Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/9/2002 9:27:53 AM EDT
Here is an anti Second Amendment article. The New York Times May 9, 2002 More Guns for Everyone! By BOB HERBERT http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/09/opinion/09HERB.html Let's see. What America needs is more guns in the hands of more people, right? That would almost certainly be the result of a new and potentially tragic initiative by John Ashcroft's Justice Department. In a reversal of federal policy that has stood for more than 60 years, the department told the Supreme Court this week that individual Americans have a constitutional right to own guns. That sound you hear is the National Rifle Association cheering. The N.R.A. has seldom had a better friend in government than Mr. Ashcroft. That was proved again on Monday when the Justice Department, in a pair of briefs filed with the court, rejected the long-held view of the court, the Justice Department itself and most legal scholars that the Second Amendment protects only the right of state-organized militias to own firearms. Under that interpretation, anchored by a Supreme Court ruling in 1939, Congress and local governmental authorities have great freedom to regulate the possession and use of firearms by individuals. In the briefs, submitted by Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the department boldly and gratuitously asserted, "The current position of the United States, however, is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the right of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." The move was gratuitous because there was no need for the government to take a position on the Second Amendment in the two cases for which the briefs were submitted. In both cases the Justice Department is defending gun laws. In one case it agrees that a man under a restraining order because of domestic violence should not be allowed to have a gun, and in the other it is opposing the appeal of a man convicted of illegally possessing machine guns. The reference in the briefs to restrictions on "firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse" is interesting, and disingenuous. No gun is more suited to criminal misuse than a handgun, and that's exactly the type of weapon that Mr. Ashcroft and his N.R.A. pals are trying to make available to more and more American men and women. I had a .45-caliber pistol hanging low on my hip many years ago when I was in the Army. And I can tell you, I'm not anxious to think about that kind of weapon (or something smaller and easier to conceal) being in the pockets and the purses and the briefcases and the shoulder holsters of the throngs surrounding me in my daily rounds in Manhattan. How weird is it that in this post-Sept.-11 atmosphere, when the Justice Department itself is in the forefront of the effort to narrow potential threats to security, the attorney general decides it would be a good idea to throw open the doors to a wholesale increase in gun ownership?
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 9:28:38 AM EDT
Mr. Ashcroft telegraphed this transparently political move nearly a year ago in a letter to the N.R.A, which just happened to have been a major Ashcroft campaign contributor. The letter went from Mr. Ashcroft, who was already the attorney general, to the N.R.A.'s chief lobbyist, James J. Baker. Mr. Ashcroft wrote, "Let me state unequivocally my view that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms. While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a `collective right' of the states to maintain militias, I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise." Now that view is the policy of the Bush administration. It will encourage aficionados and accused criminals to challenge gun control laws on constitutional grounds. "Now defendants are going to try to make this Second Amendment argument, relying in part on Ashcroft's position," said Mathew Nosanchuk, the litigation director for the Violence Policy Center, a Washington group that advocates gun control. The center has pointed out that in 1999, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 28,874 Americans were killed with guns. Neither Mr. Ashcroft nor the N.R.A. seems particularly concerned.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 9:31:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 9:38:00 AM EDT
There was a super debate last night on Alan Keyes show, MSNBC. Keyes is a strict constructionist and the antis didn't fare well. GOA President impressed me and the anti (from Brady bunch) admitted to being a gun owner but wasn't very impressive with his argument. Good stuff. Jim
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 9:42:02 AM EDT
Damn Aimless ya beat me too it!! lol Bob Herbert is a tool. "I'm not anxious to think about that kind of weapon (or something smaller and easier to conceal) being in the pockets and the purses and the briefcases and the shoulder holsters of the throngs surrounding me in my daily rounds in Manhattan."[rolleyes] Aren't guns banned in NYC?If so then;What's HE talkin about?
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 12:11:53 PM EDT
"No gun is more suited to criminal misuse than a handgun, and that's exactly the type of weapon that Mr. Ashcroft and his N.R.A. pals are trying to make available to more and more American men and women." How does supporting the constitution make "more and more" guns available? The only thing this will do is make it harder to pass future gun legislation. If handguns are more suited to criminal misuse then why was the "assault rifles" ban passed. That clown term, that DonR doesn't like, comes to mind when I think of this guy. Everyone say it with me.......... A_ _CLOWN
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 12:19:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FRIZ: The center has pointed out that in 1999, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 28,874 Americans were killed with guns.
View Quote
AND on average HALF of those deaths are suicides! Anyone have an e-mail address for this weasel ??
