Skip to comments.
Zero-Tolerance Gone Too Far
Liberty Belles ^
| March 9, 2004
| .Jennifer Freeman
Posted on 03/10/2004 7:49:57 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 last
Well, I think I've made my point.
G'nite.
61
posted on
03/10/2004 11:32:45 PM PST
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: Ken H
Sure, the 2nd says he should, but the law says he shouldn't.
If he did it delibertly, I applaud him for his courage.
If he forgot he had a SHOtGUN in his truck, he's a dumba$$.
62
posted on
03/10/2004 11:39:19 PM PST
by
philetus
(Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
To: Cali_cptlsm
I agree I was being somewhat hypocritical. I should rather say I PERSONALLY think the law in unconstitutional . But I have no doubt the federal courts will allow it never the less. Should someone disobey a law they think is unconstitutional ? well call me a coward but when your married with 2 kids sometimes you grudgingly toe big brother's line. Whether or not you should disobey an unconstitutional law is not what we've been discussing.
The issue is your contemptuous attitude toward a citizen who is facing criminal charges for violating a law you believe is unconstitutional.
63
posted on
03/10/2004 11:47:17 PM PST
by
Ken H
Comment #64 Removed by Moderator
To: philetus
Sure, the 2nd says he should, but the law says he shouldn't. Agreed. The point I'm trying to get across to the poster is that the Second Amendment is supposed to be the Supreme Law.
His contempt should be for the unconstitutional GFSA, not for a citizen exercising the RBKA.
If he did it delibertly, I applaud him for his courage.
If he forgot he had a SHOtGUN in his truck, he's a dumba$$.
Possibly so, but the focus belongs on the Second Amendment violation and Commerce Clause abuse, IMO.
65
posted on
03/11/2004 12:17:51 AM PST
by
Ken H
To: Ken H
"the focus belongs on the Second Amendment violation and Commerce Clause abuse"
I'm inclined to agree with you there since, If the second had not been hijacked, there would be no crime.
66
posted on
03/11/2004 12:23:09 AM PST
by
philetus
(Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
To: Smokin' Joe; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; GunsareOK; George Frm Br00klyn Park; Pippin; Marylander; ...
LOL! Better not do that now! Nancy Grasmick would personally throw you in jail and lose the key!
67
posted on
03/11/2004 5:25:47 AM PST
by
sauropod
(I intend to have Red Kerry choke on his past.)
To: Don Joe
Great job on this thread! I've enjoyed reading your responses to the bootlicker.
68
posted on
03/11/2004 6:32:17 AM PST
by
Mulder
(Fight the future)
To: dd5339; cavtrooper21
ping
69
posted on
03/11/2004 7:56:26 AM PST
by
Vic3O3
(Jeremiah 31:16-17 (KJV))
To: sauropod
When I was in the third grade, you could still order a shotgun from Herters by filling out the form in the catalog and signing your check. It (the shotgun) would come in the mail.
We have been trying to stop sliding down the slippery slope since Barry Goldwater lost the presidential election.
70
posted on
03/11/2004 10:39:49 PM PST
by
Smokin' Joe
(As the oldest generation dies, the memory of liberty fades into obscurity, replaced by an impostor)
To: archy
Just a thought. It dawns on me that everyone (almost) picks up the definition from the USC for "militia", even though the Second Amendment antedates the USC and the adoption of the Constitution.
Perhaps it is in this that the original meaning of the amendment is being lost.
Contemporary dictionary definitions of "Militia" (simply: "the Army") and "regulated" (in a word: "Controlled"), when substituted, yield the basis of the amendment. To wit: A well-controlled Army being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The idea being that the overwhelming numbers of armed citizens, even in the absence of martial training, could keep the Army in check should it no longer be subservient to the Civil power.
The discussion is to be found in the Federalist Papers, where the question of a standing army, and its size (if any)is dealt with.
Unfortunately, relying on a later definition of militia opens the door to the entire militia v.s. National Guard v.s. population in general argument and obfusticates the notion of the RKBA.
Note also that the word 'State' has undergone radical transformation from the pre-ratification era (one of my ancestors swore an oath to the Soverign State of Maryland, prior to the Articles of Confederation)to the post-Civil War era, when 'States' had become mere political subdivisions, and not soverign nations united for the purpose of a common defense, and to promote the general welfare....
71
posted on
03/11/2004 11:06:19 PM PST
by
Smokin' Joe
(As the oldest generation dies, the memory of liberty fades into obscurity, replaced by an impostor)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The problem nowadays is that nobody knows what DISCRETION is anymore.
Zerotolerance is the epidomy of the law of unintended consequences. You get hysteria by a few sucker moms scared of gang bangers and you get a law of zero tolerance.
And oftentimes people like Adam are the ones caught.
72
posted on
03/11/2004 11:15:44 PM PST
by
Dan from Michigan
(""....but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America"")
To: Dan from Michigan
Me, I would've just told Adam to take the firearm home and not bring it back...
73
posted on
03/13/2004 10:35:38 AM PST
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(Hi, I'm Sydney Biddle-Barrows, and this is Whore Stories!)
To: breakem
My name, of course, refers to the "tolerance" displayed by the banning of Santa Claus in Kensington, as opposed to the common-sense tolerance of minor, unintended infractions.
74
posted on
03/13/2004 10:40:33 AM PST
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(Hi, I'm Sydney Biddle-Barrows, and this is Whore Stories!)
To: El Gato
Actually, if I remember correctly, the "commerce" version of the law was thrown out by the Supreme Court as well, but some Clintonites simply tacked it on another bill as an amendment, so here we are...
75
posted on
03/13/2004 10:43:10 AM PST
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(Hi, I'm Sydney Biddle-Barrows, and this is Whore Stories!)
To: Cali_cptlsm
Relax. Newbies are exposed all the time. You're no different.
76
posted on
03/13/2004 11:15:56 AM PST
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(Hi, I'm Sydney Biddle-Barrows, and this is Whore Stories!)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
you're taking this way too seriously
77
posted on
03/13/2004 4:59:09 PM PST
by
breakem
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson