Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do medical marijuana users have right to bear arms? No, says ATF
MSNBC ^ | 09/29/2011 | Matt Volz

Posted on 09/29/2011 9:35:55 AM PDT by LonelyCon

Firearms dealers in states that allow medical marijuana can't sell guns or ammunition to registered users of the drug, a policy that marijuana and gun-rights groups say denies Second Amendment rights to individuals who are following state law.

Federal law already makes it illegal for someone to possess a gun if he or she is "an unlawful user of, or addicted to" marijuana or other controlled substances.

A Sept. 21 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, issued in response to numerous inquiries from gun dealers, clarifies that medical marijuana patients are included in that definition. "There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law," said the letter by Arthur Herbert, the ATF's assistant director for enforcement programs and services.

Federal firearm licensees, or FFLs, can't sell a gun to someone who answers "yes" when a required form asks whether the buyer is a controlled substance user.

Last week's letter also says that licensed dealers can't sell a gun or ammunition if they have "reasonable cause to believe" the buyer is using a controlled substance.

That includes if the buyer presents a medical marijuana card as identification, or if the buyer talks about drug use, having a medical marijuana card or a recent drug conviction, ATF spokesman Drew Wade said Wednesday.

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: atf; banglist; batfe; batfeisajoke; ffls; govtabuse; guns; marijuana; secondamendment; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 next last
To: Beelzebubba

“If I had a brother who was a violent ex-con, and also took medical marijuana, it would be the same.”

You believe his 2nd Amendment rights are more important than public safety.

That, Beelzy, is why Libertarians will never be a majority political party.


51 posted on 09/29/2011 10:53:02 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Not true. Question #12a requires a ‘Yes’ answer.

Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?


52 posted on 09/29/2011 10:53:18 AM PDT by 11Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
LOL, has nothing to do with original intent, has nothing to do with the Constitution.

You can believe that if you want to.

53 posted on 09/29/2011 10:54:46 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 11Bush
Maybe the forms are different state to state or was different way back when I heard the story.

In California, from what I heard (haven't yet purchased a firearm from a dealer here in CA) they made the form “idiot proof” in formulating the questions such that “No” was the correct answer to all of the questions.

Or maybe it just made a better story that way! That is the trouble with recounting hearsay. ;)

54 posted on 09/29/2011 10:58:02 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6
Stupid, lazy and cowardly American illegal drug users are so stupid, lazy and chicken that they won’t change their reality, so they use illegal drugs to try and hide from their reality for a few minutes and thereby fund some of the most vile and vicious criminals this world has ever know.

Your anger appears to be misplaced. The only reason American drug users are funding criminals is because the American government has chosen to criminalize the drugs in question. American drug users could be funding entrepreneurial types who could then employ people who could then pay taxes. But you are correct, they are funding vile and vicious criminals.

As for the drug users' motivation, I suggest you worry about your own troubles. Some guy getting high on his own time should be his business, in my opinion.

And for the record, I do not use any illegal drugs. I just think we have very poor policy regarding drug use.

55 posted on 09/29/2011 10:59:08 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

>Druggies will beg borrow and steal to try and put their drug usage in a debate. Sorry Illegal is illegal.

Yes, and the prohibition on marijuana is illegal; there is even the precedent of the 18th and 21st amendments to back this up, but the federal government is not authorized by the Constitution the authority to regulate marijuana, tobacco, firearms, or alcohol.

IOW the ATF is proof that the federal government is felonious: see US Code Title 18, Sec 241 & 242.


56 posted on 09/29/2011 11:15:11 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

>Technically, even prescription drugs are “controlled substances”. It sounds like they could adminstratively declare it also applies to anyone taking any kind of prescription medication if they want to.

Well, if you want to be technical water is controlled (via EPA) therefore it is a controlled substance... and aren’t you addicted (as in deprived of it you’ll claim that you’re dying) to it?
{Yes, I see the Beurarchy as that messed-up.}


57 posted on 09/29/2011 11:17:48 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

I think it is good policy to not give people with a drug brain guns.


