Replies

"Doan worry, be happy! After all, we conservatives are making such wonderful gains all across the land!"

We are - and we are because of internal debatel like this that sharpen the tone and direction of grassroots pressures on an erstwhile 'Conservative' Republicanism. It is the embodied effort of the active citizens that have driven things to this point in spite of inertia and establishment politics. This division is merely serving to define the next fork in th road.

BTW, we just got 'Shall Issue' reforms in our carry laws in Minnesota last week - the Socialist Republic of Minnesota that is. Complete with shrieking, crying, swearing and threats from the Left.

No killing and insurrection needed. Try it, you'll like it.

BTW, we just got 'Shall Issue' reforms in our carry laws in Minnesota last week ...

Congratulations! It was recently passed in my native state of Colorado too.

So, are you going to go get yourself and your gun registered with the authorities now that they've given you this privelege?

"Grass roots" enthusiasm and other such efforts are wonderfully inspirational for the people in the choir--to wit: those who believe the Constitution is not a "maluable" or "living" document. However, name--and cite--those politicians who actually uphold that document to the letter.

Party affiliation not withstanding, grass roots enthusiasm does not amount to squat, when our legislative "movers and shakers" play games with the supreme law of the land; or worse, when the chief executive pretends the Bill of Rights is open to interpretation and executable with "exceptions" under the pretense of "public safety," "national security," and other such historically baseless nonsense.

Unfortunately, the fact that President Bush willingly uses the liberal misnomer of "assault" weapons, speaks volumes about his core belief on the issue. Why would he not jealously defend the original intent of the Second Amendment's drafters? The proper interpretation is expressed in plainly written english, both in the Bill of Rights--AND the precursor arguments, which were expounded upon prior to the final incorporation of the Amendment.

Knowing the that President Bush is far from being ignorant of the law, and less so of history's sad lessons, I do not believe this to be a case of uninformed judgment on his part. One does not play political football with the plain and natural meaning of words--unless the individual is suffering with a Clintonian-like character deficiency.

With deference to restricting the possession of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons--and this only on account of their tremendous and practically uncontrolable destructive capacity--NO weapon should be "banned" from the American citizen. The purpose of the Second Amendment would be lost if citizens were refused the right to keep and bear those same ubiquitous forms of armament that are secured by the military, which is, of course, an agent of the federal government.

Name one amendment within the Bill of Rights, save but the Second Amendment, that "requires" licensure; ie: "permission from the government" to practice the associated liberty. Moreover, what entity defines who is to be considered "unfit" to possess a weapon?--The federal government?--That same creature expressly forbidden to interfere with those liberties specifically enumerated and protected under the Bill of Rights! The term "unfit" can be made very broad indeed, depending upon the persuasion and prejudices of the controlling political authority--and that IS the central issue here. WHO controls the guns.

No killing and insurrection needed.

What fun is that? :)