Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/8/2002 3:03:05 PM EDT
I seen on Fox today that the DOJ finally acknowledeges that the 2ND A. in the Constitution that it is the right of the individual to have guns unlike previous administrations. I think they said for the past 40 years the government did not beleive it was the right of the individual only the right of the state militia. That's why we elected G W as our president, maybe he is making true on his election promises.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 3:19:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By arjohnson: I seen on Fox today that the DOJ finally acknowledeges that the 2ND A. in the Constitution that it is the right of the individual to have guns unlike previous administrations. I think they said for the past 40 years the government did not beleive it was the right of the individual only the right of the state militia. That's why we elected G W as our president, maybe he is making true on his election promises.
View Quote
Actually, in a letter the NRA got a hold of, Ashcroft spelled out the administrations position to his subordiante US Attorneys and Prosecutors nearly a year ago... But it is fairly meaningless as Clinton era laws are still on the books and they are still obligated to enforce them. This change of opinion will only become a change in law if the US Supreme Court agrees to hear Emerson and decides to uphold the appellate ruling in Emerson. Since 5th Circut has ruled, Ashcroft has told his prosecuters to use it as a guideline for any case with 2nd amendment implications they come across. But it isnt law, and could be reversed by simply removing Ashcroft. This results in the ironic position that Ashcroft HAS to proscute Clinton-era cases before the Supreme Court, using the old position that the 2nd is only a collective right, in order to get the court to make a ruling. A favorable ruling WOULD make Ashcrofts interpretation the law of the land, would end any debate on the position of the second, and put a number of states like NY, CA, NJ, IL in a seriously vulnerable position.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 5:12:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2002 5:13:38 PM EDT by 71-Hour_Achmed]
No wonder gun owners are losing their rights at a record pace. Anyone who sees this as being meaningful is suffering a major attack of stupidity. Did you fail to notice the little mention that Ashcroft has pointedly told the Supreme Court not to bother pursuing any further rulings on the 2nd? Unless there is a precedent-setting ruling from the Supremes, his "interpretation" is as meaningless as telling people he prefers Burger King over McDonald's, or the journalistic dribble about every president's "favorite snack food" (Reagan's was Jelly Belly Jelly Beans, Bush I liked pork rinds, and Clinton loved McDonald's french fries -- funny, I haven't heard what Bush II's is).
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 5:15:28 PM EDT
This is talk. I want action.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 12:12:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed: Did you fail to notice the little mention that Ashcroft has pointedly told the Supreme Court not to bother pursuing any further rulings on the 2nd? Unless there is a precedent-setting ruling from the Supremes, his "interpretation" is as meaningless as telling people he prefers Burger King over McDonald's, or the journalistic dribble about every president's "favorite snack food" (Reagan's was Jelly Belly Jelly Beans, Bush I liked pork rinds, and Clinton loved McDonald's french fries -- funny, I haven't heard what Bush II's is).
View Quote
If you do not stop this, I will be forced to report you to the Party for committing thoughtcrimes against Oceania. Proles like you should accept doublethink and appreciate the hard work done by the Records Department in the Ministry of Truth.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 12:44:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio:
Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed: Did you fail to notice the little mention that Ashcroft has pointedly told the Supreme Court not to bother pursuing any further rulings on the 2nd? Unless there is a precedent-setting ruling from the Supremes, his "interpretation" is as meaningless as telling people he prefers Burger King over McDonald's, or the journalistic dribble about every president's "favorite snack food" (Reagan's was Jelly Belly Jelly Beans, Bush I liked pork rinds, and Clinton loved McDonald's french fries -- funny, I haven't heard what Bush II's is).
View Quote
If you do not stop this, I will be forced to report you to the Party for committing thoughtcrimes against Oceania. Proles like you should accept doublethink and appreciate the hard work done by the Records Department in the Ministry of Truth.
View Quote
I'm sorry. I love [s]Imbroglio[/s]Big Brother. Honest. Do it to [s]GoatBoy[/s]Julia.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 12:47:23 AM EDT
Just saw it on CBS news...something about the first major government interpretaion of the second amendment in XX amount of years...damnit, now I am going to have to stay up for a few days straight being a news junkie...
Top Top