58 posted on 09/29/2011 11:22:01 AM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

Stupidity is our most expensive commodity.


59 posted on 09/29/2011 11:24:28 AM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

You are, unfortunately, mistaken. The USSC ruled that marijuana grown in one state for personal use DOES have an impact on interstate commerce. Absurd, but they did. The case involved 2 woman in the bay area of CA I believe, who grew a couple of plants for their own use. No evidence they ever sold any or gave any away. Still, USSC ruled against them on IC clause.


60 posted on 09/29/2011 11:24:53 AM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

You are exactly right, when my mother as a minister visited violent convicts in prison they all admitted being hooked on marijuana.
Recently had to boot out a violent user of pot from a unit who was threatening people’s lives on the premises.
No guns for drug brained people makes for good law IMO.


61 posted on 09/29/2011 11:25:00 AM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
I think it is good policy to not give people with a drug brain guns.

So people who drink alcohol should not be allowed to have guns?
62 posted on 09/29/2011 11:35:26 AM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon
Last week's letter also says that licensed dealers can't sell a gun or ammunition if they have "reasonable cause to believe" the buyer is using a controlled substance. That includes if the buyer presents a medical marijuana card as identification, or if the buyer talks about drug use, having a medical marijuana card or a recent drug conviction, ATF spokesman Drew Wade said Wednesday."

The real problem here is that the BATF is arbitrarily ordering the suspension of Constitutional rights without trial, and without any wrongdoing. I have a medical condition that would technically authorize me to possess a medical marijuana card here in California (I don't have one because I'm not a pothead, and my condition isn't very serious). Possession of a medical marijuana card is perfectly legal under BOTH state and federal law. It is, after all, merely a piece of paper with some writing on it.

Per this BATF position, if I were to talk to my doctor tomorrow and ask for a medical marijuana card, I would be committing a federal felony if I did not immediately dispose of my firearms. The BATF is claiming that my constitutional rights can be suspended even though I have NOT possessed or used the drugs, and have not violated any existing state or federal laws. My right to bear arms can be suspended for participating in a perfectly legal activity.

That's a problem.
63 posted on 09/29/2011 11:41:21 AM PDT by Arthalion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

Were they violent because they used marijuana or were they violent before they ever used? Did they become violent because society labeled them “criminal” for using and felt they had nothing to lose?

Alcohol is a drug, couldn’t the ATF then argue users of alcohol should also be denied their 2A rights.

Making something illegal doesn’t restrict it’s availability, as we have seen. All it serves to do is give the government another reason to deny you God given rights. Private property and 2A rights are being violated under the guise of drug enforcement. Is it worth the price to see dopers incarcerated for possession while making the drug cartels exceptionally wealthy by limiting supply?

These are honest and legitimate questions that should be asked. We were “given” Obamacare because of abuses to the Commerce clause, what else does that slippery slope lead to? Hard core progressives holding office will abuse their power by laws designed to “protect” us (as we have seen under this administration). Moving to a state’s rights position provides a great deal more protection from those abuses and makes it more difficult to establish their national agendas.


64 posted on 09/29/2011 11:46:22 AM PDT by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon
Do medical marijuana users have right to bear arms?

No, only marijuana sellers have the right to bear arms and only if they live in Mexico.

-- Eric Holder

65 posted on 09/29/2011 11:49:17 AM PDT by Tribune7 (If you demand perfection you will wind up with leftist Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Lion

If you smoke pot, you cannot buy a gun.
If you sell pot, they will give you a gun.
Got it?


66 posted on 09/29/2011 11:55:50 AM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Those along with Row vs wade and Kelo show just how screwed up this country has become.


67 posted on 09/29/2011 11:57:15 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Huck

So you like Roe Vs wade and Kelo, WOW./s


68 posted on 09/29/2011 12:01:34 PM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

What I like has nothing to do with it.


69 posted on 09/29/2011 12:03:27 PM PDT by Huck (Oy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Courts can be and have been wrong, we need to get them to chanke or this country is lost.


