Posted on 04/30/2002 12:11:21 AM PDT by Mini-14
The Second Amendment reaffirms an inalienable right Americans have to keep and bear arms! God gives us the right to protect ourselves, not the bleeping government or a piece of sacred parchment!
The Bill of Rights trumps anything Congress comes up with, short of amending the Constitution itself. Knowing Atty. Gen. Ashcroft's background, this can only mean one thing, his action in this matter proves him to be a simple tyrant in support of the same.
Duck hunting my ass!
Ashcroft is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Rush (Limbaugh) once observed that "liberals talk like they're conservative to get elected." He claims this is exactly what Clinton did. (I agree, to a certain extent.) Although Rush would never admit it, that is the method used by Bush during the campaign.
The more I watch this administration, the more I realize that many of the third party "kooks" are right - there is NO difference between Dems and Pubbies. Sure, they may bicker about the budget and other issues. They might have given Ashcroft a hard time during confirmation hearings, but I believe it was all a show. When it's all boiled down, both of these political crime syndicates share the same goal - unlimited government. They just have slightly different paths to the same objective.
My humble 2 cents/rant...
You must be new here.....
Ashcroft's job is to uphold the laws until a court finds otherwise. You constitutional perverts and cowards need to understand how this system works. Battles for rights are to be won fair and square in the courts, not by one side throwing the game.
We all thank God that you don't know how to read either document.
Why? Because he actually enforces the laws on the books? Even the ones you disagree with? You crap on our constitution if you expect him to do otherwise.
Well that's all very interesting, but an attorney recommended by the NRA General Counsel's office helped me yesterday on a series of minor CCW issues, and he was quite knowledgeble about the laws, and he charged me nothing. Not one penny.
The NRA Concealed Carry course I took last year - conducted by NRA senior instructors, local policemen, and experienced criminal attorneys - was also more than a little blunt, supremely pragmatic, and very illuminating.
Sincerely,
Angkor, Now An NRA Life Member.
All laws includes the second article in the Bill of Rights, it trumps any law Congress establishes with a simple majority. Which part of "shall not be infringed" do you think Atty. Gen. Ashcroft doesn't get? Perhaps after all his years in high office he's dizzy and now imagines there's a "but", or an "except for", "for the churlin", "safety", "the war on whatever"...yadda, yadda...somewhere in there.
"B).Ashcroft first AG to interpret the Second Amendment as and INDIVIDUAL right as opposed to a COLLECTIVE right in many years. Remember how Corporal Klinton's Solicitor Gen. argued otherwise? Ashcroft has so instructed his 93 Fed. DAs accordingly."
The 2nd Amendment is written in plain English, it needs no interpretation. In addition to being an individual right, it states absolutely and unconditionally, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Does Atty. Gen. Ashcroft expect those of us that can read English and cherish Freedom to stand by silently as he engages the Justice Dept. in an assault on that individual right to render it fully infringed? Perhaps there are those that think it's OK and not a big deal to establish the precedent of infringing where it's not allowed, for whatever reason of safety and convenience the government comes up with. It's amazing that he would enlist the enemies of individual rights, Freedom and responsibility to defend what is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights.
Well maybe not so amazing, since he was appointed by a fellow that that signed a bill that clearly violates the first amendment clause forbidding the federal govm't from infringing on the right of free speech. That, simply because the Republican leadership thought it isn't all that important to oppose every little infringement of speech that rears it's little head. Well if it's not important, why the hell'd the founders pen the 1st amendment? I'll tell you why, it's because they wanted to do leave a reminder to the Free citizens of future generations of what they held to be important, to prevent those with vision from imposing their wandering nightmares on future generations of Americans. Free speech is imperative to the communication of truths and ideas.
"C).Although unrelated to RKBA, when Ashcroft was Gov. of Missouri, our state was ranked 48th in TOTAL tax burden. After 3 years of Carnahan and the Democrats, we rose to EIGHTEENTH! Right up there with Kali, Mass, NY,etc.
Apparently Ashcroft did little during his tenure as governor to educate and foster the ideas of Freedom and personal responsibility in the state of MO. If he did, why is it that when he left office folks felt compelled to install the tax and spend artists. Is it because he provided the same kind of leadership he demonstrates now with his assault on the 2nd amend? Sure, you have rights and we'll define them for you! That kind of treatment and definition of rights falls right in line with the 'toon's definition of freedom, "the ability to pick your rulers". It's bogus and empty!
"D)As for NRA? They are already confronting pols on their views of letting the AW Ban "sunset." Posted on nraila.org or gomemphis.com as well as most of the gun boards.
Are you suggesting Atty. Gen. Ashcroft get a pass of silence on his blatent disregard and lack of respect for the substance of the 2nd Amendment's prohibition on the infringement of the individual right? So if the people who care, clamor in outrage at his crass attack on the right, you refer to it as, "hog swallow"? The only "hog swallow" is coming out of the Bush admin's. Justice dept., not from the citizens of the U.S. that are observing them trash their right!
"If you long for the days of Rambo Reno? I'll see you on the beach...
The day Americans embrace one tyrany for another is the day America dies!
Perhaps you can explain your comment.
The law and the constitution. He can blame his ignorant comments on genetic stupidity.
Even leaving aside the issue that freedoms in America are not defined by being able to prove a "need", note that the "hunters and sportsmen" phrase diverts attention from the people who really *do* "need" combat gear: Those who prepare for self defense, and the defense of their communities/nation.
Ever wonder why they always get left out?
Amazing!
Apparently you don't understand-it was Ashcroft that argued citizens had and INDIVIDUAL right, not a COLLECTIVE right. I don't disagree with what you say (in your discussions of RKBA)-but the reality is, it was Klinton and his minions that argues the COLLECTIVE right interpretation of the Second Amendment.
You obviously have little understanding of Ashcroft. Are you one of those Libertarians that believe Ashcroft is a Fascist and Ho Chi Minh was a democrat(small d)?
Some here denounce Ashcroft, yet do not heed Larry Pratt's words about him, early on.
In 'D' I was discussing NRA's attempts to get pols to reveal their positions on letting AW Ban "sunset." Nothing about Ashcroft there.
To accuse Ashcroft of "tyranny" is laughable. Recall how he was grilled during his confirmation hearing? He must uphold the law, even the assine 18USC922(r) and all the crap it forces on us. He has no choice. He may be a "head-banger" but we are a nation at war, something many here forget. He dealt with organized crime in KC and St.L. Survived. Most here would be too timid to attempt such.
This is a bizarre legal challenge to the "assault weapon ban", and if I were a lawyer I'd probably be arguing against it myself, even though I'm a very staunch RKBA defender.
The best attack on the AW ban, which no one has yet successfully brought into court, is on Tenth Amendment grounds -- Congress simply doesn't have the constitutional authority to ban any object it doesn't like, which is *exactly* why the Prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment.
Even the federal drug laws don't actually simply ban possession/sale of illegal drugs, they only outlaw *trafficking*, which is the smuggling of drugs into the country (constitutional via the feds' authority over "foreign commerce") and/or across state lines (constitutional via the interstate commerce authority).
"We all thank God that you don't know how to read either document."Perhaps you can explain your comment.
Then again, perhaps he can't.
I felt the same way. They should have an IQ test before people are allowed to own a computer.
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.