1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NRA Foe Ordered to Surrender His Guns

Discussion in 'Legal' started by qlajlu, Jun 11, 2007.

  1. qlajlu

    qlajlu Well-Known Member


    Apparently what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.
  2. El Tejon

    El Tejon Well-Known Member

    No suprise. Antis are very well armed.
  3. alucard0822

    alucard0822 Well-Known Member

    they are not against guns, they are aggainst the whole idea of common folk having them, and they are not against hunting, but the idea that people may use them to fight aggainst tyranny
  4. Zen21Tao

    Zen21Tao Well-Known Member

    Two words: "Elitist" "liberal"

    While I love seeing a far left gun-grabbing hypocrite exposed, I do have to come out against ordering him to turn in his weapons. Yes, he has be INDICTED on criminal charges but he hasn't yet been convicted. IMHO, until he receives full due process and is convicted, he is still (according to the law) an innocent man and shouldn't have his firearms seized.
  5. WeedWacker

    WeedWacker Well-Known Member

    If "liberal" was originally supposed to refer to liberty, why are so many of them against the liberty of owning firearms? Oh wait, only THEY can own them, not ordinary yokels like me.
  6. HiroProX

    HiroProX Well-Known Member

    The antis, for the most part, are aristocratic elitists. They really do think that they have more rights than the rest of us.
  7. MrRezister

    MrRezister Well-Known Member

    I bet he never would have accepted those bribes if he hadn't had those guns in his house. If he had stayed in their corrupting presence much longer, who knows what sort of evil misdeeds he may have committed. I'm sure he is releived to be freed from their diabolical influence.
  8. Mumwaldee

    Mumwaldee member


    I read that story and all I saw was

    "he was ordered to surrender his firearms"

    I gotta loosen the tin-foil...and check the perimeter...brb.
  9. K3

    K3 Well-Known Member

    Surrender 'em? Hell, I SOLD 'em!

    Where do you think the money in the freezer came from? Some people are so dense. :neener:
  10. LawBot5000

    LawBot5000 Well-Known Member

    I heard he was facing something like 270 years in prison.
  11. Tob

    Tob Well-Known Member

    I'd like to know the last time he's been hunting.
  12. Elza

    Elza Well-Known Member

    I would like to know what kind of guns he owned. EBR's perhaps?
  13. metallic

    metallic Well-Known Member

    Wasn't this guy reelected too?
  14. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Yep, even after this first became known.
    Hard to believe isn't it?
    How about a new Federal Law making Malfeasance of Office and betrayal of the Oath of Office a Capital Crime? Wouldn't that be fun.
    We'd be electrocuting so many politicians that we'd never get the bill paid off.

  15. Jim K

    Jim K Well-Known Member

    A great many people in power support gun control for the peasantry, not for themselves.

    As to being ordered to surrender or transfer his guns, the law bans possession of a firearm by a person under indictment, whether he/she has been convicted of a crime or not. He would also have had to surrender his passport.

    As to why "liberals" are so "un-liberal", that is a long story. Traditionally, support for gun control came from the nobility and the conservatives who were afraid of the people. In the early 20th century, the term "liberal" applied to those who opposed big business "trusts" and favored a better deal for workers. Teddy Roosevelt was often described as a liberal. But in the 1930's, the discredited Communist party infiltrated the liberal movement and turned it toward their agenda, which included subversion, destruction of the U.S. system, and the establishment of a Stalinist type dictatorship. While the old time Reds are gone, many of their ideas live on in the minds of modern "liberals." They, like the old nobility, see themselves coming to power in a "people's revolution" and they want to protect themselves against the real people.

  16. They are called "liberals" because of the absurd liberties they take with misconstrual of the language of the Constitution - the misconstrual of the Second Amendment being the most egregious. Next in line is the "Commerce Clause". Then the First and Fourth Amendments are tied, and all the rest of the liberties they take with the Constitution suck fairly equally.


    You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood
  17. As much as I don't want William Jefferson roaming around the country with guns, he has every right to them, and the Constitution forbids any government or Court to take them from him. All the Court can do(or rather, is supposed to be able to do) is lock HIM up if he can't be trusted with his guns until he can be trusted with them.

    That's the Supreme Law of the Land, folks. It applies to him as much as it applies to us.


    As the Court said in Boyd v. United States: [p] "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

    We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting our own sovereignty as well.
  18. thexrayboy

    thexrayboy Well-Known Member

    That was the intended idea in 1786. 2 and a quarter centuries later it is an obvious fact that the "supreme law of the land" is not applied in anything even resembling a consistent fashion. If it was we would have a lot fewer issues to discuss in the L&P section of THR.
  19. Quite true, thexrayboy. And a lot less crime, fewer airliners flown into tall buildings with impunity, fewer people killed in college and school massacres, etc, etc.

  20. stevelyn

    stevelyn Well-Known Member

    Yeah. Dosen't say much about the morals and integrity of the voters in his district either.:scrutiny:

Share This Page