Posted on 05/29/2021 12:20:56 AM PDT by DallasBiff
All things old are new again.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Biden is Meathead.
that's the producer talking out both sides of his mouth.
Norman Lear was on top of everything socio/political and was able to write in eleventeen controversial topics each episode.
I don't know ANYONE critical of AITF
Mr. Lear was ridiculing conservatism, but it back fired, people loved archie.
yes, and the more he tried to make archie more radically conservative, they liked him more and more. so he turned archie in the end.
A wider range of acquaintances may prove beneficial.
There are many on freerepublic critical of AITF.
AITF was/is a direct attack on American institutions and exceptionalism.
As noted, it backfired because of its over-the-top attacks.
Nope, meathead is still meathead, and biden is too slow to even hit meathead levels.
I loved Archie and still do, and it shows what a great actor can do, but Carroll O'Conner was smart enough to keep his own political views to himself.
Never once did he go on a tell all show and denigrate his audience as a bunch of bigots, racists or homophobes.
The Archie spinoff, "The Jeffersons" would not even be acceptable today, because George Jefferson was Archie in blackface.
It was one of my favorite comedies.
But as an "Angry White Male" I was born a racist, so I might as well enjoy the ride and the privilege that comes with it.
The argument against guns, made 70+ years ago, still hasn't changed, and the lefties still don't acknowledge that private ownership of guns, is the last restraint of gummint tyrants.
If they weaken the Second Amendment to where guns can be confiscated {or 'bought back'} the Constitution is effectively just a piece of paper with no enforceable means.
When those fools run around on the streets chanting 'Power to the People' they are pleading for guns.
Archie was right.
Is this the one where Meathead (Meatus Head, a term for [D*ck head])brings up the old 1939 SCOTUS decision that there was no right to keep and own firearms? That is the only All in the Family show I ever watched.
For those interested the 1939 decision had to do with a sawed off shotgun being brought from Tulsa OK to Siloam Springs Arkansas to rob a store. The plaintiff did not show up to plead his case as he was dead, so the SCOTUS went with what the Government lawyers said.
my point
He also made Meathead look like a buffoon, albeit unintentionally.
Actually the Miller court said that military firearms were protected by the 2A but they weren't shown any evidence that a short barreled shotgun was a military arm that would be protected. Of course they were but as you mentioned no one was present to represent Miller as he was dead.
That decision has been misread and twisted by gun grabbing judges and lawyers ever since.
The Miller decision also ignored the prosecutions claim that Miller was not protected because he wasn’t a member of a Militia. If Militia membership had been a requirement then the nature of the weapon would have been irrelevant. Instead the case was remanded back to the District Court with the guidance to examine the weapon, but Miller himself would be protected if the weapon was useful to a Militia.
Right. An honest reading of Miller would end most gun control laws we have now.
It’s interesting also that the 2008 Heller decision did not overturn Miller but simply expanded it. Arms protected are not just those useful to a Militia but also those useful for self-defense.
So with Miller ignoring the assertion of a militia requirement and then Heller, how can any carry licensing requirement stand?
You never buy beer you just rent it.
Archie Bunker
Good question.
The other infringements that need to disappear are the requirement to have a federal license to manufacture firearms and the requirement to have serial numbers on firearms.
If a criminal kills half a dozen people using a car, I don't care where he got the car. I have a similar attitude toward firearms. We should assume that any criminal sufficiently motivated can obtain or manufacture a firearm. The criminals are guilty. The firearms are innocent.
So can we get SCOTUS to notice and address the phrase “shall not be infringed”?
It seems pretty straight forward and all encompassing to me.
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.