You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How our NFA rights were stolen from us
- Thread starter ISC
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
If anyone isn't seriously disturbed by this administration's indefensible tolerance for one of the most abhorrent enemies of democracy, i.e.voter intimidation by threat of violence
One kook stood outside one polling precinct with a nightstick, taking no other action; the police were called, he was escorted away, and his already ridiculous little fringe group suspended his membership for a year. That's a pretty low bar for "voter intimidation by force of violence," but it provides the opportunity for a few people with loud voices to make things up in order to spread fearmongering.
Moreover, "this administration" that you're referring to was the Bush administration that dropped the lawsuit--as they were right to do, since prosecuting it would have cost a small fortune and resulted in nothing but a restraining order.
I've long since lost sight of what rights that we were talking about in the first place. But no matter.
It goes without saying that many, many issues are involved here, some peculiar to the United States, others of a more general nature. But first, I think even the word "militia" has picked up a bad reputation. Today it has more of a connotation of a private army owned and operated by a warlord, though some legitimate armies have had warlords that essentially had their own private armies, after a fashion. That is a bad thing, too, because they exist for the benifit of the warlord, not the country. And some people might also think of privately organized group of armed men meeting somewhere off in the hills planning what to do after civilization goes to the dogs, feral dogs, I presume. Not a good picture. There is also an armed security industry that has arisen in this country that somehow ought to be taken into account but it is flying below radar to most people.
One thing is that even a constitutional law can be written so that it can't be obeyed. And some laws are harsh and unevenly applied, no matter what your rights might be. Even the mild laws are often unevenly applied, I imagine. That's where the police come in to the picture. Since they are the point of contact, so to speak, between the law and the citizens, they are called upon every day to decide just how much law to enforce. For among other things, they ultimately have to have the support of the citizens in order to function efficiently and fairly. Otherwise, nothing works well.
It goes without saying that many, many issues are involved here, some peculiar to the United States, others of a more general nature. But first, I think even the word "militia" has picked up a bad reputation. Today it has more of a connotation of a private army owned and operated by a warlord, though some legitimate armies have had warlords that essentially had their own private armies, after a fashion. That is a bad thing, too, because they exist for the benifit of the warlord, not the country. And some people might also think of privately organized group of armed men meeting somewhere off in the hills planning what to do after civilization goes to the dogs, feral dogs, I presume. Not a good picture. There is also an armed security industry that has arisen in this country that somehow ought to be taken into account but it is flying below radar to most people.
One thing is that even a constitutional law can be written so that it can't be obeyed. And some laws are harsh and unevenly applied, no matter what your rights might be. Even the mild laws are often unevenly applied, I imagine. That's where the police come in to the picture. Since they are the point of contact, so to speak, between the law and the citizens, they are called upon every day to decide just how much law to enforce. For among other things, they ultimately have to have the support of the citizens in order to function efficiently and fairly. Otherwise, nothing works well.
"I tend to keep in mind, what Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in his dissent to Silveira:
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed; where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. "
We are not even close to those criteria. It's unfortunate, some do not really think before they hit the "Submit" button. "
I truly believe that "courts have lost the courage to oppose" already. One example is the appointment by BO of the medical czar, while congress was in recess. No opposition to that flagrant violation.
Or his unauthorized take-over of GM. Everyone is turning the other cheek.
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed; where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. "
We are not even close to those criteria. It's unfortunate, some do not really think before they hit the "Submit" button. "
I truly believe that "courts have lost the courage to oppose" already. One example is the appointment by BO of the medical czar, while congress was in recess. No opposition to that flagrant violation.
Or his unauthorized take-over of GM. Everyone is turning the other cheek.
DaveP said:I truly believe that "courts have lost the courage to oppose" already. One example is the appointment by BO of the medical czar, while congress was in recess. No opposition to that flagrant violation.
Or his unauthorized take-over of GM. Everyone is turning the other cheek.
Dave, unless or until someone brings a proper lawsuit to the courts, how can they (the judges) possibly rule on any of the above? The courts are not empowered to select their own suit and issue injunctions. They can only decide cases that are properly brought before them by plaintiffs.
One example is the appointment by BO of the medical czar, while congress was in recess. No opposition to that flagrant violation.
By "medical czar" I assume you mean the new head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services... What violation? Article 2, section 2, says "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." The first recess appointment in the US was done by George Washington in 1795. Hell, Eisenhower used a recess appointment to put William Brennan on the Supreme Court.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
My call - politics, refighting the Civil War, talk show loonies, insults.
This was a risky thread to begin with but there have been warnings and I don't see it going anywhere useful and some of you might get in trouble.
Closed.
This was a risky thread to begin with but there have been warnings and I don't see it going anywhere useful and some of you might get in trouble.
Closed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.