Posted on 02/20/2004 7:36:33 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
Also true of Alaska.
Hank
L
*Excellent* - I'm envious!
And I apologize to you for the misunderstanding. Yes, I know the type well, and I agree with you.
My kids go to public schools, but my oldest can shoot the pecker off of a flea at 200 yards! ;-)
Seriously, though, the boy shoots skeet with a .410, and does better than us adults with our 12-guages. No mean feat when you compare the load in a .410 to that of the more powerful weapon.
I wouldn't write off the next generation just yet. The filth may think that they're grooming good little socialists, but just wait until they get to the age where they begin to rebel against their elders. They might surprise the pessimists among us.
Hell, even right now in our universities, young conservative organizations are the fastest growing on campus. They're smart enough to see for themselves that their Communist professors are raving nut jobs that hate our country.
And don't forget that those who were raised under the yoke of authoritarianism are often those who most cherish their liberty, and will fight viciously and ruthlessly to protect it. I'm living proof of that.
And has Alaska, which also essentially copied the Vermont statutes. There, the carry of a long weapon, especially in areas where bear and moose can be a threat to human life is more of an issue, but if New Hampshire is to retain its low rates of crime, the citizens there will need the tools to make that possible.
Ya gotta love this state! (And I Do.)
Me too. I've yet to reside there, but I've been an occasional summer visitor, and I found a really beautiful piece of property on the Saco within my budget. Soon, perhaps.
Being contrary to the Constitution, that ruling was null and void the minute they made it.
The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.
That proves it. If the Supreme Court could agree, they would have already done so.
Their silence is deafening.
Yes, it is contrary to the constitution and null and void, but the assault weapons laws in California are still on the books, and people are still in danger of being charged under those laws and doing prison time, or at the least, having their property confiscated. I was responding to your question: Why is it that no one EVER challenges the authority (jurisdiction) of the court when they're charged with a 'crime' of the governments making?
The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal. That proves it. If the Supreme Court could agree, they would have already done so. Their silence is deafening.
Unfortunately, there is a conflict between circuits on rulings on the RKBA. The 5th Circuit ruled that there IS an individual right to keep and bear arms, which is the polar opposite of what the 9th ruled. So why didn't the Supreme Court hear the appeal and clear up the conflict? By not hearing the appeal, the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court that there is no individual right to KABA stands (and yes, i understand, as I said, that it is contrary to the constitution, so null and void). We can't depend on the courts to protect our rights. They are politicized.
As the next generation enters the work force and discovers what a fraud "Social Security" is, was, and always will be, I predict a backlash of great proportion. Kalifornia is already toying with self-destruction over its unsustainable socialism.
I admire you both for your stand and your optimism, and I certainly hope you are right; but there are more than a few people in the old Soviet block who are sadly clamoring for a return to the "security" of communism.
Hank
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For!
No, everybody should be allowed to carry. The criminals, drunks and crazies would be weeded out in due time.
Agreed. Rather than putting up with today's 'impoliteness' by suffering abuses (and this includes government) one could, by firing back, make the person holding the position of 'oppressor' very uncomfortable. From my vantage point, those in the state and nation's capitols have never enjoyed comforts as much they do today. Untouchables with a smugness that insulates them and their newly elected, elitist, arses from us commoners is what fuels their disconnect from what's really happening on the ground.
Having them think twice before committing actual crimes or legislating criminal acts (including from-the-bench) could go a long way toward preserving our social obligations toward one-another and our government. Respect would then be a two-way street, from which I think we'd all benefit in the long run.
From your tag line it's possible that our duration may soon be reaching it's end and I can only cite the reason above as evidence that you may be correct. Respect Ave. has been One-Way for too long.
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.