Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 12/30/2005 12:21:11 AM EDT
I've got a response from the Senator about the letter I wrote her asking about and arguing for my gun rights. It's kinda funny.
-

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 12:34:26 AM EDT
Dear Mr. AKLover_91,

Thank you for writing to me about the Second Amendment.

blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahb­lahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahbl­ahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahbla­hblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blah­blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahb­lah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahbl­ahblahblahblah

Once again, FOAD.

Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 12:39:46 AM EDT
I've only gotten one response from her office.. and sent a couple things..
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 12:41:42 AM EDT


cunt
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 12:52:05 AM EDT
I hate DF.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 1:02:32 AM EDT
Wipe your ass with it, then send it back.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 1:02:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 1:03:23 AM EDT
hmmm, so she is saying the 2nd doesn't apply anymore.. shhhhh, don't tell anyone but I drosed a firearm today.

Link Posted: 12/30/2005 1:11:06 AM EDT
Makes one wonder how many lackeys it took to put that together, .. Oh wait , it is SOP for her staff or limpness.

National Guard? Huh .

Electronic media was not foreseen by the FF's either. No more 1st . hahahahahahahaha Ban that . Led Zep. Tools. Fools . Ghouls.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 1:39:52 AM EDT
I think someone else sent her a letter and got the exact same form letter in response.

I can see it now: Her staff gets a letter. "Hmmm... Angry gun owner." Prints off FOAD letter with printed signature. Puts in envelope and mails back. DiFi never even hears about it, nor does she care.

If everyone in CA sent her the same letter you did, the result would probably be the same. She does not listen, she does not care, and she will probably die before leaving office.

Trying to change her is an exercise in futility. She knows she won't get your vote, and she doesn't need it.

You could have a little fun with her if you feel like wasting some time and money. Get together with a few friends and send her hundreds of letters. Do it from different sides to see what all the responses are. Send her a few pro-gun control letters too. Maybe even a couple demanding that all firearms of every type be banned. That way you can see what she really thinks. For a good laugh, see what her response is to a letter saying that all gun owners should be lock up in camps. For every letter you don't receive a response to, send her a dozen complaining about the lack of response. Just the sheer irritation of her staffers should put a smile on your face.

Here's an idea (and it's pretty mean too ): Write a bunch of letters that say "I'm glad he's dead and no amount of gun control will ever bring him back you fucking traitor." Use all caps and a large font and send it so it arrives on the anniversary of her husband's murder. Unfortunately, this would probably get nationwide coverage and paint us in a very bad light.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 2:23:37 AM EDT
It sounds as if she is convinced that she is right.

Her ultimate goal is to make sure no one but criminals, police, national guard and military have guns. By that she means to crimalize all present day gun owners.

I wonder what the state militia consisted of back when that was written. Do you suppose guns were issued to militiamen or were they expected to supply their own. Not that it matters.

I think that the Constitution should be amended to make it absolutely clear to her and others who beleive the way she does that Americans do have the right to bear arms. But I imagine there are many people that would not support an amendment even if they believe in the right to bear arms. It may set a bad precedent.

Someone told me once that the Constitution does not limit the rights of the people, it limits the rights of government. The idea was something like 'any right not expressly given to the government does not exist' I probably have that wrong though. If anyone can explain that argument, I would like to hear it again.

Link Posted: 12/30/2005 2:32:41 AM EDT
The way I read it, it's time to round up and melt down all the guns that wouldn't be useful to the militia. I guess that means that the government agrees that we have the absolute right to M-16's, since that is what is used by the Guard?
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 4:43:30 AM EDT
It's too bad that the FF felt that they needed to explain themselves and just didn't leave out all the first part. Why is it that the gun banners choose to ignore ' SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' !!!!!

The neighborhood watches posted during the aftermath of Katrina are militia's in the sense that the FF's meant.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 4:53:58 AM EDT
Apparently we all can/do own "machine guns"



I wish!!!!

Link Posted: 12/30/2005 4:56:18 AM EDT
How could it [2nd] refer to something [natl guard] that would not exist for many years? And why would the govt need to protect itself from itself?
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 4:58:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:07:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tugboat:

Someone told me once that the Constitution does not limit the rights of the people, it limits the rights of government. The idea was something like 'any right not expressly given to the government does not exist' I probably have that wrong though. If anyone can explain that argument, I would like to hear it again.




