Posted on 03/18/2008 9:45:02 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
What things KLINTOON has wrought! May his own afflictions last as long as she has.......
BURY YOUR GUNS, DEEP!
By
Lhatsov Amunishun
THAT IS GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Goes with the “Rusty Bedsprings” by I.P. Nightly, kind of books, but that’s GREAT!)
Just FYI ... Anthony Kennedy ... long time clamper ... member of LSD3 Lord Sholto Douglas chapter Auburn Ca
I found long ago that questions like you pose can be easily answered by substituting "car" for "gun". Do that, and see if your question sounds reasonable.
Examples: "CARS kill X teenagers and children annually, so only police and emergency services should be able to own them."
"Criminals can readily find CARS to use in their crimes, Commonly they steal them, so you shouldn't have a CAR in your home."
"CARS are commonly used by depressed people to commit suicide. There should be a national registry so clinically depressed people can't buy CARS"
Correct - gun rights people oppose violence. The reporter is a liar.
Punish the criminal, not the property.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
Meanwhile, FNC contributor judge Andrew Napolitano was prepared with the actual facts, stating that since 1976 (when the current gun D.C. gun laws were passed) the D.C. crime rate has risen every single year but one.
Napolitano also said the case looks very good for our side.
The framers of the constitution, 35 state AGs and a majority of Congress have come out in favor of Heller.
If the Robed Masters overturn this, they will be going against the intent and will of the writers of the Bill of Rights and the will of the people to recognize their rights.
Now if this was a case about a thugs who killed a cop, you can bet Ginsbug, et al, would be falling all over herself making sure that that “rights” were recognized.
Do you support Chicago’s gun ban?
Choice Votes Percentage of 843 Votes
Yes 368 44%
No 475 56%
This is unscientific, but thank you for sharing your perspective in this poll.
Second Question: The police return the gun to the rightful owner and leave. The perp gets a harsher sentence.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
The local Washington government, of all people, is evidently clueless as to how the history of the 14th A. has clarified how we are to interpret the 2nd Amendment.
As evidenced by John Bingham's discussion of the scope and purpose of the 14th A., Bingham being the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., all the Constitution's privileges and immunities, including those defined in the first eight amendments have been applied to the states via the 14th Amendment.
"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nSo there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect the personal right to keep and bear arms from the federal and state government as much as any other constitutional privilege and immunity protects other personal rights.
Well, yes and no. You have a right to not be unjustly punished. The Amended Constitution grants a right to a fair trial as a form to protect that right. Likewise, there is a right to attempt to pursuade and inform the government and your fellow humans. The Amended Constitution provides the form of the First Amendment, mechanisms for voting, and several other forms for protecting and exercising your inherent rights.
“Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...to say no handguns here?” Breyer said.
“Reasonable” or “unreasonable” - in your estimation or anyone else’s - is not the question, Bonehead. The question is “What does the US constitution say?” Period. End of story.
I'll answer that with another hypothetical: What if somebody steals your car and uses it in a bank robbery?
Given that the USSC determines there is an individual right in D.C. v. Heller which the history of the 14th A. has already decided in favor of Heller anyway, then what part of "shall not be infringed" doesn't the USSC understand?
Is that the crack head the DC voters re-elected, or did they finally get rid of him?
How do you all feel about raising the mandatory sentences for crimes where a gun is involved (robbery, assault, and worse)?
And in a similar vein, what about as gun owner who has their weapon used in a crime they didnt commit (a kid takes a parents weapon from a secure locale and does harm)?
Please no flaming, no anger. I dont own a gun, nor do I have kids, so Im really intersted in what law-abiding gun-owners have to say.
Thanks.<
How do you all feel about raising the mandatory sentences for crimes where a automobile is involved (robbery, assault, hit and run, drunk driving, kidnapping, and worse)?
And in a similar vein, what about as automobile owner who has their automobile used in a crime they didnt commit (a kid takes a parents automobile from a secure locale and does harm)?
What is it about guns that makes you shake? Have you ever slaughtered a cow on your own property. Did you club it to death with a steel crowbar or humanely shoot it in the brain with a .22 rifle.
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.