Posted on 05/07/2002 12:09:03 PM PDT by GeneD
Stay Safe !
Finally, someone stated it in a way that even I can understand it! Thank you!
The unfortunate reality is that the Constitutionality of laws can only be challenged when the laws are enforced. For that reason alone, I am in favor of prosecuting unConstitutional laws. The use of plea bargains makes it very difficult to get favorable decisions from the courts.
Yes. I have sent modest contributions to pro-gun people running for Senate in other states. It is sad to live in Kalifornia.
This of course upholds the individual rights "Standard Model" of the Second Amendment. In the Miller case, btw Miller wasn't represented, dealt with outlawing sawed-off shotguns. The Supreme Court wanted to know, how sawed-off shotguns had any military utility and therefore would be legal. Miller, being unrepresented, presented no evidence of such use, therefore the Court ruled against Miller. There would have ruled the other way, if they had been presented with the evidence that sawed-off shotguns, aka 'trenchguns' were used just 20 years previously in WWI trench warfare.
Could that be a Bill of Goods?
Some of us work very hard to make it possible to have a different viable choice sometime in the future. I'm guessing there will be very little gratitude when it happens. As of right now, all we get is derision for trying. Oh well, we ain't in it for the kudos anyway.
"In its brief to the court of appeals, the government argued that the Second Amendment protects only such acts of firearm possession as are reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of the militia. The current position of the United States, however, is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."
Bump! Bump! Bump!!!
Bush does not want our military to stand accused of war crimes in front of the U.N. as where about to clean house in Iraq.
secondly Bush's Justice Department is making pro-Second Amendment arguments before the Supreme Court.
will need as many guns as possible to defend the homeland
Marrs
Bush does not want our military to stand accused of war crimes in front of the U.N. as where about to clean house in Iraq.
secondly Bush's Justice Department is making pro-Second Amendment arguments before the Supreme Court.
will need as many guns as possible to defend the homeland
Marrs
Even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn.
Oh God! You bet.
I don't fault anyone for that. The question of whether or not another party or parties would be good for republicanism (small r) is an interesting question, but I can't fault someone for trying. When one looks at the multi-party coalition governments in other countries, one does begin to wonder.
The point is that even if it is good for the country, it hasn't happened yet, and most likely, on election day, it still won't have happened. We will still have two viable choices. I hope I remember instances like this 2nd amendment issue to help me swallow a vote for a big government glad hander like GWB. He's the better choice, and he may be the best we can do under current circumstances (the will of the people being what it is.)
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.