Posted on 02/07/2007 2:40:44 PM PST by Jim Robinson
"whine"?
I guess if you call exposing a gun grabbing, pro-abortion, pro-illegal immigration, pro-campaign finance reform liberal republican whining, then that's your dictionary, not mine.
I just remember the sweet silence of all the miers fans the moment she withdrew and through the alito process. They were so damn sure "aunt harriet" was going to make it through to the final round. Taunting, calling people "unappeasable uber conservatives", saying it was her or nothing...then...SILENCE!!
You guys should try that more...it was fun!
There's a first time for everything now...:)
Gillette
Nice 3 1/2 Lutz.
But you still did a 180.
No, he'd be interpreting that part... and frankly, I think it's high time we reclaimed the word "interpretation" from the Left and put it to its proper use. The English language is inexact, and must be interpreted. Ludicrous interpretations (such as in Wickard or Grutter or Roe) are to be discarded, but the words still need to be interpreted.
For example, let's have a look at the following law:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law" can be read an absolute as easily as can "shall not be infringed." Should it be interpreted in its absolute sense? If a religion believed that its adherents needed to set off air horns in the street at 2:00 AM every night, could Congress pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of this religion? Don't laws against slander, threatening, conspiracy, and incitement to riot abridge the freedom of speech? When the New York Times published classified information, it broke the law... do you believe the Times had the right to publish because it enjoys freedom of the press? Don't laws against libel abridge this freedom? If you try to hand your petition, signed by millions, to the President, the Secret Service will drag you away... doesn't this abridge your right to petition the government for redress of grievances?
The answer is no, it does not, because the Constitution is English and nearly all statements made in English have "subject to common sense" as part of them. A parent tells a child, "I'll take you to the zoo on Friday." Thursday, foreigners invade, and there's bloody street-to-street fighting, with armored vehicles commanding the highways and a 24-hour curfew on pain of death being broadcast from trucks. So the parent doesn't take the child to the zoo. Did the parent lie? Did he break a promise? No, because what he really told the child was, "I'll take you to the zoo on Friday, unless something happens to make that totally unreasonable." The latter part is implied. Similarly, the Framers didn't intend us to use the Constitution to commit suicide. Congress can make it illegal to slander, to conspire, to threaten, to incite riot, and the libel. And, to tell you the truth, I'm really not too unhappy that the feds would know about it if a bunch of fanatics started buying up machine guns.
Why am I not surprised by who posted that statement?!
> More than 90,000 guns have been seized...
The criminals will get more. Meanwhile, citizens going about their peaceful, lawful business will be at the mercy of the criminals.
Why punish citizens for what criminals 'might' do?
It doesn't explicitly say that, and the Supreme Court hasn't ruled that it says that.
Felons forfeit their rights upon conviction. It is not a regulation on the law abiding.
The main reason I voted Republican in '06 was that I was voting against Democrats and I thought they had a chance to beat Stabenow and Granholm. I'm not even a Reublican.
The Marshal has the right to say 'no firearms east of the tracks' as was done in the Wild West. He cannot restrict ownership but certainly can restrict where they are carried. Of course, he has to be Wyatt Earp or Bat Masterson or nobody will pay attention.
Rudy is of the same frame of mind that Democarts were back in 1994. Rudy doesn't support the 2nd amendment.
Perhaps we could put a scarlet "G" next to our name? Would that be satisfatory to you, Rb ver. 2.0?
The Supreme Court also said abortion is a Constitutional right. Doesn't mean I agree with them or take their action, or lack thereof, as validation of my positions.
I remember last year a guy was on a commercial flight and his flight was diverted to NYC. He was arrested and his gun siezed because of this crap.
You lost me on the "G".
Why bother? You already do it....
..... with every justification of left-of-center-behavior you post.
Molon Labe! Unless one is convicted violent criminal or insane, the right to keep and bear arms comes from God Himself, nuff said.
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.