Out of the ballpark homerun.
1 posted on
03/15/2007 8:45:04 AM PDT by
RKV
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
To: RKV
40 posted on
03/15/2007 11:53:52 AM PDT by
Psycho_Bunny
(I'm holding out hope that at least the DEMOCRATS might accidentally nominate a conservative.)
To: RKV
For liberals the constitution is an inconvenient, little set of unnecessary admonitions that do not take into account emotion and feelings. Which of course in lib world count more than cold, hard logic. The idea that the founding fathers would not want its citizens to have firearms is absurd on the face of it given the times when many people had to use firearms to put food on the table. Can one imagine the early American government going around trying to confiscate guns from the populace? And todays liberals going back in time and trying to convince early citizens to give up their guns? A second American revolution would have quickly followed the first.
To: RKV
Who knows what amendment might be rediscovered next? Personally, I vote for the 10th. Hear, hear!!
Or maybe we could re-discover why the 16th and 17th Amendments were such insane additions in 1913 (when the Socialist Party in the US had far too much influence)
42 posted on
03/15/2007 12:07:41 PM PDT by
Teacher317
(Are you familiar with the writings of Shan Yu?)
To: RKV
Who are the 6 litigants, by the way?
Have we set up a beer and flowers fund for them yet?
45 posted on
03/15/2007 12:13:30 PM PDT by
Teacher317
(Are you familiar with the writings of Shan Yu?)
To: RKV
"Bill of Rights" (if thats even its real name)... The Left thinks its real name is "Rights of Bill [Clinton]". Translated, it means whatever Clinton wants it to mean, as is his right.
-PJ
To: RKV
Skidmarks aplenty at the Brady Campaign...
To: RKV
Horrors!
School prayer is right around the corner!
50 posted on
03/15/2007 6:26:14 PM PDT by
XR7
To: RKV
Nice article. I "suaved" it to my 2nd amendment archive.
At least a few federal court judges have balls. Ms. Henderson obviously does not.
51 posted on
03/15/2007 6:43:19 PM PDT by
Candor7
To: RKV
I always wondered how the district could restrict someone from owning a firearm in their home? I dont know if it was because they were not a state but a district that they were able to get away with that one.
To: RKV
59 posted on
03/15/2007 7:53:15 PM PDT by
A. Pole
(Solzhenitsyn:"Live Not By Lies" www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/livenotbylies.html)
To: RKV
Wow. Just great news bookmark bump.
61 posted on
03/15/2007 8:03:07 PM PDT by
Kudsman
(Gramsci = Hillary = Bye Liberty.)
To: RKV
2nd Amendment bump for later...
63 posted on
03/15/2007 8:14:01 PM PDT by
indthkr
To: RKV; rbosque; B-Chan; Froufrou; GlasstotheArson; Trainer; Mrs. Frogjerk; Fiddlstix; xsmommy; ...
+
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Add me / Remove me
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
68 posted on
03/15/2007 9:25:35 PM PDT by
narses
("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
To: RKV
Folks, if you have a hard time understanding the language of the Second Amendment, there is an easy way to parse it. Imagine that it referred to books instead of guns:
"A well-informed electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Clearly "the electorate" is a subset of "the people", but this does not limit the right to read books only to registered voters.
-ccm
73 posted on
03/15/2007 11:06:16 PM PDT by
ccmay
(Too much Law; not enough Order.)
To: RKV
77 posted on
03/15/2007 11:41:45 PM PDT by
Tunehead54
(Nothing funny here. ;-)
To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ...
82 posted on
03/16/2007 5:10:48 AM PDT by
Joe Brower
(Sheep have two speeds: "graze" and "stampede".)
To: RKV
The Population of the nanny State, being composed of irresponsible rednecks, rejects, and retards, must not be allowed to have Arms. That one landed in the upper deck. Truer words about the attitudes of the elites towards the rubes in flyover country have seldom been spoken.
83 posted on
03/16/2007 5:14:18 AM PDT by
dirtboy
(Duncan Hunter 08)
To: RKV
I wonder how the Supremes are going to react. If they are linear and pure, then even the permitting processes for CCW are unconstitutional.
84 posted on
03/16/2007 5:56:51 AM PDT by
kerryusama04
(Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
To: RKV
Karen LeCraft Henderson, whose opinion that the gun ban was constitutionally permissible was based on at least two stellar deductions. The first was that since the District of Columbia is not a state (as in "necessary to the security of a free State
"), then the 2nd Amendment did not apply in that part of America. Can anyone really be this dumb?
92 posted on
03/16/2007 6:53:31 AM PDT by
kidd
To: RKV
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson