Firearms Fax

While the liberal, left wing mainstream media likes to pride itself on being tolerant of everyone’s view, the liberal mainstream media is as bigoted as all of the organizations and people that they accuse of being bigots.  Let’s take the new administration of President Obama, and the mainstream media who hang on his every word.  While going on his “health care reform” tour, the President cherry picked those who were allowed to be in the audience, and discouraged, for lack of a better word, those who did not agree with his view that government run health care is what would serve the country best.

Turned away from the Town Hall

This same administration, along with the Clinton adminstration of old, depended on the Center for Disease control to collect, gather and report on gun related data.  When the National Rifle Association called the CDC out for being in charge of the data, which they should never have been, the CDC accused the NRA of  “skewing” the data.  The NRA was correct that the CDC really should not be in charge of disseminating the data, but because of it’s astute observation, they are villified, of course, by every card carrying liberal Democrat journalist.  How’s that for tolerance?

If the Democrats truly wanted to fix our “broken” system, that’s liberal speak for abolishing the 2nd ammendment, they would offer solutions that preserve 2nd ammendment rights, and regulate those who would ruin it for those who abide by the rules.  Since that’s not happening, or won’t happen in the near future, the NRA is all that the folks who believe in the 2nd ammendment have.

While those who interpret the 2nd ammendment right to bear arms, as a right, there are those who believe that the part about “right to bear arms” is up for interpretation.  One of those people who believes that the 2nd ammendment is not as plain and clear as everyone else believes is newly confirmed Supreme Court judge Sonia Sotomayor.

newly confirmed Scotus Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Having called questions regarding the 2nd ammendment abstract, and quoting cases from over 2 centuries ago, newly confirmed Supreme Court judge Sonia Sotomayor is a liberal voter’s dream.  After all, how many times have we heard the liberals, and their voice, the mainstream media, decry access to guns to curtail ensuing gun violence?  In fact, 2nd ammendment supporters even were accused of being closed minded and “clinging” to guns by President Obama, during his campaign.

It should be no surprise then that his first confirmation choice emphasize the fact that the 2nd ammendment is “abstract” and not a right in fact.  The mainstream media, and the liberals who hang onto every word they say now has a hero in newly confirmed Supreme Court judge Sonia Sotomayor.  But since she is one of many judges now, hopefully her decisions, mostly based on her experience as a “wise latina” will be diluted by those who use reason and the facts at hand to make decisions.  Of course that kind of commentary rarely makes its ways into the reports from the mainstream media, who has showered her with kindness, and painted her as the underdog.

So how will the new Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor fit into the big picture of the United States Supreme Court?  Only time will tell if she will continue to color the decisions that make their way to the United States Supreme Court through the lenses of a “wise Latina” or as a judge that bases the decisions made on facts from the case at hand.

While former Supreme Court Judge David Souter was not a conservative, in the conservative sense of the word, he did not exactly vote against gun related issues just because the issues were remotely related to the 2nd ammendment.  Of the gun control issues that former Supreme Court Justice David Souter ruled on, he voted that felons had the right to bear arms and the United State Congress has the right to regulate guns in school zones across the nation.

"Wise Latina" or SCOTUS judge basing decisions on facts?

So, while the liberals of this country may tout former Supreme Court Justice David Souter as someone who had their best interests at heart, based on his decisions on gun control, he based the decisions he made as a judge based on the facts.  So the question still remains, will newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice base the decisions she makes as a judge on her pre existing notion that the 2nd ammendment is not a “fundamental right”? When posed with a simple yes or no question, during the preliminary hearings, newly confirmed Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor couldn’t answer the question, and actually called the question “abstract”.  Only time will tell how things will play out.

Although the newest United States Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor won the United States Senate by a veritable landslide, average Americans, even Hispanic Americans aren’t as impressed.  According to a Zogby poll, taken in late July 2009,  47% of Hispanic Americans were in favor of her, while the other 43% were opposed to her nomination and subsequent confirmation.  That same poll reported that there were more Small Business owners who were opposed to now United States Supreme Court justice 55% to be exact, than the 44% in favor of her nomination.  Independent voters results were also split 52% opposed versus 42% in favor of now United States Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Our new "wise" Supreme Court justice

Those voters who have the good sense to understand the “abstract” 2nd ammendment, were opposed to now Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination by a larger margin.  “Abstract” minded 2nd ammendment supporters opposed now Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor’s by 67% to 30% of 2nd ammendment supporters in favor of her nomination and subsequent confirmation.  And gun owners have a right to oppose her.  Before she became a Supreme Court judge, she ruled that the Federal government is actuallly who determines the right to bear arms, not individual states, as well as ruling that the 2nd ammendment is not a “fundamental” right.  And those are just the rulings related to the 2nd ammendment.  And we haven’t even discussed the case where she ruled that racial preferences in favor of non-white litigants were valid.  Thankfully the Supreme Court overturned her decision.  Only time will tell if she will prove herself a “wise Latina” on the United States Supreme Court.