See the Tenth Amendment:
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:09:54 AM EDT
Men need guns in order to defend themselves against ugly women like Feinstein.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:10:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 5:11:23 AM EDT by AeroE]
double post
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:14:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 5:17:45 AM EDT by remedy]
Unfortunately she is right.

The wording of the Second Amendment has as she said been bastardized by pro-gun organizations. It does in fact state that we can basically own firearms to have an effective standing militia. It was also stated and amended during a time when the US had less than 500,000 citizens (IIRC from history class).

Laws are what uphold citizen's rights in this country and how they are defined has a direct impact on what we can and can't do. The courts do not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees each citizen the RIGHT to own firearms. And because of this, technically speaking- states and the federal government could further reduce the firearms and ammunition we can purchase. However........

THANKFULLY FOR US, THE CAT IS ALREADY OUT OF THE BAG.

The only reason why we can purchase fancy firearms today is because there are MILLIONS of guns on the street, both legal and illegal. We can own firearms in most states because the powers that be know that a gun ban or confiscation would be futile, and only put guns in the hands of criminals, leaving most of the law abiding up shit creek. They know it would increase crime. They won't say it openly but they know it.

I agree with what she says in the letter however I do not agree with her stance, because she refuses to believe that not all of America can hire bodyguards 24x7 and be able to protect themselves without owning a firearm at some point.


- rem
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:14:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 5:15:40 AM EDT by jrzy]
Make no mistake here guys, this "woman" is a vile mother fucker if ever there was one.
The liberal cock suckers in this country and in office are just waiting to get back in power.
They will go after RKBA not because they believe gun violence will go down, they will go after RKBA this time because they want vengeance on us for their own stupidity in losing power in the first place.

There are some pretty smart liberals in office and don't think for one minute they really believe making tough gun laws work.
Any dim wit who can read stats knows that a tough gun law has no effect on crime at all, on the contrary the opposite is true and they know it.

Any place in this Nation that has approved CCW the crime rate went down, especially violent crime and home invasions.
These fucks are vindictive scum and want our guns just because they know it will hurt our party and to piss us off.
They fail to understand one important factor in their goal of disarming us, we have the guns and if they really tried to take them in an all out ban they wouldn't know what fucking hit them.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:23:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By remedy: Laws are what uphold citizen's rights in this country and how they are defined has a direct impact on what we can and can't do.
Wrong! Guns are what uphold citizen's right in this country: guns in worker's hands shot at crooks, guns in soldier's hands shot at enemies, guns in a husband's hand shot at murderers. Laws come after order has been established by the gun. That is why gun ownership is not to be banned by our 'gubment. That will allow citizens to take up arms against threats.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:27:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:


Here's an idea (and it's pretty mean too ): Write a bunch of letters that say "I'm glad he's dead and no amount of gun control will ever bring him back you fucking traitor." Use all caps and a large font and send it so it arrives on the anniversary of her husband's murder. Unfortunately, this would probably get nationwide coverage and paint us in a very bad light.





Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman[1] in San Francisco. Her father, Leon Goldman, was a nationally renowned surgeon who was the first Jewish person made tenured physician at the University of California Medical Center.[2] She received her B.A. degree in history in 1955 from Stanford University. In 1957, she married Jack Berman, a colleague in the San Francisco District Attorney's office. They were divorced three years later.

In 1962, shortly after starting her career in politics, she married neurosurgeon Bertram Feinstein, who died of colon cancer in 1978.

In 1980, she married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker.

Feinstein's daughter, Katherine Feinstein, is an attorney practicing in San Francisco.






In November 1978, San Francisco mayor George Moscone and supervisor Harvey Milk were assassinated by a rival politician, Dan White, who had resigned from the Board of Supervisors only two weeks prior
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:31:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:32:59 AM EDT
So it is the National Guards who are responsible from protecting us from a tyranical Federal Government?

The same National Guards that are under the control of the Pentagon? The same National Guards which the Federal Government has sent to Iraq? The same National Guards who assisted with the gun confiscations in Louisiana? No Senator, the Founding Fathers of this nation feared the military. They feared standing armies and they feared strong federal governments with tens of thousands of well armed, well trained federal law enforcement agents.

I wonder what the men who created America think of Swinestain's views?

