Skip to comments.
Militia member 'filled with rage,' plotted ambush
The Grand Rapids Press ^
| Friday, October 17, 2003
| Ed White
Posted on 10/17/2003 10:29:17 AM PDT by FourPeas
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480, 481-497 next last
To: Chancellor Palpatine; Cultural Jihad; Bozo; Poohbah; RGSpincich; ambrose; CWOJackson
It took me a while, but I've finally figured out your little groups attitude toward law enforcement.
In your ideal communitarian society, the law can do no wrong. Authorities must be obeyed for the good of the social order.
And if 'We The People' refuse to accept the jurisdicition of this social order, tough noogies:
With a proper Chancellor in charge, there is no need for a constimatooshin.
One Group! One Homeland! One Chancellor!
441
posted on
11/01/2003 7:55:22 AM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but Arnie won, & our republic, as usual, will lose.)
To: tpaine; Catspaw
my apologies to Catspaw.
To: Admin Moderator
You had a 50-50 chance of getting it right. No apology needed.
443
posted on
11/01/2003 9:24:43 AM PST
by
Catspaw
To: FreedomCalls
Does a superstate like the European Union or NATO have a right to own nuclear weapons? The EU and NATO have no unalienable right to exist, nevermind having the unalienable right to own nuclear weapons.
To: af_vet_1981
Your position is untenable. I assume the vast majority of law-abiding and competent gun owners don't share itI see, you as the sole arbiter of what is "tenable" and not have declared my position untenable. Further you as the self-anointed representative of the majority of gun owners has spoken for the rest of them.
Sorry buddy, but your incessant braying** about more restrictions has shown you for what you are - a liberal statist at heart. like I said you are known by the company you keep and you're right in there with Feinstein, Schumer, Pol Pot Waxman, Rangel and the rest of the neo_nazi Democrats and socialist dictators.
**It' s no concidence that the symbol for the democrats is a jackass, and you're echoing DU type sentiments
445
posted on
11/01/2003 1:52:41 PM PST
by
from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
To: William Tell
Said I didn't have a clue how to procure one, not that I didn't have a clue on how to make one. I've known that for decades, several decades.
446
posted on
11/01/2003 4:04:17 PM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: William Tell
Can someone tell me, is the critical mass of some level of enriched uranium a known quantity or are such values all classified? No, for two reasons, one it depends on the shape and two, if we did, we'd have to shoot you. (And then ourselves :) )
447
posted on
11/01/2003 4:08:27 PM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: af_vet_1981
What I would like to see is probably unconstitutional absent a declaration of martial law and that would be the large scale confiscation of weapons from criminals. So we have an upside down society where the law abiding citizens obey the gun laws and the criminals break them ... It's always been that way, and likely always will be:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).
As far as confiscating guns from criminals goes, why would that require Marshall law? Although it depends on what you mean by "criminal", criminals are already forbidden to have guns by law. It would just take the will to do it. But it's so much easier, not to mention safter, to go after "wierdos" and "Jesus Freaks", and guys whose only crime is owning a piece of metal and/or or wood that's too short, or a gun that fires to fast, than to go after the Crips, Bloods or other gangs (including those whose membership includes lots of "Sicilian Gentlemen")
448
posted on
11/01/2003 4:21:46 PM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: af_vet_1981
Do you have any tanks or fighter aircraft ? You ain't nothin without armor or air power ... Explain how a pitiful few Mujaheeden keep killing Americans, and lots of Iraqies too? They don't have either or those, AFAIK.
Besides tanks and fighter aircraft as just a much "arms", as the term is used in the Second Amendment, as a AR-15 or M-16. It's just that few could afford them anyway.
Captain, USAFR(ret)
449
posted on
11/01/2003 4:26:31 PM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: af_vet_1981
Article I Section 8. Which is in the main body of the constitution. The second amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, is an amendment. Congress powers are restricted by the amendments. The very nature of an amendment is such that it overides the original document, should there be a conflict. Although in this case, IMHO, there is not.
The clause you quoted just limits, although admittedly not much, what they can collect taxes for. They still are limited to the list of other powers enumerated in Art. I Sec. 8, plus a few more scattered about the Constitution and some amendments.
450
posted on
11/01/2003 4:34:00 PM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: af_vet_1981
I think it is an untenable position to claim the 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to own armaments of any category The second amendment doesn't *give* any such rights, it protects them from governmental infringement. You've already been given a near contemporary dictionary definition of "arms". Just because you don't like it, or think the implications might stampede the sheeple, does not make it not true, and part of what you swore to uphold and defend.