The  Senate voted in favor of “wise Latina” Sonia Sotomayor.  Clearly she won a majority of the votes to her side, as the majority Democrats obviously voted for her, in addition to 9 Republican senators, making the final tally 68 aye votes versus 31 nay votes.  The Senate even went so far as to actually physically assemble at their respective desks to give their winning votes of aye and the unfortunately lesser spoken nay votes.

Senator Robert Byrd

Even 91 year old veteran senator Robert Byrd of  West Virginia made the trip to the Senate, wheelchair and all.  The only senator not present for the vote was Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., due to his brain cancer condition.

The Republicans who voted in favor of Sotomayor’s confirmation were the self described moderate Republican members: Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Kit Bond, R-Mo., Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., Judd Gregg, R-N.H., Dick Lugar, R-Ind., Mel Martinez, R-Flor., and George Voinovich, R-Ohio.  The remaining 31 Republican senators voted along the party line against Sotomayor’s confirmation.  Independent senators, Joseph Lieberman, ID-Conn and Bernard Sanders, I-Verm. also voted in favor of Sotomayor’s Supreme Court Justice confirmation.

So based on the 100 total U.S. senators, 58 of them are Democrat,  2 are Independents and 40 of them are Republican.  In other words, even if all 40 of the U.S. Republican Senators, plus the 2 Independent U.S. Senators voted against the confirmation, she would still have been confirmed because of the Democratic majority.  It is a bit disheartening though, that almost one-third of the U.S. Republican Senators voted against party lines.

A few months ago, when President Obama went to Mexico, he expressed his concerns to the Mexican government about how United States’ guns were responsible for the drug wars in Mexico.  Beyond the absurdity of the idea, the fact that President Obama quoted that “More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border.” is not only funny math, but just plain lying.

Unfortunately, the liberal mainstream media hasn’t even tried to prove President Obama’s statistics wrong, but, instead, like the loyalists they are, continue to repeat his findings, just as disciples preaching a gospel.  Only Fox news did investigative research to verify his findings.  What they found was, when guns traced to the United States were sent to the United States, they were found to be from, guess what, the United States.

President Obama in Mexico

But all of the guns recovered from Mexico are not sent to the United States, since they aren’t traceable to the United States, yet are still part of the United States traced gun statistics.  Funny math indeed.  Fox News further reported that 17 per cent is a more accurate finding than the previously reported as gospel 90 per cent finding.  Too bad the other news agencies didn’t bother checking.  If you ask me, making 17 per cent equal 90 per cent is very deceptive, and proves an anti-gun agenda.  I guess math skills and transparency is not part of the hope and change that we can believe in.

It’s a widely held myth, perpetuated by the Mainstream Media that the gun manufacturers are responsible for all of the unfortunate school tragedies.  While that couldn’t be farther from the truth, many of our liberal anti-gun brethren have been spreading that lie to anyone who has ears to hear.  A child is more likely to be a victim of violence, without the threat of being shot with a bullet from a gun, than getting shot by a classmate.  Many cases of domestic violence and child abuse don’t involve handguns, or any kind of weapons, but are violent nonetheless.

Where is the public outcry for the women and children who suffer from abuse at the hands of their loved ones?  Why doesn’t the government try to mandate the perpetrators of abuse, who don’t employ handguns?  Guns are blamed for everything under the sun, when, in fact, guns are not programmed to be violent.  The people with the intention for evil are violent, and they should be the ones who should be tracked and controlled.

Eliminating guns does not make violence disappear.  As much as the Mainstream Media sensationalizes gun violence strories, the truth always reveals itself.  And that truth is the perpetrator is always a twisted and conflicted soul who believes that evil is the way to go.  Getting rid of guns in order to protect students is akin to the argument that  all schools should close because they attract violent people.  It just doesn’t make sense, and isn’t logical, nor reasonable.