70 posted on 09/29/2011 12:05:24 PM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83
Raich was just a few years ago, and it reaffirmed Wickard. That means short of a Constitutional amendment, the expansive view of the Commerce Clause is here to say--the view that says it covers activity that is not interstate or commercial.
71 posted on 09/29/2011 12:11:56 PM PDT by Huck (Oy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Well I guess we should all give up then.


72 posted on 09/29/2011 12:25:14 PM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

That’s not my thinking on it, but if you want to give up, go ahead.


73 posted on 09/29/2011 12:31:07 PM PDT by Huck (Oy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: digger48
Shall not be infringed? God given, come try to take them and yes, I do have a felony conviction. Every citizen has a Right to protect himself, family and their property and as a citizen MUST disobey unjust laws by man that prohibit the individuals Right(s)from being exercised.
The 1968 Federal firearms act is just that, an UNCONSTITUAL law passed with the help of a corrupt media to denie blacks access to guns because of the riots during the 60s. Remember the TV coverage and the HYPE and FEAR pushed to get this Bill passed. Now their at it again with Marijuana possesion or usage of said marijuana.
74 posted on 09/29/2011 12:38:05 PM PDT by BornFreeDie-N-Debt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Huck

You already said you give up because it was recently decided, are you changing your comment.


75 posted on 09/29/2011 12:46:32 PM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

I said it will require a Constitutional amendment to fix.


76 posted on 09/29/2011 12:48:09 PM PDT by Huck (Oy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Huck

We have a better chance of having the court correct the bad rulings than getting a amendment to fix it.


77 posted on 09/29/2011 1:01:29 PM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

You sound like one of those people saying income tax is illegal as they talk through the cell door.


78 posted on 09/29/2011 1:03:22 PM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Huck

I understand now. Thank you, Huck.


79 posted on 09/29/2011 2:21:07 PM PDT by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

Not with Wickard. It’s pretty well set at this point. You need an amendment.


80 posted on 09/29/2011 2:22:15 PM PDT by Huck (Oy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Like I said we have a better chance of changing nine judge’s minds than the legislatures, state and feds.


81 posted on 09/29/2011 2:34:35 PM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Standard form, been in use for years, ATF 4473. Required for all dealer involved firearm sales. The form is Fed and required in every state.

FFL dealers are required to keep the form on file forever, and if the business is dissolved the dealer is required to forward the forms to the ATF for storage. A form filled out years and years ago is still in somebodies file or already at the ATF.

That is the form that in ‘Red Dawn’ the Cuban Major tells one of the troops to go and secure from the gun stores, so they know where and who has weapons.

One of the most egregious violations of our rights, but that never stopped the damn government.


82 posted on 09/29/2011 2:39:28 PM PDT by 11Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

I disagree. Look at Roe. It’s not going anywhere either, except by amendment.


83 posted on 09/29/2011 2:41:00 PM PDT by Huck (Oy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Huck

I am saying you will never get an amendment. Too many dumb a$$’s we are stuck with the court rulings.


84 posted on 09/29/2011 3:04:56 PM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

Well OK then. Thanks for sharing.


85 posted on 09/29/2011 3:11:54 PM PDT by Huck (Oy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

>You sound like one of those people saying income tax is illegal as they talk through the cell door.

I might sound like it, but you have to admit that there is no particularly good LEGAL explanation of the Federal-government’s claim to be able to regulate drugs when a Constitutional Amendment was needed in order to give that same power to the federal government with respect to alcohol. Or else would you like to explain how the 18th Amendment wasn’t nessacary?


86 posted on 09/29/2011 3:40:15 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

ROFLOL


87 posted on 09/29/2011 4:30:10 PM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon; All
Ban all gun laws!

People who commit violent crimes with guns.....put em away and throw away the key, but if not, Feds should stay the eff out. (I never tried any illegal drugs, but always thought that question on From 4473 was Unconstiututional)

88 posted on 09/29/2011 4:51:47 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA (Let's apply the "reasonable man" standard to gun laws. How many would stand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
(I never tried any illegal drugs, but always thought that question on From 4473 was Unconstiututional)

That's a consequence of believing the Constitution is an enduring document. Last I checked that's how it's supposed to be.

