Posted on 03/27/2007 10:31:38 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
"Webb did not say whether it was his gun. "
Did anyone in the MSM ask him?
"Who is telling the truth about the gun(s), the Senator or the aid??"
That's the only question I want answered. I don't care who's gun it is. Point is the aide was caught trying to get into the Capitol with an unregistered concealed weapon.
Senator Webb, is this your gun or your aides? Why is this not being asked?
Webb is lying. Call it a hunch.
I knew from scanning your ramblings early on in the thread you thought REGULATED meant:
controlled
liable to
subject to
subordinate
subservient
rather than the TRUE meaning of:
disciplined
deliberate
efficient
methodized
meticulous
ordered
precise
...well-regulated
Another fine example of Democratic "leadership"
Gun control laws should be applied to everyone, no exceptions for politicians or even law enforcement officers.
He is doing it for the good of the commonwealth, doncha know.
Webb is a self-absorbed arrogant lout. His loyalty is to himself alone.
Hapless staffer, prepare to twist in the wind.
That was my first reaction too. Couldn't he stand behind the guy? Isn't it his gun? So his aide just took it?? Shame on you Virginia for electing this slimy creep. Bunch of fools I live around. My skin keeps on crawling whenever I see or hear him.
have you seen her? doubt it!!
it does seem simple enough. To who was the gun registered?
What a sack of crap. Based on what I've read:
* The gun and ammunition belonged to Democrat Senator Webb; and
* The subordinate Senator Webb is 'hanging out to dry' is a fellow Marine.
This guy is a 'piece of work!' Where in H@des does he get off, sticking this kind of thing on a subordinate & fellow Marine?
ANSWER THAT QUESTION, MR. WEBB...
"Regulated" means both disciplined AND under legal control. In fact, within a military setting, the two are synonymous.
The reason officers have the power to command, not request, is legal authority. They are not necessarily the best at the military art, but they have the power of the state to order, and to punish. When the unorganized militia is called up under military command, they are subject to orders, not invitations. They are subject to regulations, not requests. One does not opt out at will.
Firearms and military force always were regulated, in both senses of the word, in the colonies. Why do you think the British were marching on the MAGAZINES at Concord? There were central access points for arms and ammunition, in some cases, especially in the heavily settled and town-dwelling north that had neither an Indian problem or a slave insurrection problem to deal with.
However, as interesting as the historical environment of 1776 is, it is not fully applicable to today's environment, because in 1776 there were no weapons of mass destruction at all, and the greatest mass-casualty weapon was a cannon filled with grape-shot.
Today, there ARE WMD, and mass-casualty weapons, and the answer as to what the 2nd Amendment is interpreted to mean CANNOT BE that our neighbor can have an anthrax lab in his basement and make a fertilizer bomb in his U-Haul "so long as he doesn't bother anybody".
The 2nd Amendment has to mean GUNS, not mass casualty weapons. And then the question is merely one of how much safety regulation or registration one is going to require - or not require - concerning personal ownership of guns.
My opinion is that gun possession is clearly a federal right, spelled out in the Second Amendment. Like any other right, it is broad, but naturally limited. An unlimited right would mean that convicted felons could have guns. It would mean that the Secret Service couldn't infringe people's gun rights when the President was around. And it would mean that people could individually possess WMD. That's all nutty. The 2nd Amendment can't mean that. It won't be interpreted in that extreme a manner, because most people can see the immediately noxious effects that would have.
Well, well.... somebody is lying.
And that person is Webb! Oh my God, I just saw his press conference on FOX and his little piggy eyes were darting here and there. Never saw a more guilty guy!
Do you always post 'strawman arguments?' Or would you like to post some actual citation to, say, an NRA printed document, that advocates personal ownership of nuclear weapons ("there were no weapons of mass destruction at all?" and "WMD?")?
"[M]ass casualty weapons?" You my ignorent friend, are just blowing smoke - and I won't say where...
Webb didn't give the aide the gun, he gave the aide the bag. Gotta learn how to parse DC speak. ;-)
Where do you have to register ammunition? I may be in trouble!
It was just a guess, but that's the way I've taken it from the first time I saw it.
He gave him the BAG that contained the gun. LOL. Webb is going to split hairs on this one.
@@@@@
I haven't seen anyone defend Webb's packing a loaded gun in some kind of case that did not stay in his possession. I thought 'carry' meant on one's person, at least under one's control.
What does the NRA say about the right to stow loaded weapons and extra clips in anonymous cases, and then ask someone else to take the case somewhere else? Sounds criminally irresponsible to me.
I think the mistake is grabbing the wrong briefcase or bag while the senator was parking the car
######
Wouldn't putting a loaded gun in a briefcase or bag that could casually be grabbed up by someone else be more than a mistake?
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.