Posted on 06/05/2002 1:20:54 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Let me just say up front that I am not addressing you if you voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and regret it. The same goes for those of you who voted for Bush and insist on holding his feet to the fire on the important issues. If, however, you cast your vote for Bush, still believe he is the only hope for America and intend to support every move he makes without so much as a raised eyebrow, this is for you.
It has been nearly a year-and-a-half since George W. Bush, the savior of conservatism, descended from on high to begin his earthly reign in Washington, D.C. Republicans assured us that he would restore integrity to the White House and would be a marked improvement over the promiscuous Bill Clinton. Well, in all honesty, that could have been accomplished by electing a neutered chimp to the office of president.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush the man proved to be a nice break from Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Unlike Gore, Bush had a more likable...well, he actually had a personality. He also possessed the unique ability to address the American people without the smug and condescending vibe Clinton exuded. However, when it came to policy, George W. Bush the candidate failed to demonstrate that he would govern any differently than his Democrat counterparts.
Still, throughout the campaign, there was a loyal group of Bush supporters who would take offense at even the slightest implication that their candidate was anything but a staunch conservative. Even now, they continue to stand by their man, and I find this to be rather perplexing.
Perhaps those who have pledged their undying allegiance to President Bush could answer a few questions for me, in no particular order of course:
• How would you have reacted if Bill Clinton had signed the Patriot Act into law and given the government sweeping new surveillance powers?
• Would you have criticized a Democrat president for signing a $26 billion education-spending bill?
• Did you feel betrayed when Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law?
• What do you think about Bush's position on granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?
• Would you have tolerated a Democrat proposal for federally funded faith-based initiatives?
• What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had said, "No one should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government"?
• What do you think about the president's granting of Permanent Most Favored Nation status to China?
• What's the difference between Bush and the Democrats on the issue of farm subsidies?
• How would you react if a Democrat president sent a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress?
• Would you have stood for a Democrat saying "No!" to arming airline pilots?
• What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had pushed for the federalization of airport security?
• Are you willing to stand by and let the Bush administration cater to the environmentalists on the global warming issue?
• What do you think about Bush's call for a Patient's Bill of Rights?
• What one thing has Bush done that sets him apart from the Democrats?
• It's been a year-and-a-half since Bush took office. When do we start to see a decrease in the size and scope of government? For that matter, when do we start to see even a remote indication that this administration will think about doing anything to try to limit the federal government?
This list is by no means exhaustive, but I would really be interested in some answers. Perhaps it would help shed some light on the mindset of modern compassionate conservatives.
The fact that a Republican president is governing like a Democrat isn't surprising. What's amazing to me is that there are a few select Bush supporters out there who cannot—or will not—utter one word of criticism against their president for any reason. In their minds this man is the epitome of conservatism, and to question his actions would be to question their own beliefs and cause them to wonder why they supported him in the first place.
The way I see it there can only be two explanations for this: 1) these people really and truly believe in what Bush is doing, or 2) they do not wish to face up to the real reason they voted for him — he was simply a slightly more palatable choice than Al Gore.
Perhaps you can explain why to another "genetic defect" like me. Your opinion is not enough I want a constitutional argument that supports your opinion.
I guess you know why Starr allowed the Whitehouse to keep the FBI files after telling us it was illegal for the Whitehouse to have them.
I guess you missed Blumenthal and Vernon's lies under oath ... or the fact that they weren't prosecuted.
I guess you'd rather spin than address the facts.
Besides, like I said, provide an example that doesn't have to do with "sex".
Bush defunding the War on Drugs? Last time I checked the unconstitutional drug war is still going on, the DEA is still in existence, and the entire criminal code is riddled with ridiculous drug laws. The federal budget is over 2 trillion dollars. I dont think I am inflating any numbers. Your conservative president is over-spending.
In other words, you have no idea of what you're talking about AGAIN, and are unable to substantiate your claims.
The agencies are not unconstitutional as the constitution gives Congress the power to create them, and the president the power to appoint their heads.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
" He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officer, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
I have read them NOW make a case.
Just glad to know you don't worry about what other people think..... now stay busy this evening....
by the way why don't you fly a flag on your profile page?
Disagree. Arguing with reason is the only effective way to deal with these people. By doing so you demonstrate to lurkers what these people are really about. Playing their game only plays into their hands. Please understand that I'm not trying to change the minds of most of those now posting to me on this thread ... I'm trying to change the minds of those who lurk and make them reconsider the credibility of anything "these people" post on this or any thread.
You still have not made a cogent argument just name-calling and spinning. Take ANY agency, law or regulation and then use the constitution to prove your case that it is unconstitutional.
But that was just perjury about sex. Everybody does that and it is certainly not a crime ( unless your name is Barbara Battalino? ).
The conspiracy to obstruct justice which resulted in Betty Currie retrieving and hiding the subpeonaed items from Monica Lewinsky was covered up by a liberal media which killed entire forests to make the paper used to tell us what a saint she is.
