Sotomayor's 2nd Amendment decision takes my breath away!

If you look at the reasoning she's used in many of her opinions, she simply doesn't have an adequate grasp of the Constitution.  I have been writing about her lack of qualification and how dangerous it is for us at The Augur's Well

In fact, the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the states (1833 Barron vs. Baltimore).  It only began to apply to the states after the 14th Amendment and a much later Supreme Court, which began using the doctrine of Incorporation and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment ("...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...") to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the states.  Note that the 5th Amendment has an almost identical clause but without mentioning states.

Whether or not any given right applies to the states is a big mess. (For instance en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) .  Yes, Wikipedia, but it says it better than I ever could.)

To basically rehash what the link says, the Supreme Court actually once ruled (1875 United States vs. Cruickshank) that the 1st and 2nd Amendments do not apply to the states, but that ruling predates Incorporation, and the Court has ruled since then in many different cases that just about every 1st amendment right indeed incorporates, so freedom of speech etc. are safe.

For the 2nd amendment, the Supreme Court has never been tested on this exact issue since Incorportation.  The 9th circuit court has held that the 2nd amendment incorporates, but the Supreme Court seemed to vaguely (very vaguely) imply in a footnote to 2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller (the case last year which decided the 2nd amendment implied the right to private ownership) that it stands by its original decision that the 2nd amendment does not incorporate.  It should be noted there are a few other rights are which are held not to apply to the states, so it wouldn't be unprecedented.

Some have suggested that what should make the difference is the part of the Due Process Clause (Life, liberty, or property);  namely, that incorporation only works if the right in question addresses one of these.

So basically, no one is fully sure whether or not the 2nd amendment applies to the states and the Supreme Court will probably have to decide eventually.  Until then, Sotomayor stated that it doesn't and while debatable, there's nothing about the ruling to make you question her qualifications as a judge.  (And whether or not right to have guns=liberty is highly debatable.  Disagreement=/=not qualified.)

In deciding whether Americans enjoy the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, methinks it would be a valuable excercize to return to the founding father's opinion. 

Bear in mind that they had just come through an 8 year war to gain independance from GB and they didn't do it by arguing over the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.  Common sense, something our founders seemed to have more of than our present day courts, ruled the day then.  Even a non-lawyer like myself can read the plain language of these great men [our founders] and in doing so can quite easily understand that they knew that NOT having an armed citizenry pretty much guaranteed that Americans eventually risked losing ALL of their in-alienable right [the Bill of Rights].

The founders knew that as long as the 3 branches of Government actually took their oaths of office seriously and applied common sense, uncompromised by greed and a quest for "personal" power over their fellow citizens, then the 2nd Ammendment would be just a "nicety".  But they had enough common sense to know that every so often, men do not follow providencial guidance and are selfishly interested in controlling their fellow citizens. 

Recently the US has put a new KING [Tyrnat] in charge of us.  This king is somewhat distributed in that we still have an upper and lower house [House of Reps and the Senate] and a Judiciary and an Administrative branch [President].  The problem has become that all 3 of these branches now plot to destroy the people.  Our 3 branches of government are more united in their plot than they feign to be.  I say this because the last 30 years or so [maybe more] have proven that they really don't pay attention to us, much less the Constitution.  They DO NOT honor their oaths of office - this is all too plain to see.  They are "traitors" to our cause.  Even an idiot can see it.  To further clinch their power over WE THE PEOPLE, they have even ignored the 10th Amendment, which gives to the States [we're closer to them than to Washington] all powers not specifically given to the Federal government as outlined in the Constitution.  This transfer of power from the states is made the more odorous by the fact that our state legislatures have not the gumption to excercize the power they've been given, presumably as a result of financial pressures in their states [see California's present problems] as a result of trying to remain "popular" with their constituencies in order to win yet another election [greed]. 

So, I really care less about what all the legalese buloney developed by recent judicial case law about the 2nd Ammendment or any other Ammendment for that matter, but rather, what our founding fathers believed about the 2nd Amendment.  The Constitution was written in pretty plain language for all citizens to see.  Most citizens would read the 2nd Ammendment and not have such a divergent opinion on it and and it's purpose as has our tyranical Government.  To not agree or understand 2nd Amendment language is either to not understand the English language and/or to be totally ignorant of American history ca the American Revolution.