Posted on 01/26/2008 2:24:10 PM PST by neverdem
Of course, you have already seen the flaw in this reasonong. Sure, when it comes to guns, the pants wetting Democrats want Congress to interpret the laws. When it comes to partial birth abortion though, they can't yell loud enough to get the attention of the Supreme Court to overrule Congress. As you know, it all depends on which day it is, which the wind blows, and who's a thorn in their side at the moment.
I recognize your liberty to not be a gun owner, but I really want to encourage you to change that.
Even if you never use a gun, it sends a message to others, including government, that you are responsible for your own protection -- against criminals of all types, especially when you consider that the SC has ruled the law enforcement has not responsiblity to protect each person.
After I posted that, I found out just what he is.
He's a supporter of cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal Isn't that special. He supports convicted killers, but doesn't want the ordinary citizen to be armed.
Story here also indicates that he opposed the Iraq war, thought the useless UN inspectors should have been given "more time". Backed Murtha's calls for "pullout".
His parents are David Fattah (born Russell Davenport) and Sister Falaka Fattah (born Frances Brown, also known as Queen Mother Falaka Fattah) are "community activists", which I guess means they suck at the government teat. (Well David is apparently held various positions in the so successful Philidelphia school system, although apparently not in the classroom anytime recently.) They apparently changed their names from Davenport because they didn't want to bear "slave names. They seem to be into their Africanness, some of it not quite authentic.
What a piece of socialist work.
Actually Aschroft's letter to the NRA also stated:
Of course, the individual rights view of the Second Amendment dos not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests, such as prohibiting firearms ownership by convicted felons, just as the First Amendment does not prohibit shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater.
He even messed up the obligatory "fire in a crowded theater" analogy. So "compelling state interests" is little different from the "reasonable regulation of firearms" the current DoJ brief espouses. "shall not be infringed", is not followed by "except for compelling state interests" and/or "except when reasonable".
There is a difference in emphasis between the Ashcroft and current DoJ positions. But you'll note that under Ashcroft, the Ugly Ban was still enforced and violations were prosecuted. The "Brady Instant Registration" system was up and running under his department. If the AW ban did not infringe on the individual right of the people, what would?
*chuckle*
Of course, the individual rights view of the Second Amendment dos not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests, such as prohibiting firearms ownership by convicted felons, just as the First Amendment does not prohibit shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater.He even messed up the obligatory "fire in a crowded theater" analogy.
Actually, he got it right -- but, it would appear, by accident. (It's perfectly OK to shout "fire" in a crowded theater -- if there is a fire!)
It's a sticky wicket -- I see no problem with prohibing certain people (i.e., incarcerated criminals, raving whack jobs (who probably should be incarcerated) and so forth, from having firearms.
So "compelling state interests" is little different from the "reasonable regulation of firearms" the current DoJ brief espouses. "shall not be infringed", is not followed by "except for compelling state interests" and/or "except when reasonable".
The problem isn't one of "restrictions" per se, but of the raison d etre for "restrictions" -- namely, as things stand now, "Our Rulers" can be counted on to cast about for any excuse for imposing as many restrictions as possible, on as many people as possible (except for those people who are part of "their thing").
In a USA that operated on the basis intended by the founders, our leaders (in a genuine role of public servants -- with a genuine goal of protecting our rights, rather than finding new creative ways to obliterate them), such restrictions would only be imposed in those cases where they were indeed necessary.
But, that's immaterial for the situation at hand for the last several generations...
I'm willing to be charitable, and attribute it to his being put into an untenable position, fighting an uphill battle, having to undo incrementalism in an incremental fashion, and so forth. There is no denying that the situation in general sucks -- and, sucked then. But still, his position statement was, in its context, truly revolutionary. And, it does seem to have been silently rewritten out of history.
There is a difference in emphasis between the Ashcroft and current DoJ positions. But you'll note that under Ashcroft, the Ugly Ban was still enforced and violations were prosecuted. The "Brady Instant Registration" system was up and running under his department. If the AW ban did not infringe on the individual right of the people, what would?
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.