Please don't misunderstand. I would love to see the Clintons and the rest of their gang pay for their crimes. I just don't believe that the lying liberal press will permit it.
I repeat my entreaty to fellow Freepers to cancel your subscriptions to liberal rags rather than continue to pay someone to lie to you and undermine your values.
So far you are of the opinion that these "agencies" are unconstitutional. If you are so qualified then I would assume you have a few facts on which to base your declaration. Opinions are like A##holes every one has one.
The Constitution only provides for a full time Navy. Are the rest of the services also unconstitutional?
Well Mr Strict Constructionist, what part of "shall NOT be infringed' are you having a problemn with? I thought my answer was clear, repeal all the weapons laws, they only affect law abiding citizens. Possession of an inanimate object ( a gun) should not be a criminal offense even if you are a convicted felon who has fully served his prison sentence. There are many people who make mistakes, as long as they go straight it shouldn't be a problem. We don't need concealed carry permits because government doesn't accept responsibility for protecting anyone execpt under very rare circumstances. If someone decides to continue his criminal career some silly law isn't going to stop that, but the current unreasonable and I believe unconstitutional situation unfairly punishes someone who has turned over a new leaf by leaving him defensless.
I am in favor of certain limitations of certain types of weapond, but only through the amendment process. I even support the ownership of fully-automatic shoulder weapons, but would stop there.
Which ones and why?
I am in favor of concealed carry permits for anyone for anyone with proper training and no convictions for violent crime. I am against gun registration, waiting period, etc.
If you oppose gun registration then why do you support gun owner registration, because that is what a concealed carry permit is.
Laws do not prevent crimes, law-abiding citizens with the right to carry do. laws are for after the fact.
You are not promoting the right to carry, you are promoting the revokable state issued priviledge to carry, something VERY different from a right.
“The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The big argument converning this simple sentence always starts with the fight over the definition of a militia. Anti-gun folks say a “well regulated militia” means a government controlled body of men like the National Guard or the other branches of service. Those who actually know any of the history of the Bill of Rights or the Revolutionary War know that the Framers were referring to individuals who maintained their own personal fire-arms so they could be called together in the defense of their community in times of crisis. The “well-regulated part” simply meant that the militia was to come together periodicaly to train and elect the officers of the militia chain of command so that when there was an emergency there wouldn’t be fifty guys standing around with their thumbs up their but wondering who was in charge, while another fifty came to blows over who was.
Whenver we pro second-amendment types get into these “what is a militia” arguments, we always tell liberals that we have to look at the history and put things into the context of that time period in order to know what the framers meant. But usually, we stop at the word militia when using this argument, and that is where things tend to fall apart for us. Most on our side like to take an absolutist stance on the “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” part, without applying the same rule as for the “militia” part of the clause. And then, the focus is usually on the part you stressed “shall not be infringed.” So lets climb in the way-back machine and examine this the same way we examined militias.
“The great object is, that every man be armed.... Everyone who is able may have a gun.” - Patrick Henry.
“To preserve liberty, it is necessary that the whole body of the people possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee.
“Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense.” - John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88.
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable.... The very atmosphere of firearms every-where restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” - George Washington.
While many of our framers argued the proper role of a milita and whether or not to rely on them or a regular army for the nations defense, nearly all, without exception made statements nearly identical to the one I have quoted by Patrick Henry. All believed that Americans should be allowed to keep and carry or bear arms. But what were they referring to exactly?
They were referring to personal firearms and edged weapons. Personal arms. Those used by an individual. Those used bu the militia man who was often required by local law to maintain a long-arm and sufficient powder and ball to to keep him shooting till the powers that be could supply him with more if the situation called for it. Ah, but what about cannons! Cannon were not considered a personal arm, nor were individual militia members ever expected to care for them. Cannon were maintained by the militia’s convening authority - usually the local township, city, or state government. In most cases, though a militia soldier never came near one except during some of the larger battles of French and Indian wars and when they participated in the major battles of the Revolution. It is reasonable to conclude that the arms they were speaking of would be the normal individual arms of your basic infantry soldier and nothing more. At the time of the revolution, the only crew-served weapons were cannon and ships of war. Neither of those were considered as being included under the second-amendment.
If that is not sufficient, then simply look at the word used - arms. That word refers to weapons born or carried in the “arms” of a soldier and that is how they meant it. If they meant something more, they would have used the word “weopons” which has a much broader meaning. If nothing else, our framers were excruciatingly precise in their use of language - even if the original meanings of the words they used have been forgotten. The “shall not be infringed” part of the clause refers to rifles, pistols and edged weapons, such as a militia may be required to use if called upon.
“The right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed.” Arms as defined and understood by the framers. To use the “historical context” argument to make your argument for the definition of the word “militia”, and then conveniently toss it aside when it comes to the definition of “arms”, is intellectually dishonest.
