Posted on 06/28/2004 8:51:29 AM PDT by nypokerface
This is just shooting practice for me. Enjoy...
I do. Immensely.
For me, this last round was more a practice in baiting and trappind and subsequently bashing with a 10lb sledgehammer... I so hoped he'd try to dredge up bogus publik-skul kindergarten Latin.
Referring to the assassination of George Moscone and Harvey Milk, Finestein was not in her office but was targeted by the shooter, Dan White who was a San Francisco policeman, fireman and supervisor. So which terrorist group was it Di? The police, fire department, or the Board of Supervisors?
oooooooh!
I bet that one would leave a bruise, if you ever got to pose it to her in front of cameras.
Of course there is no federally protected right to own a car. For yrs. car could only use the roads with a flag man walking in front. Amendment iv has nothing to do with this issue. Nor does the discussion by the Founders of the right to vote. Nor does the quote from St. George Tucker.
Apparently you cannot grasp the meaning of the phrase "without due process of law" since you resort to throwing up a series of quotes which do not address the issues. Of course, the constitution was written to protect property from arbitrary seizure by governments. But that does not mean property cannot be taken by governments or that its use cannot be regulated by government. But that is generally done by state and local governments.
You are just as confused about what a liberal or a lunatic is as you are about the Constitution and American history. And that is saying a lot.
All that is well and good but does not change the fact that the arms spoken of in the second were firearms, swords i.e. personal weapons. There is nothing in the debates of the CC or the federalist papers to indicate otherwise.
As I stated to our other defender of the right to own Sarin gas bombs even states are not allowed to possess ships of war during peacetime and you expect a rational person to believe that an individual can? Ludicrous.
Not only have you not hit the target you hit another guy three ranges down.
Which says nothing about owning a car, only operating one in a public place. Also notice, those are local statutes not subject to Federal Law nor the US Constutition.
You REALLY need to see your doctor about your dosage.
That is a restriction on States martial power, not on that of the Citizens. Get it right...
Yeah... From Sarah Brady's lips to your ears....
Such a diagnosis from one believing there is a constitutional right to own a car is hardly persuasive.
Obsessing over Sarah Brady's lips is not very becoming.
Not do I get it but you can't figure out the implications.
You are aware that if you only operate a vehicle on your own property that you are not subject ot licensing, registration or even most insurance regulations? You are also aware that is does not require a government permission slip to BUY said vehicle?
Owning property IS a Right. A car. A House. A dress. Or, in your case obviously, a home shock therapy kit. It doesn't matter. This does not mean that government is REQUIRED to supply you with one. That is yet another liberal premise and you would be well advised not to go there.
Owning property is not an explicitly constitutionally protected right even though it was written to prevent states from arbitrarily confiscating property. That hallowed document merely states that it cannot be taken away by (at first the fedgov) government without due process of law or without compensation. Government can take any property you have without your permission as long as it is done in a lawful manner or you are compensated for it. It is done every day.
I have no interest in attempting further clarifications of your misunderstandings. The home shock therapy kit crack was pretty good but would have been improved by calling it a home electro-shock therapy kit.
You are hopeless.
I have said about all I need to say and generally don't play the dueling quotations game but will leave with a couple from Black's Law dictionary wrt arms.
"Arms- Anything that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another." this is from Co-Litt 161b, 161a referenced in State vs. Buzzard, 4 Arkansas 18.
"armorum appelatone, non solum scuta et gladi et gale/e, sed et fustes et lepides continentur" Under the name arms are included, not only shields and swords and helmets, but also clubs and stones. Co. Litt. 162
Since arms has numerous definitions in the modern dictionary the best understanding of the definition the founders labored under comes from the English Common law and the legal definitions of their times. Hence, one must revert to Coke and add firearms to his basis definition of individual weapons which can be carried in the hands.
mrsmith do you find any fault with my comments?
The Constitution, and for that matter the Founders who wrote the Constitution, made no such fine distinction.
Their use of the term was based upon the English Common law, the system to which they were educated and within which they operated as a basis. This meant firearms and personal weapons to me nothing more.
This discussion illustrates the need to pin down a definition in a legal text. Definitions have changed over the centuries and sometimes have aspects added which were in no way there when the term was defined. This is the case with "arms."
Yes. We know what it means to you. It is everyone else throughout history that disagrees with you.
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.