Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: editor-surveyor
Carry_Okie wrote:

IMHO, these code sections must be rescinded.

All of them?
Why would you want to rescind the ability of the President to protect people from deprivations: " -- of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law --- " ?
Doesn't he have a sworn duty to do so?

This is not the sort of comment one expects to read on FR.

I'm commenting that the President has the duty to defend the 2nd Amendment from actions like those taken in New Orleans.

If the second ammendment were in force, there would be no cause for such regulations to exist.

Correct. New Orleans officials should be told by State & Fed officials that they are violating the 2nd.

Do you really believe that the government is here to pull everyone's fat out of the fire?

Do you really believe that was the point of my post?

It's your job to protect your family, and it is the government's job to keep the nation strong, thus protecting your rights, and your ability to provide for your family.

You're preaching to the choir.

724 posted on 09/09/2005 12:35:36 PM PDT by dimquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies ]


To: dimquest
"I'm commenting that the President has the duty to defend the 2nd Amendment from actions like those taken in New Orleans."

Perhaps you didn't read the code sections that CO posted carefully enough. Those sections allow the Gov. of La. to demand that the president crush the rebellion that she is fomenting. Understand? The meaning is opposite of what you were assuming.

726 posted on 09/09/2005 12:43:20 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson