queenhillaryscourtjester: How would you know?
‘How would I know?’ I simply read your posts – they’re ‘chock-full’ of unsubstantiated opinion & factual errors (like your claim that Thomas Jefferson was “scum,” and your suggestion that a D@mocrat Congress could “constitutionally” appoint Hillary ‘Queen of the United States’ ;>).
But let's look at a few of your wild claims on this thread:
Dems did not lose in '94 because of an AW ban but because of the Hillary care scam and the generally sleaziness of the Clinton administration. I doubt even one RAT lost his seat because of that ban.
237 posted on 11/14/2003 8:18:34 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit
Now that's funny! In actuality, 26% of all voters in that election were “gun owners,” and 71% of those gun owners voted Republican (Voter News Service exit poll conducted November 8, 1994 – margin of error +/- 1%). Guess what, sport? That means approximately one out of every five voters was a gun owner voting Republican. But you would have us believe that 71% of gun owners voted Republican - because they were concerned about nationalized health care! How nice! And you express “doubt [that] even one RAT lost his seat because of that ban.” (Not even “one?” Typical of your asinine assumptions… ;>) Why do you think Tom Foley started running ads just before the election, showing the Speaker shooting a single-shot rifle at a firing range? Was the televised ‘range time’ supposed to emphasize Foley’s position on “the Hillary care scam and the generally sleaziness of the Clinton administration?” Hmm? As I said, “you don't bother to 'state facts.'”
;>)
The Founders intended that militias be available for use in putting down Indian raids, insurrections, execute the Laws of the Nation and repelling invasions.
274 posted on 11/14/2003 10:02:52 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit
Actually, you omitted (as usual ;>) one of the most critical points: “the Founders intended that [State] militias be available” to oppose unconstitutional actions by the federal government. As Mr. Madison observed in Federalist No. 46:
”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 government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by [State] governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops… Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached… forms a barrier against the enterprises of [federal] ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
As I said, “you don't bother to 'state facts:'” you prefer your idiotic opinions.
;>)
Quite the contrary I am speaking of those who understand that turning on Bush on minor and subsidiary issues is stupid, irrational, pointless and guaranteed to cause more trouble (for gun owners) than sticking with him.
286 posted on 11/14/2003 10:29:13 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit
Teacher317 replied:
Therein lies your whole problem. You care more for political success than critically important foundational Constitutional Rights.
Teacher317 got it right – you did not. The Constitution is not a ‘minor and subsidiary issue.’ The President swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution – not the Republican Party. But as I said, “you don't bother to 'state facts,'” do you?
;>)