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

To: FreedomCalls
Justice Department lawyers urged the court to reject the appeal.

Way to go Pubbies, you blow gun owners a kiss with one hand while you stab us in the back with the other. Bush and a bunch of Pubbie congressmen wouldn't be in office today if not for the votes of millions of gun owners who were fed up with the Democrat's unconstitutional gun laws. For that we keep getting our teeth kicked in by the same people we put in office. But I guess that's supposed to be OK because Ashcroft said he believes in the 2nd Amendment. Or maybe he was talking about some other 2nd Amendment the rest of us don't know about.

I don't personally have any desire to own either a Tec-9 or a Streetsweeper, but I will defend any law-abiding American's very clear Constitutional right to own as many of them as he or she can afford.

10 posted on 09/04/2003 5:43:14 PM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: epow
Justice Department lawyers urged the court to reject the appeal.

UN-FRIGGIN-BELIEVABLE.

49 posted on 09/04/2003 8:40:33 PM PDT by AAABEST (I phoned the pest control department and their response was to send me a leaflet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: epow
I don't personally have any desire to own either a Tec-9 or a Streetsweeper, but I will defend any law-abiding American's very clear Constitutional right to own as many of them as he or she can afford.

Law-abiding? LAW-ABIDING?

That's just a term of art. You, me or anybody else can be made a felon in the blink of an eye by the simple stroke of a politician's pen.

The Second Amendment doesn't say:

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

One of the natural law justifications underlying the Second Amendment is the right of self-defense; and just because somebody has a criminal record doesn't mean that his right to defend himself is null and void.

I think that the commission of criminal acts with firearms (and not mere firearms possession) should be the only basis on which any firearms-related prosecution should EVER be based.

The only way that a proscription on the possession of arms can be justified is if the assumption is made that one will do something criminal with them in the future- and the last time I checked, Miss Clio wasn't working for the ATF.

By this cockeyed reasoning the fact that we possess firearms makes all Future Felons of America and presto-chango, don't watch the rights as they disappear- we therefore can be justifiably disarmed.

I'm old enough to remember the concept of what used to be called an "ex-felon".

68 posted on 09/05/2003 9:08:32 AM PDT by George Smiley (Is the RKBA still a right if you have to get the government's permission before you can exercise it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

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