notice. |
|
|
|
Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:16 pm |
|
|
mutt of flint
F L I N T O I D
|
| okay, but why a semi automatic rifle then? no one is taking away your guns. they are only trying to reduce instances that harm, mame, or a theft that leads to murder or being falsley accuse, because you don't need an M-16 to hunt deer or to "protect your house." by the way, funny thing about the "from my cold dead hands" speech. heston held a single shot musket for his example. I again ask you about semi automatic weapons, not purely hand guns. |
|
|
|
Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:39 pm |
|
|
back again
F L I N T O I D
|
whoaaa adam......
1.rwanda and china are like comparing apples to oranges. totally different situations.
2.mutt didn't say to abolish weapons.
3.flint didn't break out into a riot because the flint police didn't provoke anyone and chief robert leonard at the time hand his hands on the pulse of the local situation. i was in southwestern at the time and left school to see what was going on. i don't recall seeing ANYONE standing outside with GUNS loaded for bear!!!! now, were there some armed people ready just in case? probably so but by no means was it like you described.
4. paranoia....what are you gonna do?? get 10,000 shells and wait for an internal war?? |
_________________
even a small act of goodness may be a tiny raft of salvation across the treacherous gulf of sin, but one who drinks the wine of selfishness, and dances on the little boat of meaness, sinks in the ocean of ignorance.
P.Y. |
|
|
Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:50 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
mutt of flint schreef:
okay, but why a semi automatic rifle then? no one is taking away your guns. they are only trying to reduce instances that harm, mame, or a theft that leads to murder or being falsley accuse, because you don't need an M-16 to hunt deer or to "protect your house." by the way, funny thing about the "from my cold dead hands" speech. heston held a single shot musket for his example. I again ask you about semi automatic weapons, not purely hand guns.
I have a pump action rifle that I can shoot almost as fast as a semi-auto. Want to ban that too? The thrust is to try to ban any firearm with a removable magazine as an "assault weapon". You're right on one thing; an M-16 is a poor choice for home protection. A shotgun with an 18" barrel is much more effective. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:56 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
back again schreef:
whoaaa adam......
1.rwanda and china are like comparing apples to oranges. totally different situations.
2.mutt didn't say to abolish weapons.
3.flint didn't break out into a riot because the flint police didn't provoke anyone and chief robert leonard at the time hand his hands on the pulse of the local situation. i was in southwestern at the time and left school to see what was going on. i don't recall seeing ANYONE standing outside with GUNS loaded for bear!!!! now, were there some armed people ready just in case? probably so but by no means was it like you described.
4. paranoia....what are you gonna do?? get 10,000 shells and wait for an internal war??
Bob Leonard was never chief of police. He was the prosecutor. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:58 am |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
mutt of flint schreef:
okay, but why a semi automatic rifle then? no one is taking away your guns. they are only trying to reduce instances that harm, mame, or a theft that leads to murder or being falsley accuse, because you don't need an M-16 to hunt deer or to "protect your house." by the way, funny thing about the "from my cold dead hands" speech. heston held a single shot musket for his example. I again ask you about semi automatic weapons, not purely hand guns.
Think about it. Say the criminal is armed with a 12 gauge shot gun like thee guy that broke in the poker room. and all you have is a 9mm handgun. If you believe in being fully prepared an M-16 would probably be one of the best options. You should go talk to chief Barksdale. I assume he would have preferred to go aainst a shotgun with an M-16 then a pistol. A normal person probably would have basically been shooting at the wall with a pistol. When you go for the overkill just seeing an M-16 is far more of a deterrent than something like say a little 9mm.
The only thing the government could probably do is make it safer for criminals. I'm sure criminals would much rather not have to worry about getting sawed in half with an M-16. |
|
|
|
Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:43 am |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
