Posted on 06/30/2008 2:12:11 PM PDT by An Old Man
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C. Democrat. Mrs. Norton, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, based her comments in part on the narrowness of the ruling that gave D.C. residents the right to have handguns in their homes for protection, but "did not uphold an individual's right to have a gun at will."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
The ruling was not narrow, it was very broad and it was very clear. They are trying to BS the people into following the same course of action they have taken over the last 125 years when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, but it won’t work. To many law suits are already on the way. The more Dems protest this, the worse it will be for them.
Once in awhile the sound of freedom rings loud and clear!
Semper Fi
An Old Man
They are not SuperDelegates, they are StuporDelegates.
The right to bear arms is the very first "check and balance".
(yeah yeah, I know the diff between Delegate to Congress and SD for the DNC, just seemed so fitting)
How many churches are required to have a license to preach? (none)
But to keep and bear arms, how many licenses are required? If it's even permitted.
While I would like to have an automatic, and think that the Second Amendment should encompass them, I see little practical difference between semi and full auto for the purpose of deterring governmental over-reach. I concur with Col. Cooper that select fire is of use only when you are dug in and being overrun. The services nowadays, I am told, are emphasizing marksmanship and aimed semi-automatic fire. The "spray and pray" days of Vietnam are over.
-ccm
Not my quote (”select fire”) but automatic weapons are good for suppressive fire.
Semi or triburst is much better for precision.
The gov't, however, sees a great difference - and will punish you most severely if you attempt to get one*. Having many, they know the use thereof, and must have great reason to go to great lengths to ensure you don't.
(* - None legal if made after '86. Taxed into oblivion starting '34. Few available pre-'34.)
Can somebody please tell me how intellectual lightweights like this and her candidate (BHO) get in positions to pontificate on the Constitution? And I don't mean the standard reply that relates to affirmative action or a quota hire. Neither Norton nor Obama are fit to change the printer ink cartriges in the USSC's typing pool printers let alone to have their opinion of the Constitution or a SCOTUS decision be given anymore thought than I would to how many bugs I stepped on walking from the house to the car.
At my house, we do not believe in having a license for any of our arms. Including any nukes we may or may not have stored out in the shed.
Shall not be infringed is our battle cry
Semper Fi
An Old Man
I knew she was a delegate but not a con law prof. It boggles the mind. She is as clueless as they come.
Likewise, I will neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at Knitebane Manor.
Right on!
BLOAT
I’m curious where all the stories about the court giving rights to enemy combatants is going to effect the election are....
Holmes is a flatliner. She has never had a coherent thought in her life.
Come on Eleanor, tell us where you found the "have a gun at will" clause in the Constitution...in the Supreme Court ruling, in your Alphabits Cereal at breakfast?
Because they can't hold a real job...and are, at heart, con artists (pun intended)
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.