A good rebuttal of the propaganda put out by the New York Times.
1 posted on
03/27/2009 5:59:02 AM PDT by
marktwain
To: marktwain
—Dave Kopel, John Lott and Clayton Cramer — excellent Second Amendment analysts.
2 posted on
03/27/2009 6:04:40 AM PDT by
rellimpank
(--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
To: marktwain
Liberals to Supremes: “To Hell with Heller!”
3 posted on
03/27/2009 6:05:05 AM PDT by
2harddrive
(...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
To: marktwain
The Times is still read by many folks, mostly liberal who don’t know what is really going on. That is why Liptak’s article is still damaging to the 2nd Amendment.
4 posted on
03/27/2009 6:14:15 AM PDT by
wmileo
(I miss Ronald Wilson Reagan. POTUS #40)
To: marktwain
Heller is totally irrelevant because it has no teeth. What consequence is there to officials who ignore it? None.
It’s just another example of how liberals have killed the rule of law. If liberal officials don’t like the results of the legislative or the judicial process, which is a rarety because they usualy control those processes, they simply ignore it, with no consequence.
To: marktwain
The lawyers on our side for guns warned before SCOTUS decided on Heller that is was going to be a narrow decision. There are more cases pending and we will have to wait for them.
8 posted on
03/27/2009 7:40:02 AM PDT by
bmwcyle
(American voters can fix this world if they would just wake up.)
To: marktwain
Actually to an extent I think it’s good that they’re displaying complacency and hiding their head in the sand. When is it ever better to have an informed alert enemy than one who willfully chooses to ignore the danger you pose?
10 posted on
03/27/2009 8:47:50 AM PDT by
Still Thinking
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ..
11 posted on
03/27/2009 8:57:07 AM PDT by
Joe Brower
(Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
To: marktwain
[Winkler] argued that gun controls should be upheld if they are “reasonable,” and that anything short of banning all guns is reasonable. So according to Winkler, if we are "allowed" to own a single 18th century smooth bore Brown Bess black powder muzzle loading rifle, then our 2nd Amendment rights are completely intact. How very generous of him.
12 posted on
03/27/2009 9:18:16 AM PDT by
Blood of Tyrants
(Socialism is the belief that most people are better off if everyone was equally poor and miserable.)
To: marktwain; Joe Brower
15 posted on
03/27/2009 9:52:26 AM PDT by
neverdem
(Xin loi minh oi)
To: marktwain
What the liberals cannot comprehend is that the Second Amendment is merely an affirmation of a natural, God-given right. It needs no court precedent to prevail, and it prevails regardless of new court proceedings. It exists because we are free, not because a majority of judges decide we can have it. It exists because it is outside the authority of judicial activism. It exists because the United States of America exists. And it will ensure its own survival, regardless of which way the judicial wind blows. Survival of the Republic is what it is all about. It's not about sport. It's not about hunting. It's not about politics.
Molon labe.
19 posted on
03/27/2009 12:08:05 PM PDT by
Sender
(It's never too late to be who you could have been.)
To: marktwain
Lying and dissembling by the NYT?
I’m shocked!
23 posted on
03/27/2009 4:23:37 PM PDT by
editor-surveyor
(The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
