Replies

Lichtblau shows how clueless he is about Constitutional issues with the first sentence off his word processor.

Man, I'm sure glad that the Constitution "gave" us all the rights we were born with. ;-)

U.S. Backs a Right to Bear Arms

This shouldn't be headline but these are strange times.

Man, I'm sure glad that the Constitution "gave" us all the rights we were born with. ;-)

Excellent point. The fact is, most Americans think the Constitution DOES give them rights. Worse, they think that the Federal Government can do anything the Government is not forbidden to do.

What an utterly and unabashedly biased anti-gun article this is. From the first sentence to the very last:

The Justice Department has declared that the Constitution gives individuals the right to own a gun..
The Constitution does no such thing. The Bill of Rights merely states that the inherent and existing right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the Federal government.
In briefs filed late Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justice Department rejected the long-held interpretation that the 2nd Amendment guarantees gun rights only to militias, not to individuals.
Long-held by who? Liberals. And even liberal scholars have come to the conclusion that the whackjob liberals who maintain this non-sequitur position are wrong. Laurence Tribe, among others, have come to the conclusion that the text in the second amendment means what it says. This author exhibits extreme bias.
but scholars and gun-control advocates said they were alarmed because they believe the "radical" shift in position threatens to undermine a wide range of gun laws already on the books.
Who do they cite as their 'scholar'? "Franklin Zimring, a preeminent scholar on gun law at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, said in an interview." That's right, boys and girls -- they hold Frank Zimring, an unknown scholar at BERKLEY of all places, in higher esteem than Laurence Tribe, who is the NATIONS best known and most widely acknowledged authority on Constitutional Law.
The LA Slimes does not even bother to hide their bias, unsupportable premises, and incongruent conclusions.
This action is proof positive that the worst fears about Atty. Gen. Ashcroft have come true: His extreme ideology on guns has now become government policy," Barnes said.
This is the last line in the article. As you might already known, in journalism, this is called the 'stinger'. It is intended that this is the message you take away from a given article. You can often tell how extremely biased an author is by examining the very last sentence.

So, what do we have? We have this LA Slimes creep citing an unknown Berkley professor and a bunch of gun-control freaks, using the terms "radical" and "deeply troubling" and so on in this article. It is absurd, and it is indicative of the reason that the LA Slimes and other papers are losing circulation by 5 to 7 percent in a single year. The sooner these Socialist, Statist propaganda rags fold, the better.

JOIN THE SECOND AMENDMENT SISTERS

What an utterly and unabashedly biased anti-gun article this is. From the first sentence to the very last:

The Justice Department has declared that the Constitution gives individuals the right to own a gun..
The Constitution does no such thing. The Bill of Rights merely states that the inherent and existing right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the Federal government.
In briefs filed late Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justice Department rejected the long-held interpretation that the 2nd Amendment guarantees gun rights only to militias, not to individuals.
Long-held by who? Liberals. And even liberal scholars have come to the conclusion that the whackjob liberals who maintain this non-sequitur position are wrong. Laurence Tribe, among others, have come to the conclusion that the text in the second amendment means what it says. This author exhibits extreme bias.
but scholars and gun-control advocates said they were alarmed because they believe the "radical" shift in position threatens to undermine a wide range of gun laws already on the books.
Who do they cite as their 'scholar'? "Franklin Zimring, a preeminent scholar on gun law at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, said in an interview." That's right, boys and girls -- they hold Frank Zimring, an unknown scholar at BERKLEY of all places, in higher esteem than Laurence Tribe, who is the NATIONS best known and most widely acknowledged authority on Constitutional Law.
The LA Slimes does not even bother to hide their bias, unsupportable premises, and incongruent conclusions.
This action is proof positive that the worst fears about Atty. Gen. Ashcroft have come true: His extreme ideology on guns has now become government policy," Barnes said.
This is the last line in the article. As you might already known, in journalism, this is called the 'stinger'. It is intended that this is the message you take away from a given article. You can often tell how extremely biased an author is by examining the very last sentence.

So, what do we have? We have this LA Slimes creep citing an unknown Berkley professor and a bunch of gun-control freaks, using the terms "radical" and "deeply troubling" and so on in this article. It is absurd, and it is indicative of the reason that the LA Slimes and other papers are losing circulation by 5 to 7 percent in a single year. The sooner these Socialist, Statist propaganda rags fold, the better.

JOIN THE SECOND AMENDMENT SISTERS

If only the 'commerce clause' would be reviewed...

Someone brings up the question of what the Constitution has to say about an issue, and this CLYMER is worried about what the effect might be on existing laws, like the laws have some divine right to exist!! If the people arguing the Constitutional point are correct, the only reason the laws are "at risk" is because they were always illegal in the first f&*%ing place, and he and his gun grabbing buddies got 60 years of a free ride. Why complain? These are the same people that are always skeptical of the concept that humans can have rights not granted to them by the government, but, oh, we have to make sure we don't tread on the rights of any LAW's. </forehead slap>

So, the Justice Dept. (Solicitor General) has an opinion. Whoop-de-doo. When the Supreme Court sees it the same way, and it begins dismissing gun control laws as unconstitutional, I'll take notice.

I doubt that President Al Gore's A.G. would have seen it that way.

That right, Olson acknowledged, is subject to certain restrictions that allow the government to keep weapons out of the hands of "unfit persons" and to ban certain types of weapons often used by criminals.
Indeed, in one of the cases now pending before the Supreme Court, the department agreed that a Texas man who had a restraining order against him for domestic violence should not be allowed to have a gun.

The Justice Department urged the court to turn down both his appeal and that of a man convicted of violating federal law by owning two machine guns.

Don't get too excited. "Everyone has the right to keep and bear arms, except for you and you and you and you and you.....and anyone else we the governemnt deem unfit." Some affirmation of a right.

In November, 1995, I sat down and wrote the words,"America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." That's a line a lot of you have become familiar with, and to the extent that other people have also become familiar with it, it has a lot to do with Arizona libertarians pushing that message.
Well, I wrote that a year and a half ago, the book was published about six months ago, and now here we are, April 19, 1997. Is it time to "shoot the bastards" yet? This is a question a lot of us have been pondering. Claire Wolfe

Now it's May of 2002 and people are still being suckered by "the system." Work within the system. The sacred system. If our forbears believed that Baloney Sauce, there wouldn't be an America today. Come to think of it, is there an America today? Or is this "The Truman Show?"