451
posted on
11/01/2003 4:38:29 PM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: El Gato
The clause you quoted just limits, although admittedly not much, what they can collect taxes for.No, it establishes that the Federal government is responsible for providing for the common defense and general welfare of all the citizens of the United States. The government is entitled to regulate which arms are available for general use and which are reserved for the Armed Forces.
To: El Gato
Besides tanks and fighter aircraft as just a much "arms", as the term is used in the Second Amendment, as a AR-15 or M-16. It's just that few could afford them anyway.Terrorists can afford them. You are irresponsible in promoting tanks, fighter aircraft, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, and WMDs be available to US citizens who can afford them. That kind of extremist position will cost you all your credibility in the eyes of the general public. It is a losing position that will cost legitimate, sane, and responsible gun owners more rights. It does more damage than any liberal gun control adherent can possibly do. I don't understand how some people can be so foolish and irresponsible. I can only surmise that they want attention and want to fail.
To: B Knotts
A compound is any piece of property owned or inhabited by an identified conservative or other person known to or suspected to or known to desire to possess one or more weapons and who is in media disfavor. It is any piece of property coveted by any government unit whose owner chooses not to give it up cheerfully. Occupiers of compounds are by definition conspirators.
454
posted on
11/01/2003 4:47:58 PM PST
by
ThanhPhero
(Ong lam hanh huong di La Vang)
To: from occupied ga
I said you are known by the company you keepYour positions are so far out of step of the American political fabric that they are damaging to the conservative movement. Extremist militias have done more damage to legitimate, sane, and responsible gun owners' rights than any liberal political movement.
To: Fierce Allegiance
The 2nd amendment does not specify any subset of arms. It says "arms." Right to keep and bear arms, not right to keep and bear .22 caliber revolvers or right to keep and bear folding knives with a 2" or less blade.
456
posted on
11/01/2003 4:51:26 PM PST
by
ThanhPhero
(Ong lam hanh huong di La Vang)
To: af_vet_1981
No, it establishes that the Federal government is responsible for providing for the common defense and general welfare of all the citizens of the United States. The government is entitled to regulate which arms are available for general use and which are reserved for the Armed Forces. If that were true, then the second amendment would have changed it. However it's not the case, even absent the second amendment. Look down a bit farther in Art 1 Sec. 8, there you will find a power to raise aand support Armies, and a Navy. (the Air Force is just an air armie and the Marines are part of the Navy). To ratify treaties (the President, not Congress has the power to make them). All that would have been redundent if the clause you quote did what you think it does, and a basic principal of Constitutional Law is that all provisions have meaning.
Yes, the federal goverment is responsible for the external security of the coutry, and has limited authority over internal security and safety, but all that is established by other clauses of the Constitution, not the one you quote. The second amendment expressly forbids the the Federal government, and through the 14th amendment the States as well, from making such restrictions and distinctions that you say they are entitled to make with regards to the type of arms that mere peonscitizens may keep and bear. What it comes down to, is that the "right of the people" "shall not be infringed". Some, such as some state Suprme Court Justices, say that restriction applied to the states even prior to the passage of the 14th amendment. (see Nunn vs Georgia)
457
posted on
11/01/2003 5:08:10 PM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: af_vet_1981
I can only surmise that they want attention and want to fail You surmise wrong. I want the Constitution to be obeyed!!
458
posted on
11/01/2003 5:09:53 PM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: af_vet_1981
Terrorists can afford them. And will not be detered by any laws banning them. Only the law abiding, which terrorists most definately are not, will obey such laws, as the quote from Jefferson above indicates.
459
posted on
11/01/2003 5:11:36 PM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: af_vet_1981
NOWHERE in the Constitution for the United States does any authority get granted to the Central Government OR to the states, for that matter, that would allow them to regulate what arms are available to the public. Such authority does not exist and has only been USURPED by governments. Quite unconstitutionally. The Rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights (especially the Ninth Amendment) are not GRANTED by that marvelous document. The Founders knew that what government giveth government can taketh away. Therefore they merely required that government RECOGNIZE PRE-EXISTING rights. Which means, quite simply, that governments at all levels (of which we have WAY too many) may NOT act to restrict our God-given rights, as they could IF they were the SOURCE of such "rights." Go do your homework and report back on the Founders' intent. Two thousand words should be about right.
460
posted on
11/01/2003 5:18:33 PM PST
by
dcwusmc
("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480, 481-497 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson