The Supreme Court...?

[dantodd]

Why not? Obama was able to run as a democrat but govern as a republican (at least with respect to the 4th Amendment and the various policies Bush put into place and which Obama has further expanded upon).

I thought you were smart enough to not fall into the trap of making such things partisan. Violating the 4th amendment is about statist vs. freedom loving not R vs. D. The patriot act vote didn't go down along party lines nor did reauthorizarion.

[kcbrown]

What frightens me is why anyone would be thinking about Ruth Ginsburg in the shower.

Who, this?




Kinda looks like another seriously anti-gun woman we know, but who most people regard as being attractive, at least...




It's a real shame that there's no correlation between looks and regard for rights.

[kcbrown]

Trying to redefine certain shotguns out of "sporting use" class.
Attempting to stop used military brass to be reloaded on the secondary market
Requiring the reporting of multi-gun purchases to the ATF.
Denying the repatriation of WWII Korean weapons etc. etc. etc.

Those were the kinds of things I was looking for. Thanks.

ATF did nothing like that under GWB's administration?

It is an excellent analog to Jerry Brown's AG tenure. Not actively moving against us is far superior to being actively antagonistic.

Yep, no question about that at all.

[dantodd]

Those were the kinds of things I was looking for. Thanks.

ATF did nothing like that under GWB's administration?

Not all of those are ATF. It is more of a pattern within the executive branch. We have evidence that Obama has been antagonistic to our rights. While I will not claim Romney will champion them I do believe he will, at worst, ignore the issue. I could be wrong but I doubt it. Even if he is, at worst, the same as Obama in his administration's actions against the 2A one place he can't afford to slack is in SCOTUS appointments.

So, in the absolute worst case scenario we have a president who has to satiate the right in a SCOTUS appointment vs. one who has to satisfy the left.

Most likely we have one who is going to largely ignore the 2A while paying lip service.

In the best case scenario we get a president who is mildly pro-gun to keep the right satisfied.

[Meplat]

..........and not be controlled by cities like Chicago, LA, SF, NY, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta and all the other **** holes that we have as a country.

Thats just my off topic 2 cents.

You have just named 7 good reasons for the continued existence of atomic weapons.

[Meplat]

no. They provided for a bicameral legislature so that both "the people" and "the states" would have a say. I agree that it would be good if our state had a similar structure. But, it doesn't work that way.

It once did. And you can trace our decline directly back to the time when 'one man one vote' was instituted and our state senate became essentially a redundant assembly. That's when it all started going to ****.

[dantodd]

It once did. And you can trace our decline directly back to the time when 'one man one vote' was instituted and our state senate became essentially a redundant assembly. That's when it all started going to ****.

I didn't know that our state senate was once a representation of the counties rather than adon population. Sure wish we still had that check and balance in the state.

[Meplat]

Do you guys really think this kind of rhetoric is helpful in persuading people to support the GOP and/or gun rights? I'm honestly curious about this.

Truth hurts don't it?

[Meplat]

The population was far less educated back then than it is today.

True, but, the problem is not how much they know; it's how much of what they know is wrong.

They saw both sides of the argument, which is why we have a House of Representatives made up of members who are locally elected and serve short terms (so they're on a short leash with their constituents), and this House is balanced by the Senate, which was originally made of members elected by each state legislature, serving for long terms so that they're not as influenced by ever-changing popular opinions. The House is also made up of numerous members from small localities--big states have a lot of Representatives, and could run roughshod over the smaller states because of it. To balance that, again, the Senate is there with 2 members from each state, regardless of the state's size.

The whole thing is a balancing act. No, the people in New York shouldn't be able to tell the people in Massachusetts how to do things. But on the other hand, there's way more people in New York than Massachusetts, and we tend to believe in majority rule, at least within some limits and in some areas of life. So we balance those two viewpoints by having a generally majority-rules House with a everyone-gets-an-equal-say Senate.

So, why can we not have the same thing in CA.

[Gray Peterson]

True, but, the problem is not how much they know; it's how much of what they know is wrong.

So, why can we not have the same thing in CA.

Because the 14th amendment says so. The only reason "One Man One Vote" didn't happen at the national levels with the US Senate is because the US Constitutional spells out how Senators are numbered and selected. It is beyond the court's power.

This is all sour grapes and off topic.

[Sealawyer]

This is why we all, if necessary, must walk across broken glass, barefoot, through a firefight with Black Panthers and Nation of Islam supporters, and fight thru SEIU thugs, to get to a poll and vote Republican on November 6th.

[Kavey]

The party in power holds great sway over the "president's" Supreme Court nominations. See the failure of Harriet Meirs' nomination. I think everyone who cares about firearms civil rights can agree that the person nominated after hers was withdrawn was a plus for this cause.

-Gene

If Romney wins the presidency in November, if the Republicans take the Senate with a majority and if the Republicans keep the House (a lot of if's I know), wouldn't it be possible to impeach Sotomayor?

She did answer a direct question during her Senate confirmation hearing concerning her opinion of the Heller decision. She emphatically said that she considered the Heller decision to be a "…settled law." She was not vague nor did she vacillate. She was quite clear.

But then in McDonald v Chicago, Sotomayor signed Breyer's dissenting opinion in which he said that Heller, "... needed to be revisited." In other words, Breyer does not consider Heller to be "…settled law". By signing his dissenting opinion, doesn't Sotomayor admit to lying to a Senate committee?

I know that even if the election goes well for us, it likely won't go well enough to politically to allow for impeaching a Supreme Court Justice. But, then again, look what happened in November 2010 and recently in Wisconsin. Maybe?

What I would like to know from those of you with actual legal training and or legal experience is this: Is Sotomayor's blatant lie to a Senate committee concerning her opinion about the Heller decision sufficient enough to meet the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" standard?

And, from those of you (that's many of you) more politically astute than myself, I would like to know the following: With Romney in the White House (I know he has no vote in this but he does appoint the replacement), Republicans in control of Congress with 67 potential votes in the Senate (made up of a Republican majority with a few Democrats) would the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation and other national pro-gun groups have the collective courage to demand impeachment of Sotomayer?

Well, I can dream can't I?

But, it wasn't very many years ago that a decision like Heller was just a dream too. Right?

[dantodd]

Because the 14th amendment says so. The only reason "One Man One Vote" didn't happen at the national levels with the US Senate is because the US Constitutional spells out how Senators are numbered and selected. It is beyond the court's power.

If that were true wouldn't the 14th amendment prohibit winner-take-all distribution of each state's electoral votes as most states use?

[Meplat]

But, it wasn't very many years ago that a decision like Heller was just a dream too. Right?

And Unless we get Rid of Obummer and retake the senate. Such things will be just a dream again, for many years to come.

[Bhobbs]

Normally I would agree with you, but at this point in time, there"s too much to lose by risking Obama being re-elected. Everyone needs to vote Romney.

This is California. Obama will win. California is a winner take all state. Voting for anyone other than Obama is a wasted vote. Repeat this over and over and over again in your head.

I'm going to waste my vote. I haven't decided if it will be on Romney or someone else.