“A member of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s security detail shot an armed man during an attempted carjacking in the early morning hours, according to court documents,” the Associated Press reported Tuesday. “The deputy pulled out his department-issued gun and shot the man about four times, hitting him in the mouth.”
On the surface, that might seem to many gun owners who advocate for armed defense as further validation, maybe even the feel-good story of the day. In fact, it really is just another example of how the elites disrespect the rights of the citizenry and want their paid enforcers and protectors to be the “Only Ones” with guns.
That’s best illustrated with Sotomayor’s joint dissent with Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in McDonald v. City of Chicago:
“In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’ No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental. To the contrary, broader constitutional concerns of an institutional nature argue strongly against that treatment.”
In other words, they’re saying that a constitution with a prime directive “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” demands the outcome of a predator being able to execute theft victims over citizens being equipped to defend themselves. That’s in spite of a clear “shall not be infringed” mandate on government …
It’s hard to tell if self-styled “progressives” are willfully deluded and really believe the cognitively dissonant crap they spout and impose, or if they know they are frauds and just get off on it. Maybe there’s a spectrum where both states coexist in varying degrees.
Regardless, we’ve seen a similar situation unfold before, in DC, and involving another high-profile Democrat figure, when Secret Service agents assigned to protect Joe Biden’s granddaughter, Naomi, opened fire on three suspects trying to break into an unmarked and unoccupied service vehicle.
She and/or they were not inside. That means they were not protecting lives. They were shooting at human beings to protect property.
What would happen if you or I did that? Does anyone see where they’ve even been disciplined, let alone arrested and prosecuted, with everything that would entail for an “average citizen”?
That’s the crux of the motivation behind documenting the “Only Ones,” a term I coined after a DEA agent informed a classroom full of school kids he was “the only one in this room professional enough” to carry a gun — and then shot himself in the leg trying to holster it. The purpose of this feature has not been to bash cops, but to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly, and exempt/immune from many of the restrictions and repercussions you or I would be hung out to dry over.
It’s good that Sotomayor’s security was able to defend themselves and repel a predator. It’s inexcusable that she won’t admit she has been wrong about our right to do the same, and continues to carry water for the citizen disarmament lobby.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
She’s a delusional Cant Understand Normal Thinker!
Obviously our ‘betters in government service’ need protection from us and occasionally the criminals that they coddle. Trying to keep us unarmed is their intent to share the burden of their feckless policies and rulings.
Why is it good that old Sotomayor’s people used guns to protect her? Why can’t old Sotomayor enjoy some of the pain she’s determined to visit on the rest of the country? Now certainly, good old Sotomayor is entitled to protection. But Judo and Karate experts only! And that’s it! But opening fire on all our soul brothers in the carjacking industry? Forget it! And also, be advised that ordinarily, the brothers wouldn’t be out sneaking around carjacking people. But they’re waiting to be discovered as rappers.
The “elites” say; GUNS for ME but NOT for THEE!
I see this ‘xx’ as a power grubbing governmental teet sucking LEACH!!
It’s hard to tell if self-styled “progressives” are willfully deluded and really believe the cognitively dissonant crap they spout and impose, or if they know they are frauds and just get off on it. Maybe there’s a spectrum where both states coexist in varying degrees.
more of the second but, they don’t care about what the Bill of Rights says. they believe themselves as erudite and royals, while at the same time us citizens as but ignorant serfs. what about of, by and for the people do they not get?
There is trouble ahead in the supreme court those justices are now the supreme thinkers who get to decide the fate of our republic. If there was justice in supreme court than most of the 9th circuit judges would have been evicted from the bench. Law argued and interpreted today the outcome depends on who appointed the players in that court room. All the facts or deals behind the seen, discussions with district attorneys, lawyers , law enforcement lets not forget mayors they play a role in this justice system. Above all follow the money if you have wealth and… Read more »
“In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’ No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental. To the contrary, broader constitutional concerns of an institutional nature argue strongly against that treatment.” This statement displays sheer ignorance combined with malice. For attorneys (meaning graduates of law school) who have risen to be the highest judges in the land to apparently have zero knowledge of The Federalist Papers, where those… Read more »