That is why I say the Second Amendment would clearly allow, without further amendment, such weapons as an assualt rifle, a real one and not the look-alikes so many liberals are afraid of. To take the Second Amendment beyond this puts you on ground that simply cannot be supported without distorting meaning and historical context the same way liberals do when they try to say a militia is a regualar army and not the free individuals of the country. To argue beyond that point casues people to look at you like you have lost your mind - at which point they stop listening and discount every thing said up to that point (something to keep in mind when arguing the Second Amendment to people who are on the fence or leaning against it).
“But,” you say, “how is a militia to defend our liberties against a tyrannical governtment fully equipped with tanks, planes, bazookas, and heavy machine-guns unless the people are allowed to have them, too?” In the historical context, a militia was nevrer seen as a force that could stand up to regular troops, even when similarly equipped.
“If some of the community are exclusively inured to its defense, and the rest attend agriculture, the consequences will be that the arts of war and defense and of cultivating the soil will be understood. Agriculture will flourish, and military discipline will be perfect. If, on the contrary, our defense be solely intrusted to militia, ignorance of arms and negligence of farming will ensue; the farmers plan is, in every respect, more to the interest of the state. By it we shall have good farmers and good soldiers; by the latter we shall have neither. If the inhabitants be called out on sudden emergencies of war, their crops, the means of their subsistence, may be destroyed by it. If we are called in the time of sowing seed or harvest, the means of subsistence might be lost; and the loss of one year’s crop might have been prevented at trivial expense, if appropriated to the purpose of supporting a part of the community, exclusively occupied in the defense of the whole.” - Francis Corbin, speech, Virginia Constitutional Convention. June 7, 1788.
“When the perfect order and discipline which are essential to regular troops are contemplated, and with what ease and precision they execute the difficult manuevers indispensable to the success of offensive or defensive operations, the conviction cannot be resisted that such troops will always have a decided advantage over the more numerous forces composed of uninstructed militia or undiscipllined recruits.” - Alexander Hamilton.
“For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed milita is their best security.” - Thomas Jefferson, 1808.
“I always considered militia as the best troops in the world for a single exertion, but they will not do for a long campaign.” - Thomas Paine, The American Crisis. #1. December 23, 1776.
“No militia will ever acquire the habits necessary to resist a regular force.... The firmness requisite for the real business of fighting is only to be attained by a constant course of discipline and service. I have never yet been witness to a single instance that can justify a different opinion, and it is most earnestly to be wished that the liberties of America may no onger be trusted, in any material degree, to so precarious a dependence.” - George Washington, letter to Congress. September 15, 1780.
Even if the dreaded day came when the people of this country needed to rise up and fight the government and whatever troops it decided to use, having such weapons wouldn’t mean much. Equal numbers of militia men armed with the latest weapons are not going to defeat professional soldiers who train daily with those weapons and operate under disciplined leadership. So that point is moot.
But, as long as the citizens possess rifles and pistols for defense, and can form a resistence movement or guerilla force that is prepared to conduct operations long enough to bring the bulk of the people over to its side, that is all that is needed. The Afghans started their resistence with guns going back to the first world war and fought the Soviet Army with them. They fought limited guerilla actions and developed their skills, upgrading their weaponry with that captured on the battle-field. Eventually the Soviet left Afghanistan, the way the British quit America.
As for the argument that denying an ex-felon the right to keep and bear arms is an infringment and that a right is not a right if it can be taken away for any reason. You are wrong. There are no rights that do not come with a coresponding responsibility. That view of rights is one that our founders knew and accepted. It is the basis for all of our laws. Your right to keep and bear arms exists until you abuse the responsibilty tha goes with it to not misuse it; to murder your neigbor, for example, or to steal.
Its one thing to debate just what those responsibilities are and under what circustance an actual voilation has occured that would justify denial of the right, but to say there are none is foolish nonsense that even Jefferson would have scoffed at.
As for licensing those who wish to carry a concealed weapon in public, so long as they have not been convicted of a crime that would clearly demostrate they cannot be trusted with one (such as having used one to commit a crime in the past), it does meet your technical definition of an infringement. However, there are compelling public safety issues. I strongly feel that before a person be allowed to go about in public with a firearm, they should first be required to take a safety course and demonstrate sufficient skill in using it not be a greater threat than any they may chance to prevent.
And while this may constitute “registering the owner” instead of the gun, they are not necessarily the same thing as you suggest. Gun registration identifies you as being the owner of that firearm and allows your gun to be tracked to you if the power that be decide to come take it. Simply getting a concealed carry license does not. It simply says that should you decide to, you may. The same way having a driver’s license does not necessarily require you to have a car. If said ranges and licensing facilities allow you to use their guns, then there is no problem. The government will have no way of knowing if you have one or not, regardless of the assumptions they are likely to make.
Because it is such an important issue, though, I would like to see a constituional amendment to cover this as a sepparate right and clearly define it so that the pols couldn’t screw it up.
That’s what I think and why I think it.
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.