Hmm
Posted on 06/29/2010 7:16:04 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
Daley’s such an idiot. The people that want to be able to protect themselves and their families FROM criminals are not the same group of people that actually ARE criminals.
Grandma is not a criminal. Father is not a criminal. Mom isn’t a criminal. Rapists, murderers and thieves are criminals. And the criminals are already walking around your precious liberal enclave with guns right now. Your laws mean nothing to them, Daley. You just make life more dangerous for the law-abiding people. And you turn them into victims and use them as political pawns to justify your continued disarming of them.
Then wouldn't that make any sort of capital punishment unconstitutional? Since that definitely infringes on the fundamental right to live?
To say that as a fundamental right there should be no restrictions on gun ownership means you can't prevent felons from owning guns or the mentally impaired or place any age requirements on gun ownership at all. Some restrictions are needed, and must be in place. The question is where the boundary between permitted restrictions and unconstitutional restrictions lies. And unfortunately the court decision does nothing to help identify that boundary.
Poor, poor Daley. He is going to discover, as citizens living in right to carry states have long ago discovered, in the months after it becomes legal for all citizens to arm themselves that the incidence of all sorts of crimes will plummet, giving the lie to his desire for another two to three thousand Chicago cops (and their votes and the votes of their family members) for the “good of the public.” Gee, Dick, maybe after plungers aren’t the exclusive province of city plumbers and everyone knows how to unplug their own toilets we won’t have such a chronic back-up problem for which you want to extort more money.
And we can’t leave that boundary up to common sense because liberals don’t have any and disdain anyone that does.
The Kennedy vote came at too high a cost, for the ruling was not bold enough and the meek outcome burdens not just the right to bear arms, but all other rights.
NY already does this - you can own a flintlock pistol, but not if you also own powder and shot.
Hmm
Hmm
WHY THEY WANT OUR GUNS!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73SsNFgBO4
DISARMED GERMAN JEWS AND THE HOLOCAUST!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg9q9sxJFnA
“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that we will never need it until they come to take it away.” Thomas Jefferson
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
Sigmund Freud
Similarly, prior to the Second Amendment, firearms were most certainly used for criminal activity. Yet despite the possibility that some people would use firearms for criminal purposes, the people prohibited the Government from infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
The key difference here is that when someone has tried to suppress free speech, the courts, and for a time the media, have vigorously defended the right to use words which might be offensive, but not unlawful.
With the Second Amendment, the courts, and the media, have not had a similar history of vigorous defense of the right to keep and bear arms. And that is a disgrace.
I hope this put’s that mafioso Daley’s thugs on notice. This criminal should be tarred and feathered and run out of town. He is no different than Al Capone in tactics and intent. Little Ceasar needs a smackdown.
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.