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

Skip to comments.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
POLITICO Magazine ^ | May 19, 2014 | Michael Waldman

Posted on 06/21/2014 9:04:11 PM PDT by ForYourChildren

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

By MICHAEL WALDMAN
May 19, 2014

"A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

{excerpted}


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; constitution; guncontrol; nra
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 next last
I didn't see this posted. Last month from Politico Magazine, but seems to just have showed up on Yahoo.

The distortions, lies, misrepresentations, and total lack of knowledge shouldn't be surprising, but it always does surprise me.

We live in a world gone insane, Animal Farm insane.

1 posted on 06/21/2014 9:04:11 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Ah, more anti-constitutional garbage from Politico, the premier phony news site, where all the failed writers from the Washington Compost eventually end up.

I have no doubt they’ll soon be hosting screeds from Jennifer Rube and that idiot from the plum line.


2 posted on 06/21/2014 9:06:18 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia’, the ‘security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms’, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”

-Senator John F. Kennedy,rightwing extremist, April 1960

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” -Hubert H. Humphrey,bitter clinger,Guns magazine, February 1960, p.6


3 posted on 06/21/2014 9:06:33 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.-JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

How the NRA stopped us from ignoring the Second Amendment.


4 posted on 06/21/2014 9:07:29 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

People owned cannons on their private ships in those days!


5 posted on 06/21/2014 9:07:32 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Michael Waldman doesn’t appear to have read any of the writings of the founders on arms.


6 posted on 06/21/2014 9:08:22 PM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren
The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun.

Where does this braindead dildo, Waldmann, get his information? Mein Kampf? The Communist Manifesto?

7 posted on 06/21/2014 9:08:57 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Feed the wacko enrviromentalists to the starving polar bears.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

Yes, but Yahoo is reposting it from Politico.


8 posted on 06/21/2014 9:09:49 PM PDT by ForYourChildren (Christian Education [ RomanRoadsMedia.com - a classical Christian approach to homeschool])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Politco scribblers are Newsweak and ComPost rejects.


9 posted on 06/21/2014 9:10:30 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

If these chodes would do their homework and read the Founders’ words on the 2nd Amendment, they couldn’t write tripe like this.


10 posted on 06/21/2014 9:11:14 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Yahoo are even less relevant. They recently slurred Christians as ‘Holy Rollers’ in an official ‘gay’ article


11 posted on 06/21/2014 9:13:35 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Hey Mikey! Try to focus and I’ll ‘esplain” it to you. Who were the Bill of Rights intended for? I won’t mention any names but their initials are THE AMERICAN PEOPLE you moron. Now, why would the founders think it necessary for the government to have the right to form the National Guard? Are you stupid or what?


12 posted on 06/21/2014 9:15:48 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Feed the wacko enrviromentalists to the starving polar bears.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

The NRA is preventing tyranny you morons.


13 posted on 06/21/2014 9:16:38 PM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

WHat makes you think reading what the Founders said and wrote about the 2nd Amendment would make then NOT write the lies they do IronJack....these puddles of runny excrement will write anything.


14 posted on 06/21/2014 9:20:14 PM PDT by docman57 (Retired but still on Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren
So the butterfly effect didn't intend for the 2nd Amendment to allow people to own guns.
I bet these people pee their britches when they see a "real gun", and not in a movie.

I cannot imagine their next try at throwing "" at the wall.

15 posted on 06/21/2014 9:20:15 PM PDT by MaxMax (Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

You are full of crap an uneducated lout.

Drunk with reducing your fellow man to subservience of the ruling class.

You are as wrong as a three dollar bill.

(Author)


16 posted on 06/21/2014 9:20:19 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

This is a liberal jackass from the NYU “School of Law”. He’s pimping his phony baloney book about how the Bill of Rights were intended for government use only. What a jerk.


17 posted on 06/21/2014 9:22:48 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Feed the wacko enrviromentalists to the starving polar bears.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Son and I went shooting today.

Just finished cleaning the 22 pistol, 22 rifle, .380 pistol, 9mm pistol and the AR.

Was a great day.


18 posted on 06/21/2014 9:27:35 PM PDT by super7man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

One thing about the left is that they always give you plenty of warning about what they are up to.

