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

Skip to comments.

White House reverses [decades old] stand on right to bear arms
Associated Press ^ | Wednesday, May 8 | Associated Press

Posted on 05/08/2002 11:57:58 AM PDT by Patriotman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 261-279 next last
Comment #181 Removed by Moderator

To: Lael
For its own respect, and the Rule of Law, a way must be found to harmonize Constitutional treatment of ALL the Bill of Rights.

------------------------

In 1868, the 14th amendment was ratified for expressly that purpose, -- and has been fought against ever since.
The BOR's is very gradually being 'incorporated', as per the 14th.

The fight to incorporate the 2nd is starting. -- That's what the Ashcroft 'decision' is all about.

182 posted on 05/08/2002 8:15:41 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Are you trying to deny your own gun grabbing words I quoted in # 177?
183 posted on 05/08/2002 8:24:41 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Are you trying to deny your own gun grabbing words I quoted in # 177?

Where did I deny them? I just thanked you for your support. I knew I could count on you. You often use others words to refute your own pitiful arguments. Hell be my guest.

184 posted on 05/08/2002 8:28:19 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
Are restraining orders and injunctions unconstitutional?

"Emerson" has nothing to do with restraining orders or injunctions. It has to do with Emerson being denied his Constitutional Rights to own or be in possession of a firearm. The restraining order was just the "vehicle" that drove it to that point.

Does a restraining order represent due process of the law?

185 posted on 05/08/2002 8:30:27 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
I have proudly known, and exchanged views with sneakypete ever since he blew your old phony friend DITHF out of cover.

Who were you back then tex? -- The name excapes me, but your nasty political style doesn't..

186 posted on 05/08/2002 8:36:08 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Who were you back then tex? -- The name excapes me, but your nasty political style doesn't..

I was Eschior. Don't tell Jim though.

187 posted on 05/08/2002 8:38:47 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Naaa, -- eschoir had wit.
188 posted on 05/08/2002 8:41:23 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Naaa, -- eschoir had wit.<P. A fan huh? No wonder you idolize me to the point of carrying my words thread to thread. I may make you president of my fan club.
189 posted on 05/08/2002 8:43:36 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Bluster about these words all you like:

California has a CONSTITUTIONAL right to ban guns under the 10th. It is just that simple. -- Texasforever -- #177

190 posted on 05/08/2002 9:02:41 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The case upheld a law against individuals possessing sawed-off shotguns, but only because they were not military weapons.

Take a look at sawed-off entry guns of today...

191 posted on 05/08/2002 9:03:21 PM PDT by alphadog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

Comment #192 Removed by Moderator

To: tpaine
Bluster about these words all you like:

Now now Tpaine, it isn't nice to selectively quote. That is a no no.

193 posted on 05/08/2002 9:07:07 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

Comment #194 Removed by Moderator

To: FreeReign
Does a restraining order represent due process of the law?

I don't know. To tell the truth,I've never thought much about it. My kneejerk reaction is to have no problems with it,though.I see it as a sort of legal "preventative medicine".

195 posted on 05/08/2002 9:14:17 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I also agree that if California decides it does not like guns, and they must since their constitution does not protect the right to own them that is also an issue between the state and its population.

Read... Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of California, it says in effect we love the Bill of Rights, so that includes the second amendment.

196 posted on 05/08/2002 9:15:57 PM PDT by alphadog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: daiuy
Tell it to tex.
197 posted on 05/08/2002 9:16:52 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
Bubba Bush and Janet Ashcroft

hehe

198 posted on 05/08/2002 9:18:09 PM PDT by alphadog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

Comment #199 Removed by Moderator

To: alphadog
Tell it to tex. I can't get him to understand. - NO one can.
200 posted on 05/08/2002 9:19:44 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 261-279 next 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.

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