Posted on 05/08/2002 11:57:58 AM PDT by Patriotman
Don't get me wrong. The ping was worthwhile (thanks BTW); the content left a lot to be desired.
"Firearms ownership is an individual right, unless we think it shouldn't be..."
Missed it by || that much.
In any case, thanks for your post. I enjoyed the hearty laugh I received.
However, you really should go back and r-e-a-d the article s-l-o-w-l-y, digest it, roll it around in your mind, and then you'll have a better chance of 'getting it'.
Regards...
How well have your "rights" fared so far?
Not worth a tinkers diddle.
#1 sC hears the case and decides "Not an individual right".
#2 sC doesn't hear the case, what we have is "Not an individual right, conficate them".
Do you or don't you have a right to keep and bear arms? Who says?
I, myself had to read it twice before I realized what is really being said without being said.
Not true. But being as I am essentially a "one issue" voter, Bush has SAID he is a "moderate" on gun control, i.e., he favors it. That said, I think we have a chance to educate him on just who the hell constitutes his voter base.
He was doing neither. He just got caught up in this mandatory federal gun confiscation scheme. His wife and her lawyer were just trying to bust his **^^'s,so this siced the feds on him because he had a gun. The way this law works,ALL that is neccessary to have the cops come confiscate your guns if for your spouse to say she or he is afraid of you,and that you have guns. No threat or act of violence is neccessary. It's almost automatic for divorce lawyers do this now,since it gives them one more "tool" to use in court against the spouse of their client. They stand up and say,"You honor,this man is so dangerous and his wife so afraid of him,that we had to have the police go to his house to confiscate his guns and arrest him!" Some women and their lawyers have even gone so far with husbands who are gun collectors to threaten to do this unless she is paid 50% of the guns estimated worth.
Maybe they are waiting for a better case than one which would defend the right to arm wife beaters.
You are letting your knee-jerk biases overpower your common sense. I can think of no better case than one where the person has been arrested,had his Constitutional rights violated, and had his property confiscated without him ever being found guilty of anything.
BTW,let's suppose for a minute he HAD beaten his wife at one time or another. Would you want his steak knives and his car confiscated and him arrested for having them? He could easily kill his wife with either. How about have him arrested for buying gasoline becuase he COULD use it to burn her house down or make a bomb? In this country we are not supposed to punish people for what they MIGHT do,but for what they actually do.
BTW, this article says it was a Beretta pistol. I don't know from pistols, all I know is Beretta semi-automatic. Do you think he had a pistol? or that the writer got it wrong?
No,he had a Beretta pistol. Nothing special about them,they are now the standard sidearm of the US military. Is it possible you are confusing semi-automatic (self-loading single shot) with full-automatic (machine gun)?
Note also that he was acquitted of all domestic violence charges. The only "crime" of which he has not been acquitted is his excercise of his right to keep and bear arms.
AND that it is because of THIS conviction that it is now a violation of federal law for him to even again own or be in possession of a firearm. Kinda ironic,ain't it?
BTW,this is one of the biggest reasons I'd like to see the Supremes take this case on. There is no way in hell they could possibly approve of a circular firing squad like this being Constitutional.
L. Pratt's entire statement can be read off the Alan Keys Show link found at www.msnbc.com
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.