They keep hammering away at the 2nd amendment, just like global warming, and normalizing homosexuality.

Out of all the nonsense they push, disarming the American public is really the most important. Once that is done, they can ram whatever they like down our throats.


19 posted on 06/21/2014 9:27:55 PM PDT by TheGipperWasRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren
The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun.

Bullcrap! Read the Founder's own words. Next!

20 posted on 06/21/2014 9:29:36 PM PDT by TigersEye ("No man left behind" means something different to 0bama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

“Where does this braindead dildo, Waldmann, get his information?”

Probably from the voices shrieking inside his head! ;)


21 posted on 06/21/2014 9:29:51 PM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
It's legal as church on Sunday to own cannon today.

/johnny

22 posted on 06/21/2014 9:30:27 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Is the writer stupid, uninformed, or a liar?


23 posted on 06/21/2014 9:32:49 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
People owned cannons on their private ships in those days!

Good point! Libidiots are always claiming IIA only protects weapons in existence at the founding. So, if that's the case, then why is it against the law for us to have cannon?

24 posted on 06/21/2014 9:33:24 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren
"...The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun..."

Why would someone think that? (That was a rhetorical question there...they are libs, and that is enough)

Anyone could own a gun in the 18th century in the colonies, if I am not mistaken. Why would they not think everyone should have an unregulated right to own a weapon, if they did at the time?

25 posted on 06/21/2014 9:34:11 PM PDT by rlmorel ("A nation, despicable by it"s weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral." A. Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

Yes.


26 posted on 06/21/2014 9:34:11 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TheGipperWasRight
Firearms are 1500s tech. I can make them with sticks, fire, and iron. Give me a manure pile, and a little lead, and some ashes, and I can make ammunition.

It's not rocket science.

Europe had firearms before they had clean water.

/johnny

27 posted on 06/21/2014 9:34:13 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
Yes.

/johnny

28 posted on 06/21/2014 9:34:45 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

29 posted on 06/21/2014 9:35:03 PM PDT by Dr. Thorne ("Don't be afraid. Just believe." - Mark 5:36)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Chucklehead liberals like this one are useful to remind us that when the left says “gun control” they mean firearms confiscation.
There’s nothing in between.
Molon labe.


30 posted on 06/21/2014 9:35:16 PM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Some days civil war seems inevitable


31 posted on 06/21/2014 9:35:30 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
30 seconds.

/johnny

32 posted on 06/21/2014 9:36:35 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren
In 1939, the Supreme Court of the United States in Miller denied the claim of a defendant that certain provisions of Federal law regulating the possession of certain firearms was Unconstitutional. The reason the Court denied the claim is crucial to the current debate over Federal and State regulation of firearms, and the meaning of the Second Amendment according to the Supreme Court. [By the way, the Heller decision did not overturn or modify the decision in Miller, which therefore remains binding precedent. The two decisions are completely compatible.]

To understand the Court's decision in Miller, one must first comprehend how the Miller Court interpreted the Second Amendment:

SCOTUS:

"The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power

--

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [p179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out "that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom," and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces." ~ United States v. Miller (No. 696) 26 F.Supp. 1002, reversed. [Decided: May 15, 1939]

If that's how the Court interpreted the Second Amendment, then why did it deny the defendant's claim that the Federal laws regulating firearms at the time were Unconstitutional?

The reason was clearly not, as has often been falsely claimed, that the Miller Court concluded that the Second Amendment did not grant an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Instead, the Court explained its reason this way:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."

In other words, no evidence had been entered into the official record of the case proving that the weapon possessed by the defendant (a shotgun with a a barrel length of less than 18") was "any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

The Court interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to keep and bear military grade firearms, and as far as it knew based on the evidence presented, a short-barreled shotgun was not "ordinary military equipment," nor was it useful for the common defense of the nation.

So the defendant lost the case solely because his firearm wasn't--in the opinion of the Court in the absence of any evidence on the subject in the official record of the case--a military grade weapon useful for "the common defense."

Therefore, per current binding Supreme Court precedent, any outright prohibitions of firearms that qualify as "ordinary military equipment" or that would be useful "for the common defense" are Unconstitutional.

