Posted on 03/13/2008 1:42:32 AM PDT by neverdem
She served as an editor and reporter for two years at the University of California-Berkeley’s Daily Californian, a daily student newspaper with a circulation of 10,000.
I don't keep up on this stuff very much. I pretty much figure that we're on a steady path to UK/AU style "safe" society with only slight detours tolerated. IMO it's inevitable, since both sides of THE Political Party are on the same plan. (Our President wanted to renew the law that was passed on the premise of it expiring!)
For Your Viewing [dis]Pleasure
Read it. I won't excerpt it, it's not that long, and it really does merit an honest read of the whole thing.
While we certainly face pressures toward total prohibition, and eternal vigilance is warranted, things are going pretty well for us now. Federally you can buy pretty much anything you want (and can find a seller) save new MGs (wait for Heller part 3), and an increasing number of states are loosening their restrictions. If you’re in a restrictive jurisdiction, move - there’s plenty far more free.
Much of the fear is brought on by the frenzied media-driven rhetoric on both sides. Disconnect from that, do your own thing (legally), and you’ll find that - while sometimes annoying - the infringements are manageable and you can pretty much do what you want. (Don’t misunderstand that as tolerating/ignoring infringements!)
Yes, keeping up with this stuff is hard. There IS a great deal of vebiage, binding and not, flying around and keeping it all straight is difficult.
Do a background check and urine test on them and we could find out pretty quick.
The free press is failing (intentionally misleading?) everybody where discussions about our 2nd A. protections are concerned; the press is evidently as ignorant of the Constitution and its history as most people are. More specifically, regardless that no discussion about our 2nd A. protections is complete without mention of how the 2nd A. relates to the 14th Amendment, the referenced article makes no mention 14th Amendment (corrections welcome).
The reason for this is that John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states. So there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect the right to keep and bear arms from the federal and state governments as much as any other personal right protected by the Constitution's privileges and immunities.
See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record. The page is a part of one of Bingham's discussions about the 14th Amendment.
http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nNote that the referenced page is dated for more than two years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. So Bingham was evidently reassuring his colleagues about the scope and purpose of the ratified 14th Amendment.
Again, how can the free press protect our constitutional freedoms when the press doesn't know the Constitution and its history in the first place?
Thanks for the link.
Philly is a “Democrat Stronghold” - read: “cesspool.”
Now there is an interesting thought.
You made me think about those imbeciles investigating steroid use.
By all means test Congress for foreign substances, and do it randomly.
Oh well ... it is a great idea, but will never happen until ...
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
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.