Replies

You will have never seen, nor will you ever see any statement by me that the Constitution is not relevent.

The initial meaning of the 2d was that the Federal government could not infringe upon that right. States could and did infringe many, if not all, the rights mentioned in the BoR. Now they are applicable to the states.

It is also not an absolute. States can disarm certain individuals. Felons are not allowed guns, inmates in prisons are not allowed arms.

Your view or my view of unconstitutionality are not the operative definitions of the term.

It is a bad law and should not be reauthorized but to turn against Bush on this issue is folly considering the alternatives.

justshutupandtakeit wrote: You will have never seen, nor will you ever see any statement by me that the Constitution is not relevent.

"Nor is there anything in the second amendment which prevent some laws wrt firearms being legitimate,"
-107-

_______________________________________

From # 107..
Hoisted on your own petard once again. -- Please, continue to babble on, -- quibbling that you don't ~really~support the AWB, you just support the concept of -- "some laws wrt firearms being legitimate" -- & that its a 'right' of the president to sign it, -- or some such BS line of the day..

It is a bad law and should not be reauthorized but to turn against Bush on this issue is folly considering the alternatives.

The alternative is to fight for our individual liberties defined by our Constitution.

Any counter "alternative", even if it comes from your favorite political idol, is just surrender.

"Felons are not allowed guns, inmates in prisons are not allowed arms."

Husbands, whose wives say they have been threatened and get a restraining order, are not allowed arms.

It is misleading to say that only felons and inmates are not allowed arms --- that is the Sarah Brady tactic.

The initial meaning of the 2d was that the Federal government could not infringe upon that right. States could and did infringe many, if not all, the rights mentioned in the BoR. Now they are applicable to the states.

No, wrong again. You are thinking of the 1st Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not mention Congress. The 2nd enumerates an inalienable right, that can not be infringed.

"It is a bad law and should not be reauthorized but to turn against Bush on this issue is folly considering the alternatives."

Why don't you just draw a dotted line on your neck, hand our enemies a large straight razor, and point to your throat, saying "cut here?"

Bush, no doubt unwittingly, has turned on us on this and many, many other basic conservative issues. It should be obvious to all who follow these things, that the GOP regards its core constituency as a bunch of lobotomized, castrated house pets lolling around in the sunny patch of the living room carpet, useful to the extent that we occasionally fetch slippers and newspapers or catch the odd mouse. They can do anything they want to us and we are expected to look up in wistful, craven affection, awaiting the occasional pat on the head.

Somehow, someway, people think that a person can be a conservative by advancing a statist agenda, that superficial differences in style and rhetoric between the two parties are the same thing as actually having substantive, fundamental differences in world view.

Believe all that if you want.

Bush will do nothing, nothing to confront or refute the liberal-socialist axis, nothing to protect RKBA if documents to abolish it reach his desk, and will then have the absence of mind to describe all of it as vague, undefined "good things for America," and people will excuse it all, believing that he is motivated by good intentions

The entire situation is enough to make one spew.

"States could and did infringe many, if not all, the rights mentioned in the BoR. Now they are applicable to the states."

Except that most states have constitutions with the 2nd added to them.

"Your view or my view of unconstitutionality are not the operative definitions of the term."

Really? To quote what has been asked many times before "what part of shall not infringe do you not understand"?

justshutupandtakeit wrote:

"You will have never seen, nor will you ever see any statement by me that the Constitution is not relevent."

The reason the 9th and 10th have been ignored is because they are so vague as to be useless in legal terms.
They were a sop to the anti-federalists and no one expected that they would have any value other than to mollify opposition to the constitution.

362 posted on 02/10/2004 1:22:06 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit

______________________________________

Busted again in clearly stating the 9/10th are vague, irrelevent, & useless.