33 posted on 06/21/2014 9:37:18 PM PDT by sourcery (Valid rights must be perfectly reciprocal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government,” Thomas Jefferson

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms...” Richard Henry Lee

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms.” —Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress

“Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation.” James Madison

“…The said Constitution be never construed …to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Samuel Adams

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”- James Madison, in the Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-44

“Large and permanent military establishments which are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.” - James Madison, Fourth Annual Message, November 4, 1812

“An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government.”- James Madison, Eighth Annual Message, December 3, 1816

“As long as our Government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of person and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending; and so long as it is worth defending a patriotic militia will cover it with an impenetrable aegis.” Andrew Jackson

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason, during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

“... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ...” Alexander Hamilton.

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed,” Alexander Hamilton.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.” Patrick Henry, during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison, The Federalist Papers

“Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands.” James Madison, The Federalist Papers

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 2nd Amendment

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.” Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Even pacifists have an opinion; “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” Mahatma Ghandi

“Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave.” Andrew Fletcher (1698)

“Firearms...are the American people’s liberty, teeth and keystone under independence...(f)rom the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99-100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.” George Washington, Address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress, January 7, 1790


34 posted on 06/21/2014 9:37:36 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

bump


35 posted on 06/21/2014 9:38:00 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

No. Everyday. The reasons for doing so are so blatantly clear and justified.


36 posted on 06/21/2014 9:40:11 PM PDT by Jagdgewehr (It will take blood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MaxMax

I had a liberal acquaintance actually post to me on Facebook, “Guns are scary.” Seriously.


37 posted on 06/21/2014 9:40:57 PM PDT by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

He quotes Warren Burger as if he was known for upholding the Constitution....


38 posted on 06/21/2014 9:40:57 PM PDT by clintonh8r (Can Juan Williams possibly be that stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

I wouldn’t mind having a cannon. A conversation starter for sure.


39 posted on 06/21/2014 9:41:35 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dsc

That’s a beautiful post. I urge everyone to read each quote carefully... then go back to the top and read the bilge that this douchebag “author” wrote.


40 posted on 06/21/2014 9:43:53 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Get one. Don't pay more than $2/lb for it.

/johnny

41 posted on 06/21/2014 9:44:04 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

bump


42 posted on 06/21/2014 9:45:13 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Chief Justice Warren Burger...the rock-ribbed conservative...

That garbage is from the article. It shows how totally wrong the entire thesis is. The two Warrens (Warren Burger and Earl Warren) may have had an 'R' next to their names but both were extreme leftists.

The sign also applies to Warren Burger.

43 posted on 06/21/2014 9:46:53 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Or ender, if needed.


44 posted on 06/21/2014 9:46:57 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: re_nortex

bump


45 posted on 06/21/2014 9:47:41 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

lol


46 posted on 06/21/2014 9:48:01 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

The politico “writer” is an a**.


47 posted on 06/21/2014 9:49:43 PM PDT by ogen hal (First amendment or reeducation camp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren
Quite apart from its focus on the Second Amendment, this article should be taken quite seriously for its insight about how constitutional law comes to be written in the Supreme Court.

Turn the matter around and focus not on gun rights but on a homosexual marriage and consider that that issue was won in the courts even before it was generally won among the populace because it was won in the faculty lounges and in the newsrooms. If culture trumps politics, politics and culture also trump constitutional adjudication.

We conservatives are in for a series of disappointments in the Supreme Court not just because our nominees fail us once they don the robes but because the culture in the court comes from a culture in the faculty lounges of our law schools and the editorial board of the New York Times. We do not win enough elections, having won elections we appoint the wrong justices, having appointed justices they succumb to the culture.

George Soros with his Open Society foundation and elsewhere attempts to impose his tyranny on us from the bottom up. Here is an application of that theory which we should consider and counter.


48 posted on 06/21/2014 9:50:04 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ogen hal

bump


49 posted on 06/21/2014 9:50:25 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

“That’s a beautiful post.”

I copied those quotations from someplace; here, perhaps.


50 posted on 06/21/2014 9:53:48 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 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