No is faulting her ability or her drive. You cite material that has nothing to do with her position on the 2nd amendment. Answer a straight question, please. Does she think that the members of the forum here should without legal restriction assuming we are not felons have the right to keep and bear our own AR15 rifles with 30 magazines and pistol grips? Be honest, what is your position on our rights to own semiauto rifles and pistols with high capacity magazines. It really sounds like you want a harsher version of the expired assault weapons law to come back into force.
.
A little early to say isn't it, he just got on the bench. Unless of course you think he was a failed rapist, gang-bang leader, or both.She is worth ten Brett Ks
OK, I really want her to leave, quit being a member of court and I really do not care what happens to her; I want her to go far and I will shed no tears to hear of her death. She has a good legal background should understand the constitution and so her position on the bill rights is reprehensible.She is not a supporter of the 2a. No debate about that. However, that was never my point. I oppose the wishing her dead because she does not support the 2a.
She is not a supporter of the 2a. No debate about that. However, that was never my point. I oppose the wishing her dead because she does not support the 2a.
.Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. And the states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment."
What the Framers said about our Second Amendment
Rights to Keep and Bear Arms
"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"
— Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
— Tench Coxe, in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution� under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian� in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1).
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
— William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
[/QUOTE
See the rest at: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html
Found this critic of Heller from some conservative judges:
Heller was a rare triumph for Justice Scalia’s brand of constitutional originalism, but it was not popular among many well-regarded conservative judges.
In fact, conservative jurists were quick to criticize Heller as lacking two supposed hallmarks of judicial conservatism: an unbiased review of the evidence about the meaning of the Second Amendment and, given ambiguity about that meaning, judicial restraint. Justice Scalia’s opinion, these judicial conservatives argued, deployed an unbalanced historical analysis, reached a questionable conclusion about a constitutional right, and failed to defer to the judgments of elected officials.
J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a conservative Fourth Circuit judge, likened Heller to Roe v. Wade, and suggested that Heller was a “new” form of judicial activism based in “originalism.” Conservative Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner agreed in equally stark terms, writing that Heller reflected not conservatism, but rather “freewheeling discretion strongly flavored with ideology.”
Again, I like Heller, it protected the 2A and it represented the first time, ever that the 2a had been used to strike down a gun law. But folks need to understand and appreciate the lengths that Scalia went to achieve this goal. He made a decision and then found a way to support that decision. That is judicial activism pure and simple.
Instead, Clement looked to antebellum state court case law, and referred the Ninth Circuit to the interpretation of the Second Amendment from an 1846 opinion by the Georgia Supreme Court, Nunn v. State.3 The Georgia high court held that the Second Amendment protected the right “to keep and bear arms of every description” and was violated by a law prohibiting the open carrying of certain weapons.4 Clement argued that the Ninth Circuit should adopt Nunn’s view of the Second Amendment to strike down San Diego’s “good cause” policy.5
Nunn, of course, is not binding precedent in the Ninth Circuit. But ever since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller used an originalist approach to establish the individual right to keep and bear arms,6 courts have incorporated historical evidence into their Second Amendment jurisprudence.7 This historical evidence includes Nunn and other antebellum state court opinions.8 As Justice Scalia put it in his majority opinion in Heller, “interpret[ations] of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment,” including in state court opinions, are “a critical tool of constitutional interpretation,” since they can point to “the scope [constitutional rights] were understood to have when the people adopted them.”9 Indeed, as Clement noted, the Heller majority itself favorably cited Nunn’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.10[/QUOTE https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/firearm-regionalism-and-public-carry
What you are doing is parroting the line of the antigunners. I do not like saying things like this. But why are you pretending to be pro-gun and yet cite the arguments and machinations of our enemies.
I will maintain Ginsberg is my enemy. She would put me and other good citizens in jail or have us killed to take our weapons away. If one has intelligence which Ginsberg has, I can not excuse her actions.