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:33:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spork:
Wipe your ass with it, then send it back.




w00t
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:33:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lordtrader:

Originally Posted By Skammy:
I've only gotten one response from her office.. and sent a couple things..



At least you guys have gotten responses. I've written numerous times. NADA, Zilch, Zero.

Yeah most of my letters to my Senators and Congressman usually don't get a response.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:33:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 5:40:36 AM EDT by jrzy]

Originally Posted By remedy:
Unfortunately she is right.

The wording of the Second Amendment has as she said been bastardized by pro-gun organizations. It does in fact state that we can basically own firearms to have an effective standing militia. It was also stated and amended during a time when the US had less than 500,000 citizens (IIRC from history class).

Laws are what uphold citizen's rights in this country and how they are defined has a direct impact on what we can and can't do. The courts do not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees each citizen the RIGHT to own firearms. And because of this, technically speaking- states and the federal government could further reduce the firearms and ammunition we can purchase. However........

THANKFULLY FOR US, THE CAT IS ALREADY OUT OF THE BAG.

The only reason why we can purchase fancy firearms today is because there are MILLIONS of guns on the street, both legal and illegal. We can own firearms in most states because the powers that be know that a gun ban or confiscation would be futile, and only put guns in the hands of criminals, leaving most of the law abiding up shit creek. They know it would increase crime. They won't say it openly but they know it.

I agree with what she says in the letter however I do not agree with her stance, because she refuses to believe that not all of America can hire bodyguards 24x7 and be able to protect themselves without owning a firearm at some point.


- rem



You are so far off base that I don't know where to begin.
I think you need to study the Constitution a little closer and then take a strong look at what certain words and phrases meant in that time period.

You either fell for her line of BS or you think liberal, either one is not good.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:39:08 AM EDT
Basicly Feinstein says "Well the courts said the 2nd doesn't apply do indivduals so I can do whatever I want" This is the problem, most of the losses of liberties have happened because of bad decisions from the courts. I think we put too much stock in what judges think. The aren't god and they are just as prone to error as everyone else. The courts shouldn't have final say.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:39:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By remedy:
Unfortunately she is right.

The wording of the Second Amendment has as she said been bastardized by pro-gun organizations. It does in fact state that we can basically own firearms to have an effective standing militia. It was also stated and amended during a time when the US had less than 500,000 citizens (IIRC from history class).

Laws are what uphold citizen's rights in this country and how they are defined has a direct impact on what we can and can't do. The courts do not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees each citizen the RIGHT to own firearms. And because of this, technically speaking- states and the federal government could further reduce the firearms and ammunition we can purchase. However........

THANKFULLY FOR US, THE CAT IS ALREADY OUT OF THE BAG.

The only reason why we can purchase fancy firearms today is because there are MILLIONS of guns on the street, both legal and illegal. We can own firearms in most states because the powers that be know that a gun ban or confiscation would be futile, and only put guns in the hands of criminals, leaving most of the law abiding up shit creek. They know it would increase crime. They won't say it openly but they know it.

I agree with what she says in the letter however I do not agree with her stance, because she refuses to believe that not all of America can hire bodyguards 24x7 and be able to protect themselves without owning a firearm at some point.


- rem



Fortunately, you are incorrect.

Look at what the men who created this country had to say about the militia:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." - Tench Coxe

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

WE ARE THE MILITIA! NOT THE NATIONAL GUARD!!!


Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:40:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By remedy:
Unfortunately she is right.

The wording of the Second Amendment has as she said been bastardized by pro-gun organizations. It does in fact state that we can basically own firearms to have an effective standing militia. It was also stated and amended during a time when the US had less than 500,000 citizens (IIRC from history class).

Laws are what uphold citizen's rights in this country and how they are defined has a direct impact on what we can and can't do. The courts do not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees each citizen the RIGHT to own firearms. And because of this, technically speaking- states and the federal government could further reduce the firearms and ammunition we can purchase. However........

THANKFULLY FOR US, THE CAT IS ALREADY OUT OF THE BAG.

The only reason why we can purchase fancy firearms today is because there are MILLIONS of guns on the street, both legal and illegal. We can own firearms in most states because the powers that be know that a gun ban or confiscation would be futile, and only put guns in the hands of criminals, leaving most of the law abiding up shit creek. They know it would increase crime. They won't say it openly but they know it.

