If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Well of course! Since so many on the far left are actually socialist and
communist they do not want anyone to have a gun or have that right. That way they can make rules as they see fit , not to mention take everything you have worked for for the good of the masses. Who else throughout history thinks that way? Stalin, Lenin, Mao..even Hitler banned guns! "OtisWinslow" wrote in message ... I don't see anything confusing about the 2nd Amendment. Of course the Libs will read it to their advantage. It protects two things: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now the Libs will have you believe that the only right we have is to bear them collectively under the banner of a militia. Not so. Otis "From my cold dead hands" Winslow " jls" wrote in message t... "Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message . net... "Rutger" wrote in message om... RKBA. I'll probably be sorry about asking, but what is the RKBA? No you won't. He's talking about the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms as expressed in the 2nd Amendment has been translated by Scotus as not absolute. The right has been tied to the state militias as not an individual right. Of course, I agree with Jefferson's interpretation of the right to bear arms, being as the government always moves to get too big for its breeches and should sometimes be made to look down the business end of a gun barrel. However, I don't think Jefferson anticipated that the barrels of the people's guns are puny and minuscule compared to those of big brother. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:10:36 -0400, "W P Dixon"
wrote: Well Pete I have defended the Constitution have you? VET USMC fighting in the armed forces does not necessarily equate to defending the Constitution. The contents of the Constitution are not affected by Americans fighting overseas. What ultimately impacts the Constitution is what happens in peacetime here in the continental USA. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
When you enlist in the US Armed Forces you swear to defend the Constitution
against all enemies foreign and domestic. Though it can surely be debateable about all activity on foreign soil, I do agree with here at home. And here at home is where that sacred document is constantly trampled on by leftist and an out of control judicial system. But don't think I am just picking on Democrats, because I for one feel the Patriot Act is the most Unpatriotic Act I have ever heard of. In Afghanistan our troops are protecting the Constitution because the idiots that attacked us are imbedded there. Iraq is a toss up! HA Though we were actually only in an official cease fire from the first Gulf War , and Iraq did not want to follow their own agreements so we attacked them again. However the First Gulf War was NOT RIGHT. First Kuwait is a kingdom , so we can not use the defending democracy thing, and since we had no protectional treaty with that kingdom it really was none of our biz! Alot of modern Presidents have that problem of sending our troops were they should not be, Republicans and Democrats. Myself I do not feel we should send US troops anywhere that a formal Declaration Of War by Congress as established in the Constitution has been passed. The terrorists are definitely a threat to the US and our Constitution..but the biggest enemies are the politicians that scare people into thinking they have to take our freedoms to be safe from terrorists or even crooks on our streets. just think we have a political party that screams First Amendment rights whenever their side has anything to say , even when it is just a blatent lie. But they do not feel vets who speak out against their side should have those same rights. This same bunch feels it is necessary to ban weapons against the very fabric and heart of the Second Amendment. I fear the leftist more than a rag headed suicide bomber! And let us not forget The Constitution was not written in peacetime. Nor should we forget that Abraham Lincoln was the first President to throw it aside and declare "the first Presidential Powers Act". He had anyone against the Union ( Abe's side of it) put in federal Prison with no charges being filed and held indefinitely....he even had the entire MAryland legislature put in prison because he was afraid they would vote to secede! I don't think any President since FDR has actually asked for war the" Constitutional way". So even in times of conflict our Constitution can be in danger from within as well as a enemy on the outside. Just things to ponder! "Graham Shevlin" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:10:36 -0400, "W P Dixon" wrote: Well Pete I have defended the Constitution have you? VET USMC fighting in the armed forces does not necessarily equate to defending the Constitution. The contents of the Constitution are not affected by Americans fighting overseas. What ultimately impacts the Constitution is what happens in peacetime here in the continental USA. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
However the First Gulf War was NOT RIGHT. First Kuwait is a kingdom , so we can not use the defending democracy thing, and since we had no protectional treaty with that kingdom it really was none of our biz! ?????????????????????????????? wow! What a spin. We went to free "Kuwait", because the legal rulers asked the U.N. to do so. It was a U.N. action. Or do you not agree with our participation in the U.N.? -- Jim in NC --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Matter of fact I do not , this mess about the UN screwing us every chance
they get in Iraq is examples why. Oil for Food, Brie For Food,etc etc etc "Morgans" wrote in message ... However the First Gulf War was NOT RIGHT. First Kuwait is a kingdom , so we can not use the defending democracy thing, and since we had no protectional treaty with that kingdom it really was none of our biz! ?????????????????????????????? wow! What a spin. We went to free "Kuwait", because the legal rulers asked the U.N. to do so. It was a U.N. action. Or do you not agree with our participation in the U.N.? -- Jim in NC --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Indonesian Oil, current planned negotiations in Helsinki, Martti Ahtisaari / Bill Clinton / GWB / THE U.S. CIA and Henry Kissinger --- the control for oil and Indonesian oil fields - Security Police (SUPO) of Finland is trying to protect these Helsin | SecQrilious | Naval Aviation | 1 | February 7th 05 01:15 AM |
BOHICA! Weiner's Bill to Restrict GA | Orval Fairbairn | Home Built | 95 | September 20th 04 02:07 AM |
No Original Bill of sale. | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 0 | August 10th 04 05:09 AM |
Bill Cliton verses Rush Limbaugh | Transition Zone | Military Aviation | 14 | November 20th 03 05:13 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Concorde Finally Goes Bust!!! | Larry Fransson | General Aviation | 10 | November 11th 03 05:03 AM |