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 10:38:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2002 10:40:37 PM EDT by SeaDweller]
More guns, Cool![8D] Hmmm...I've decided that my next handgun will either be the Beretta 92G Elite II or Kimber Custom Eclipse II. BTW- FCK him. The Bill Of Rights have been around longer than this so-called 60 years of federal policy BS.
The center has pointed out that in 1999, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 28,874 Americans were killed with guns.
View Quote
Too bad he wasn't one of them.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 11:09:07 PM EDT
The New York High Falootin' Times May 9, 2002 More Guns for Everyone! By BOB HERBERT Let's see. What America needs is more [freedom] in the hands of more people, right? That would almost certainly be the result of a new and potentially tragic initiative...In a reversal of federal policy that has stood for...years, the department told the Supreme Court this week that individual Americans have a constitutional right to [freedom]. That sound you hear is the [freedom lovers'] cheering. The [American citizen] has seldom had a better friend in government than Mr. Ashcroft. That was proved again on Monday when the Justice Department, in a pair of briefs filed with the court, rejected the long-held view of the court, the Justice Department itself and most legal scholars that the [1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, & 6th] Amendment protects...the right of [individuals].... ...In the briefs, submitted by Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the department boldly and gratuitously asserted, "The current position of the United States, however, is that the [(much of) Bill of Rights]...broadly protects the right of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training...subject to reasonable restrictions [upon peons/peasants/serfs/malconcents/low-class trash/non-conformists/etc., etc.]." The move was gratuitous because there was no need for the government to take a position on [personal freedom] in the two cases for which the briefs were submitted. In both cases the Justice Department is defending [freedom] laws. In one case it agrees that a man [accused] should not be allowed to have a gun, and in the other it is opposing the appeal of a man [convicted]. The reference in the briefs to restrictions on "[freedoms] that are particularly suited to criminal misuse" is interesting, and disingenuous. No [freedom] is more suited to criminal misuse than [cell phones, SUV's], and that's exactly the type of weapon that Mr. Ashcroft and his...pals are trying to make available to more and more American men and women. I had a [ahem] hanging low on my [AHEM] many years ago when I was in the Army. And I can tell you, I'm not anxious to think about that kind of weapon (or something smaller and easier to conceal) being in the pockets and the purses and the briefcases and [[b]AHEM[/b]] of the [thongs] surrounding me in my daily rounds.[sex] How weird is it that in this post-Sept.-11 atmosphere, when the Justice Department itself is in the forefront of the effort to narrow potential threats to security, the attorney general decides it would be a good idea to throw open the doors to a wholesale increase in [freedom]? [BD][heavy]
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 11:10:15 PM EDT
What I find interesting... is the number of people on THIS board who think that what Ashcroft and the DOJ is doing is nothing but a sham... Yesterday there were about 6 different threads here about the governments brief to the Supreme Court and hardly anyone had anything good to say about it...
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 12:44:07 AM EDT
ArmdLbrl, you have to admit the clause, "...restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse" could be twisted to the anti's advantage, just as Bob "The Tool" Herbert stated in regards to handguns. Furthermore, at this point we don't know the DOJ's intentions in trying to block Emerson from being heard by SCOTUS. If they are waiting for Bush to get more pro-RKBA people on the bench, that's to our advantage. If they are trying to keep the 2nd Amendment from taking on the same level of rights as the 1st Amendment, this is not to our advantage. As it stands now, you could lose your RKBA as the result of a simple administrative procedure during divorce proceedings. Restraining orders are now the norm during divorce, even if you've never even so much as yelled at your wife! Just because the anti's have their panties in a knot is not a sign we should be happy. Hell, the most insignificant pro-RKBA laws give them a fit.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 1:28:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/10/2002 1:29:32 AM EDT by Redmanfms]
I'm not anxious to think about that kind of weapon (or something smaller and easier to conceal) being in the pockets and the purses and the briefcases and the shoulder holsters of the throngs surrounding me in my daily rounds in Manhattan.
View Quote
Read: I'm not anxious to think that kind of weapon being in the pockets, purses, briefcases, and shoulder holsters of the throngs of peons surrounding me on my daily rounds spreading the socialist dogma in Manhattan.
It will encourage aficionados and accused criminals to challenge gun control laws on constitutional grounds.
View Quote
Yeah, it will encourage people who don't suffer from rectal/cranial inversion and those persecuted by the government for exercising of God-given rights to tell the government to stick the unconstitutional gun laws right up their filthy, hemorrhoid-afflicted assholes.
I had a .45-caliber pistol hanging low on my hip many years ago when I was in the Army.
View Quote
Were you a little CO bitch, or did you actually fight you festering pustule on the unwiped ass of liberalkind? I hope this guy gets mugged and has the shit beat out of him and is then shot by a criminal with an illegal gun.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 3:08:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 3:58:22 AM EDT
Top Top