Posted on 02/09/2004 9:03:09 AM PST by Lazamataz
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:45:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Washington -- Gun control hasn't emerged as a leading issue in the 2004 presidential race, but that is likely to change as Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein intensifies her effort to win renewal of the decade-old assault weapons ban, which expires in September.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Not as much as ME.
I dress mine up in womens clothes and take them out for dinner and a show.
I dress mine in fancy leather and we stay at home a lot.
You said this:
""a ragtag bunch of "militia" with no training and no advanced weaponry could defeat a modern army. Few things are more laughable."
"defeating Bush is the surest way to remove even MORE 2d amendment rights."
None of those folks would be defeating Bush. They'd just ignore him. Also, Bush by his possible action would be rendering the 2nd worthless, just as he did with the 1st. Anyone that ignores the Bill of Rights and treats them with such disregard does so at their own peril. Their comes a point when folks need to realize they're in a pot on slow boil, jump out and put an end to the BS.
Kinda like the Village People. IIIIIIII gotchya. ;^)
"...But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty.
In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments.
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States.
These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them. "
Judges who won't read what they want into the Constitution weren't so rare back then.
Frankly I do not understand why people wish to rewrite the Constitution over this. The 14th Amendment was expressly written to extend the Second to the states anyway.
No! I meant a caribou leather holster and the fact that I do not get to practice much this time of year up here.
I know, pal. I'm just funnin ya. :o)
The negro armed, Oh Heaven forbid!
I would have absolutely no problem with denying RKBA to inmates in prison, and little problem with making temporary forfeiture of RKBA be a condition of parole, but to declare that a crime can be so heinous as to justify lifetime forfeiture of RKBA and yet so minor as to require zero prison time is just plain wrong.
Per CFR, someone who prints and sends more than 500 mailings which mention a candidate in an upcoming election without first having asked the government's permission is guilty of a felony. Is that not a First Amendment issue?
Where do you think Congress gets the notion they can ban "assault weapons"?
I did not even know that --- do you have a list of the states?
I suspect California's strict gun laws are the result of "the Chinaman armed, Oh Heaven forbid!"
But I've never seen any discussion of that history.
Restrictions on the right to obtain a concealed handgun license are being rolled back in several states -- This is very important, but I know of no other gun gontrol being rolled back in the states --- and I know of no federal gun control that has been rolled back.
Read Federalist #46, written by James Madison, the original author of the Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights. You'll see that he thought it perfectly proper for the militia to protect the people of the several states from a federal standing army.
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 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. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. 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, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
Then there is opinion of Elbridge Gerry on the matter:
What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . .Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, VP of the United States 1813-1814, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
I would add that the "standing army" of today that is a real threat to our liberty is not the US Military, they are pretty apolitical and most take their oath to "support and defend" pretty seriously, but rather the swarms of federal officials, including federal police, such as the FBI, BATFE, etc, etc, that are even now eating out our substance.
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.