89 posted on 09/29/2011 5:04:11 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

>ROFLOL

It’s laughable then; ok, given that a constitutional amendment was required for the federal regulation of alcohol (a specific drug), by what authority are drugs now regulated by that selfsame government?


90 posted on 09/29/2011 5:07:43 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Arthalion
Per this BATF position, if I were to talk to my doctor tomorrow and ask for a medical marijuana card, I would be committing a federal felony if I did not immediately dispose of my firearms.

Ohhh, that would make a good legal case. Get the card and then claim that the agency is depriving you of your rights under the color of law (US Code Title 18 Sec 242); i.e. the 5th amendment guarantees of due process [before] depriving you of life or liberty & the 6th amendment guarantee of a jury trial.

91 posted on 09/29/2011 5:38:17 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Huck

>The SCOTUS, including Scalia, disagree. And since their opinion is law, that’s that.

Really? And here I thought that the legislature was in charge of making laws!


92 posted on 09/29/2011 5:39:26 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Really? And here I thought that the legislature was in charge of making laws!

"The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort. The legislature must be controuled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person. The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controulable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other."

Brutus, Antifederalist #11

"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. "

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78.


93 posted on 09/29/2011 6:18:15 PM PDT by Huck (Oy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Jail house convict screams at judge what right do you have to lock me up, he points at deputy with gun.
94 posted on 09/29/2011 6:28:30 PM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Huck
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

-Thomas Jefferson

" Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments.

Joseph Story
Commentaries on the Constitution

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

George Washington
Farewell Address

95 posted on 09/29/2011 6:49:47 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Of course nothing you posted carries any legal weight. There is nothing in Article 3 specifying by what methods the SCOTUS must decide cases. As Brutus pointed out, they are unaccountable.

A justice can choose to care what Jefferson, Story or Washington said. But they are not required to. They are an independent branch, and have operated from the beginning precisely the way Brutus predicted they would. It's a design flaw in the Constitution that was obvious to him.

96 posted on 09/29/2011 7:07:33 PM PDT by Huck (Oy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

Stupid, lazy and cowardly American illegal drug users are so stupid, lazy and chicken that they won’t change their reality, so they use illegal drugs to try and hide from their reality for a few minutes and thereby fund some of the most vile and vicious criminals this world has ever know.

These “vile and vicious criminals” you write of being members of Congress?


97 posted on 09/29/2011 7:23:48 PM PDT by headsonpikes (Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism - "Who-whom?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Of course nothing you posted carries any legal weight.

Which is of what consequence to this discussion?

The carry no more or less legal weight than the quotes you posted that they counterpoint.

All you have done is imply that one set of statements is to be disregarded while another is to be respected.

"[E]very act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

— Alexander Hamiltion

"It is every Americans' right and obligation to read and interpret the Constitution for himself."

— Thomas Jefferson

98 posted on 09/29/2011 7:31:20 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The quotes I posted describe what is, as opposed to your quotes, which describe what some people think ought to be. We can all talk about what would be nice, but I'm talking about what is. That's the difference.

Anyone with any sense can see that Brutus correctly diagnosed the problem built into the Constitution before it was even ratified. What he described is what has happened. What you posted are musings on what would be nice, but isn't so.

99 posted on 09/29/2011 7:58:36 PM PDT by Huck (Oy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Huck
All the founder's warned, at different times and in different context of the dangers of the power of government and the tendency of abuse to occur. They all spoke of the need for public vigilance and energy in their opposition.

All you've done is argue that the abuses have occurred, as predicted, but then declined to include anything pursuant to the public responsibility to act in opposition.

To what end to you do this? I can find no reason anyone would present such a case as appropriate to a forum of conservative political activism in good faith. It is tantamount to a statement of surrender.

100 posted on 09/29/2011 8:06:53 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson