Posted on 04/30/2002 12:11:21 AM PDT by Mini-14
Nope--afraid not. By your reasoning, no one over 55 (male OR female) would be allowed to own firearms. The first clause is preparatory, giving the main reason for the second clause--which is universal in application, NOT JUST TO THE MILITIA.
It was more a comment on the volume of "hog-swallow" that appears on some threads rather than any accusation towards you.
I must polish my humor.
Show me where he has enforced the law when it comes to Bill Clinton, Mark Rich et. al. Show me where he has purged the justice department of its affirmitive action proponents. Have you read the latest about the NJ state troopers? It turns out that they were wrongly accused of racial profiling. The justice department did a survey themselves which showed that blacks break traffic laws much more than whites do, on average. They DOJ then tried to block the release of the report. Where was Ashcroft? That is why Ashcroft is a disappointment.
Both Bush and his Atty Gen. are sworn to uphold the Constitution. When the Constitutionality of a law created by Congress comes into question, it is the duty of both those executives to pass judgement on the truth of the matter. Their first obligation is to defend the Constitution, not an act of Congress that falls short of full amendment. The words of the founders far outway the words of Metzenbaum and his peers, the meaning of the second article in the Bill of rights is clear and unambiguous. There is no honor in defend anything contrary to that fact. The law in question is an infringement and the constitution forbids it. The Administration is defending the infringement on a list of grounds and the Constitution forbids it regardless of grounds.
With regard to 18USC922(r). The Constitution again provides no "buts" to justify infringement. That makes a sporting purpose restriction by Congress, unconstitutional. There is also no justification for the Senate to extract a finding, or a promise, from an executive, or judicial appointee to support any particular law as constitutional. To do so diminishes the balance of Powers in the branches and compromises the integrity of anyone subject to such preversion of the advise and consent clause.
I read your homepage and I'm not demonizing the two altogether. They do need to be called on it when they make dangerous and destructive moves and transgressions against the Constitution.
There is something a bit rational about sending an ideologue to try the feds case. If the judges are themselves ideologues it wouldn't matter who Ashcroft sent. If they are not, they may send Metzenbaum home with his tail between his legs.
The bitching involves the laws that Ashcroft IS enforcing. That is where my point was focused.
Recently the MO House passed a form of Concealed Carry. Now in the State Senate. The Dem Gov. has promised to veto it. Intense pressure was brought on the House to pass this legislation. Now the Senate is facing the wrath of gun owners in MO. Some Dems are even going along with it. It cleared the House 2-1. The fight is not over yet.
Again, I do not disagree with your discussions in the least. However, reality bites. I would LOVE to be able to have the Constitution strictly adhered to. However, am I willing to replace the thumbhole stock on my SLR-95 with the traditional pistol grip (without changing the internals)? I don't think so. No desire to share long lonely nights with a stranger in a place called Leavenworth.
Stupid laws. Unconstitutional laws (IMO/and yours) but laws nonetheless. Most here disagree as to how to go about changing them, myself included. But we ALL agree on ONE thing and that is, they MUST be changed! Repealed! If "sunsetting" is the best we can hope for? Then so be it. Better than nothing.
That's why I asked you Pocat.......if I wanted some party line popular PC BS lie I would have went somewhere else for opinions.
Good on Ya Bro ! Stay safe !
It doesn't matter. If the just militia age people had guns, the purpose of keeping us free would be accomplished. And, if all those folks could have guns, it wouldn't matter to the statists that inevitably percolate into the bureauocracy if all the other's had them also. You can't get a river much wetter than it already is.
Then, of course, if we all had them, well, we could protect ourselves with them too. Both clauses end up with the same effective right for the people. 
I'm actually pleased by this Ashcroft on this. Many were worried that Ashcroft as the ultra-religious-conservative may choose to not support laws that conflict with his belief and politics. That he is doing his job on this law shows he is a man of character, and we need that in an attorney general.
I still hope he loses on this one though.
Wow. Bookmarking that one.
We're thinking alike. Any doubts I had about Ashcroft are starting to evaporate. He is apparently a man of his word, too rare in D.C.
His conscience would. If he actually wins this, and I hope he doesn't, there could then be no doubt that Ashcroft took his oath seriously.
All the Govt. had to do was show up in court and say it was a stupid law and they didn't like it either.
Then he would be acting like a legislator, tyring to write laws, or like the judicial, trying to determine if they are constitutional. He is acting like what he is, the part of the executive branch responsible for enforcing the laws that Congress enacts.
Maybe because that stuff's not illegal. Reprehensible maybe, but not illegal. I'm glad Ashcroft's spending his time enforcing the law -- not interpreting or legislating it.
Actually, the Second Amendment doesn't "grant" anything. It protects the right to keep and bear arms.
Carolyn
Kind of like congressional votes for cash bribes campaign donations? How much did Disney pay Hollings to present their latest copyright travesty bill? You should see some of the bills getting passed that are so specifically to the benefit of not just one industry or company, but one person. At least that pardon didn't attempt to reduce all our rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.