I agree with what she says in the letter however I do not agree with her stance, because she refuses to believe that not all of America can hire bodyguards 24x7 and be able to protect themselves without owning a firearm at some point.


- rem



Fortunately, you are incorrect.

Look at what the men who created this country had to say about the militia:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." - Tench Coxe

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

WE ARE THE MILITIA! NOT THE NATIONAL GUARD!!!



Yep, if you want to know what the founders were thinking when they wrote the Constitution, read the Federalist Papers.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:44:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 5:49:30 AM EDT by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
Basicly Feinstein says "Well the courts said the 2nd doesn't apply do indivduals so I can do whatever I want" This is the problem, most of the losses of liberties have happened because of bad decisions from the courts. I think we put too much stock in what judges think. The aren't god and they are just as prone to error as everyone else. The courts shouldn't have final say.



"Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority." - AndreW Jackson

The problem with America is that so many people are willing to accecpt what they are told by authority, be it the courts, the congress, the president, the teacher, whoever. Everyone regurgitates programmed lines like they are told. Precedent is nothing more than getting away with something once before. That has been the basis for stealing our freedom. Just because the court says something doesn't make it so. Justices on the federal courts are lifetime political appointees. They are well paid and powerful. Why should they be trusted any more than the politicians? Justices aren't even restrained by the need to get votes!
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:56:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 6:01:53 AM EDT by lippo]
The only thing that she has right is the fact that the Surpreme Court has never struck down a gun law. Or should I say, she's "half" right, the Surpreme Court won't hear a case involving the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment, because they know they'd have to strike down just about every one of them.

That bitch is a traitor!

Nothing more.


Oh yeah, by the way, her "National Guard" argument doesn't hold any water, because the "National Guard" are FEDERAL TROOPS!

Stupid bitch!
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:57:55 AM EDT
Note how she interprets the Second Amandment by beginnig with the phrase, " in other words".

***HER*** words

Fuck you Feinswine!


F**king socialist b***h doesn't mention that that National Guard didn't even exist when the Constitution was written.

CMOS

Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:00:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:02:14 AM EDT
So then why, as a member of the National Guard, can I not have a brand new MG?
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:02:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tugboat:
Someone told me once that the Constitution does not limit the rights of the people, it limits the rights of government. The idea was something like 'any right not expressly given to the government does not exist' I probably have that wrong though. If anyone can explain that argument, I would like to hear it again.


You're getting warm!

The Constitution was written by men who knew what they were doing, and they knew precisely what words to use in the construction of it. Nowhere will you see the word "rights" associated with any particular level of government (Fed, state, local). This is because government entities are just that, they are "things." "Things" don't have rights, people do. Governmental entities only have responsibilities, or "powers." So if you see the word "powers" in the Constitution, it clearly is referring to government, and if you see "rights," it is clearly referring to people.

Consequently, there is no such thing as "States' Rights."

The Second Amendment, like the first, is clearly "the right of the people" regardless of how many misinformed or power-hungry people say otherwise.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:03:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
So then why, as a member of the National Guard, can I not have a brand new MG?




Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:04:20 AM EDT
national guard. I love it. I don't even think she believes that.

A cursory reading of the federalist papers would shut her up good.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:05:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
So then why, as a member of the National Guard, can I not have a brand new MG?



You can. But only when you are acting on the government that you are protecting us from.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:05:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
So then why, as a member of the National Guard, can I not have a brand new MG?







Thank you, thank you.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:05:41 AM EDT
You know, another sign that we have already lost this battle is that the modern liberal media has ALREADY gotten the pubilk indoctrinated to believe that a "militia" is some crazy extremist wacko group that wants to kill babies and soccer moms.

While I'm sure we'll keep fignting, we've laready lost the social and cultural war.

CMOS
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:06:08 AM EDT


I bet tc556guy agrees with her.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:09:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:
I bet tc556guy agrees with her.


I'll give him the benefit of the doubt before passing judgement, but I know where you're coming from.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:29:26 AM EDT
The courts have just done what they have been doing since the mid-1800's. Construing and expanding the Constitution to give more power to the Federal Gov't and take it away from the states and the people. She is right there, the courts have said all those things. Whittling away at our rights to own firearms, and most other rights as well.

