Sotomayor: Unfit to serve

July 14, 8:27 PMBoston Gun Rights ExaminerRon Bokleman

Previous Next

5 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Boston Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Sonia Sotomayor

Today, during her Senate confirmation hearing to be appointed to the nation’s highest court, Sonia Sotomayor was asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.,

"Is it safe to say you accept the Second Amendment is an individual right?"

"I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. I have friends who hunt."

Said Sotomayor.

From this statement, Sotomayor, might have just as well have said,

“I don’t understand the United States Constitution, nor do I understand the Bill of Rights, our history, or our Founding Fathers simple words. Therefore, I’m unfit to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.”

Over two-thirds of the American (73%) public understands, and sadly Sotomayor isn’t among them.

The Second Amendment, isn’t about the “NRA”, friends of the NRA, nor is it about hunting and the simple 27 word statement, isn’t difficult to understand unless you’ve got your own political agenda.

“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.”

How, given the exact wording, could this right not only be incorporated into the States given that it is “being necessary to the security of a free state”. Or have we all forgotten the topic of the real threat of an overblown, tyrannical, leviathan national government continually interfering with States? That question is just as rhetorical and ludicrous as Justice Scalia’s statement that “shall not be infringed” means regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is fine.

You see, people accuse me (and gun owners) of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy to go around, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to their creamy liquid center.

Whatever his or her attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is their real attitude about you. And if they don’t trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust them on this or any other issue?