The Hypocrisy of the Left New Class on Guns, By John Steele
I noticed a clear example of the hypocrisy of the Left New Class on guns. There was an attempted carjacking of two marshals who were guarding the home of US Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic ultra-liberal appointed by B. Hussein Obama. The attack was stopped by gun fire. What is significant here is that Sotomayor has held that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." Well, that principle will apply to her protection as well, the idea that the agents were of the state does not make any difference to the jurisprudence of the matter. If private citizens have no right to a firearm for self-defence, why should the state? In fact, the state should have less rights, because society is primarily composed of private citizens, while the state is a mere social construction outside the domain of individual agency.
"Back in 2010, Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama's "wise Latina woman," — a person so obviously superior to a sheltered "white male" who doesn't have any valuable life experience because he's faced no adversity — concurred with a dissenting Supreme Court opinion, written by Stephen Breyer which argued this, reported via an article at Fox News:
'In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense,' Breyer wrote.
In fact that's exactly why they wrote it, as well as a safeguard against government tyranny (I've gone over this in detail using other writings from early America; see here and here.)
Furthermore:
In 2004, she [Sotomayor] joined an opinion that cited as precedent 'the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.'
In 2009, she also joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.
Now thankfully Sotomayor didn't get her way and see the Constitution gutted and the God-given rights it explicitly protects eliminated; instead, the "white male" attitude of armed self-defense came out on top. And, it's a good thing, because two armed agents, on-duty protecting Sotomayor, are alive and safe today, and so is she, after a scary incident last week, because of these agents' right to carry a firearm. Here's the story, per the same Fox item:
Two armed U.S. Marshals on the protection detail for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor shot a would-be carjacker in self-defense last week….
Kentrell Flowers, 18, was shot Friday after he approached an unmarked Marshals vehicle near Sotomayor's home. Flowers pointed a handgun at one of the two Marshals on duty through the driver-side window in an apparent attempt to carjack him, according to a police report
Flowers was arrested at the hospital and faces charges of armed carjacking, carrying a pistol without a license and possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
Here were some of the responses on X:
And:
And one more:
Some would argue that the Marshals are law enforcement, and they're exactly who should be allowed to carry! But, aside from the false premise, the obvious reality is that we don't all have an armed security detail parked outside our homes and around our blocks. The Second Amendment is a protection for normal people too, not just government officials.
But, do you think that matters to Sotomayor? Absolutely not.
Do you think this incident will "wisen" her up any to the imporance of armed self-defense for the rest of us? Again, not a chance."
Comments