However, the 2nd Amnd was a promise from the FF to both the people and the States. The people were worried that they would be oppressed by a central gov't. The States had tried to pass the Articles of Confederation because they wanted more autonomy in the first place. When that didn't fly, they went to the Constitution and created a federal republic (not a democracy). So the FF's gave the states the right to raise their own militias (which turned against them becuase they became the cornerstone of the CSA during the War of Northern Aggression he
Which is exactly why she hates it so. And all the other nanny-state liberals. They want to be able to take care of you (read tell you what to do and how to live your life) and they don't want you to be able to argue about it. They've already taken almost all autonomy from the States (through the withholding of Federal funds, the Commerce Clause, courts, co-opting the state militias into being part of the national army, etc.) and now they want to be able to do it to us.

Fuck her. And all the rest who feel that just because they got themselves elected by licking the ass of their favorite PAC, that they know what's best for me. Or you.

And I always laugh at those who say, "Well, the FF's never invisioned AR15's in the hands of the people." Yeah, well they never invisioned them in the hands of the army either.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:31:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CMOS:
Note how she interprets the Second Amandment by beginnig with the phrase, " in other words".

***HER*** words

Fuck you Feinswine!


F**king socialist b***h doesn't mention that that National Guard didn't even exist when the Constitution was written.

CMOS




actually the national guard is the oldest of military services tracing it's roots back to the earliest colonies, and is almost 370 years old.........however Feinswine is still a socialist bitch and is dead wrong!

The idea of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the power of the sword in the hands of the people, so that we may defend ourselves from a tyrannical FEDERAL government.......the right to keep and bear arms is in many ways a part of our checks and balances.....It allows us to be able to enforce the constitution.....if the people had no arms then the well armed federal government and it troops could impose any rule of law they pleased and the people could do little to resist.......make no mistake about it our feverish defense of the second amendment is all that has kept the government from taking our firearms away. The fact that the government knows the it would have to "pry our guns from our cold, dead hands" is a very effective barrier.

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." -mao tse tung

Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:33:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By texas1138:
actually the national guard is the oldest of military services tracing it's roots back to the earliest colonies, and is almost 370 years old.


No, it isn't.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:35:25 AM EDT
What I hate is how gun-grabbers like to focus on the "well regulated militia" phrase and pooh-pooh pro-gunners for only focusing on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" part. If the Second Ammendment refers only to the militia, or National Guard in DF's mind, why does it refer to the right of the PEOPLE and not the right of the state's militias?
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:37:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By remedy:
Unfortunately she is right.

The wording of the Second Amendment has as she said been bastardized by pro-gun organizations. It does in fact state that we can basically own firearms to have an effective standing militia. It was also stated and amended during a time when the US had less than 500,000 citizens (IIRC from history class).

Laws are what uphold citizen's rights in this country and how they are defined has a direct impact on what we can and can't do. The courts do not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees each citizen the RIGHT to own firearms. And because of this, technically speaking- states and the federal government could further reduce the firearms and ammunition we can purchase. However........

THANKFULLY FOR US, THE CAT IS ALREADY OUT OF THE BAG.

The only reason why we can purchase fancy firearms today is because there are MILLIONS of guns on the street, both legal and illegal. We can own firearms in most states because the powers that be know that a gun ban or confiscation would be futile, and only put guns in the hands of criminals, leaving most of the law abiding up shit creek. They know it would increase crime. They won't say it openly but they know it.

I agree with what she says in the letter however I do not agree with her stance, because she refuses to believe that not all of America can hire bodyguards 24x7 and be able to protect themselves without owning a firearm at some point.


- rem



You can't be fucking serious.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:41:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ARDunstan:
Dear Mr. AKLover_91,

Thank you for writing to me about the Second Amendment.

blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahb­lahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahbl­ahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahbla­hblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blah­blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahb­lah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahbl­ahblahblahblah

Once again, FOAD.

Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein



that was my take on it
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:43:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 6:43:35 AM EDT by texas1138]

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By texas1138:
actually the national guard is the oldest of military services tracing it's roots back to the earliest colonies, and is almost 370 years old.


No, it isn't.



Yes, it is


The oldest military units in the country are the 182d Infantry Regiment and 101st Engineer Battalion of the Massachusetts Army National Guard, which were first organized in 1636.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top