![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/07\/Sotomayor-211x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
As you read in Wednesday Feel Good Stories, armed U.S. Marshals on bodyguard duty for Justice Sotomayor of the Supreme Court opened fire on a would-be carjacker Tuesday night.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Well, right there it’s apparent that young Mr. Flower’s victim selection skills are somewhat deficient. Two adult males sitting in a car on a Washington street at 1AM and he thought they would be unarmed? Really?<\/p>\n
Flowers was arrested at the hospital and faces charges<\/u> of armed carjacking,\u00a0carrying a pistol without a license and\u00a0possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Uh oh, homey didn’t check that magazine capacity when he picked up his Nine. Silly boy.<\/p>\n
The incident sparked criticism of Sotomayor’s Second Amendment positions during her tenure on the high court, including one decision where she co-signed a dissent that said the Constitution does not protect “a private right of armed self-defense.”<\/p>\n
In that case, McDonald v.<\/i> Chicago, decided in 2010, then-Justice Steven Breyer dissented from the majority which ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun against the regulations of state and local governments.<\/p>\n
“In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense,” Breyer wrote.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Except, of course, for her. Gotta have guards on the aristocrat class, right?<\/p>\n
Justice Sotomayor has aggressively opposed the individual right to self-defense in her dissenting opinions on several major Second Amendment cases over the years,” Erich Pratt, senior vice president for Gun Owners of America, told Fox News Digital.<\/p>\n
“So it is incredibly ironic, even hypocritical, that her own private protective detail was forced to exercise this basic and universal right to protect themselves in a very dangerous situation. Hopefully, this incident will open her eyes, but we won\u2019t hold our breath,” he said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Never having seen an anti-gun case she didn’t like the sound of, one might even use the term ‘two-faced’ in addition to hypocritical.<\/p>\n
In 2004, she joined an opinion that cited as precedent “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
REALLY think that morally and ethically she should give up her armed bodyguards.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"