Feinsteins response to my question

Status
Not open for further replies.
well regulated"

Meaning in the parlance of the time, well trained, self-controlled, well equiped, not micro-managed by an outside organization.

"Militia" (not necessarily private citizenry outside of a collective, organized defense group)

The body of the Citizenry(males at the time, male and female today) comprised the militia.

"security of a free State" (not "security of individuals" or "persons," to use the term from the 5th Amendment)

Security of a free state by definition hinged on security and freedom of the individual. We fought a revolution to determine that very fact. They are inseparable, espcially considering the fact the Citizenry IS the government and thus the "State".

I'm no Con Law scholar by any stretch, but that wording sure seems to leave wiggle room.

Not if you know history and some practical application of the English language at the time.

Then again, I think people should have a reasonable right to arm themselves with firearms regardless of anything in the Constitution.

ReallY? And who gets to define reasonable...?


__________________
Vote Bush out.

Umm, why...?
 
ReallY? And who gets to define reasonable...?

Apparently Mrs. Feinstien and others like Boxer. They consider themselves experts and those who may disagree as frauds for the NRA it seems.
 
ReallY? And who gets to define reasonable...?

Realistic or not, I believe it's incumbent on the government to provide overhwelming reasons why we shouldn't have the right to keep and bear arms as opposed to it being incumbent on citizens to prove and re-assert that right time and again. I shouldn't have to prove to the government why I need X, Y, and Z before they take those things away from me. The burden of proof, so to speak, should be on them. Call me old fashioned :)

Vote Bush out.

Umm, why...?

Unclear he legitimately won the office he holds.

Waging war based on false grounds and a lack of openness to the American people on same when war was imminent. Now nearly 1,000 American troops have died there, and likely over 10,000 Iraqi civilians. (Oh, and there's that Bush draft-dodging/shady National Guard service record issue.)

Foolish foreign policy that's alienated allies and likely created new enemies instead of eradicating them.

Torture of POW's and potential attempts to circumvent the Geneva Conventions via legalese.

Increased erosions of our right to privacy via the so-called Patriot Act.

Witholding or curtailing due process for detainees related to 9/11 and the "War on Terrorism."

Atrocious record vis-a-vis our environment.

Loss of 2.7 million private sector jobs during tenure, failed "Jobs and Growth Plan," record federal defecit, etc.

The list of problems caused by, sanctioned, or allowed to continue under Bush's watch goes on and on. Above all, the Bush adminstration's willingness to abuse or overextend power at others' expense is deeply disturbing. If we're apparently condemned to big government, his isn't the version I want.
 
Fascinating. You actually got DiFi to provide a substantive response.

It's mostly wrong, of course. It's remarkably poorly written. It doesn't cite the cases in a way that they can be checked -- it isn't that hard, really, but it wouldn't have been a burden to provide correct references. And, as near as I can tell, and as near as the law review articles I have read have said, the cases mentioned generally do not mean what DiFi's letter says they mean.

Timothy Emerson, BTW, lost his appeal in January 2004; I can't recall if SCOTUS denied cert or if his appeal got out of 5th Circuit at all.
 
Unclear he legitimately won the office he holds.

Wow, MP5, you're a pretty smart feller. Smarter than the US Supreme Court, smarter than President Bush, and certainly smarter than all us lowlife types here at The High Road. What year did you graduate from Harvard?
 
the "assault weapon ban" infringes on these firearms that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." inasmuch as they are standard militay issue, or, militia-type arms, hence they ARE guaranteed by the 2nd.

Typical...

Wonder how she'd respond to that?

..Joe

Ya beat me to it. They all use Miller decision to show that guns are not protected for people. Yet, as they claim the NRA does, they leave out half of the story. I believe that it doesn't protect the rights of people to own weapons not suitable for militia purposes. Hence, you could argue that the Miller decision would make your hunting rifles illegal, becaus most of tem aren't going to have a legitiment militia purpose (anyone want to go to war with a rolling block?).

As for militia purposes, most militias were defined as all able-bodied men between 16-50 (or so, they all differed). They were REQUIRED to prchase their own rifle and accessories, and train with their weapons as a company. How do yo think that definition wiuld fly today? Well first, you would have to include women and disabled (I bet some days the wish they hadn't pushed for equal rights. Not saying its bad, but It'll have to work both ways eventually).

My solution: Everyone is now a member of the National Guard. Everyone trains, and serves until theyare 50 or so. AWB and Machine gun bans go away, but we now have a law that says you can't own a rifle unless it can hold more than five shells, unless you have a collectors license.

And whats up woth the National Guard being labeled a 'state militia'? Last I knew, Bush could call up troops from there. If the purpose, admitted by Feinstein, is to prevent tyrannical gvts., I would think the last thing you would want is to be ruled by the leader of the government. In my mind, the militia that I believe is what the 2 is refering to are the peolpe like the Michigan Militia.
 
Smarter than the US Supreme Court, smarter than President Bush, and certainly smarter than all us lowlife types here at The High Road. What year did you graduate from Harvard?

If the Supreme Court is so smart, why don't they overturn all the gun control laws that seem to infringe on our Second Amendment rights? As for Bush, it looks pretty easy to be smarter than him, quite frankly; he honestly strikes me as none too sharp witted. And whoever said anything about "lowlifes"? Definitely not me. I haven't spoken ill of anyone here or implied that I'm better or smarter than anyone. I didn't go to Harvard, though I have a couple college degrees.

If you disagree with my views, please express your disagreement politely. There's no need to attack me personally. I'd show you the same courtesy.
 
Scenes from a tortured mind...

In order for her to get it all to add up the way she likes, she has to

-Convert the militia to the National Guard
-Assert that the failure of SCOTUS to overturn anything on 2A grounds is affirmitive confirmation of her position. (What's that about you can't prove a positive from a negative?)
-Pervert Miller beyond recognition
-Explain the natural understanding of 2A is actually a vast NRA conspiracy
-And make unfounded assertions whenever they suit her.

She really did nicely sum up the collectivist viewpoint on the matter.

Can we get a scan for the archive? It's the heart of darkness, concentrated, in one place, from a primary evil. It oughta be preserved.
 
I consider senator Feinstein as big a threat to the United States and its security as any other terrorist. Her and her cohort judges need to be transported to Guantanamo.
 
As for Bush, it looks pretty easy to be smarter than him, quite frankly; he honestly strikes me as none too sharp witted.

Yet ANOTHER gratuitous slam. Tiresome. He outwitted the French, the Germans and the U.N. Oh, and algore, too.................
 
Hmmm....just days from the Dem Convention, and just over 100 days until the election.

And we have a new member, albeit until November.

Soooooprise, soooprise, sooooprise!
 
As for Bush, it looks pretty easy to be smarter than him, quite frankly; he honestly strikes me as none too sharp witted.

Ok - i'll GIVE ya he's a suck a** public speaker.... i don't know if its nerves or what... but how you can label a man who has OBVIOUSLY made it in POLITICS being a suck a** speaker "stupid" is beyond me.....

Specially considering the currency of the trade is being slick - and likeable - and naturally misleading w/o actually SEEMING misleading...

Squeaked out of any real serivce in the military... bah - plenty of those... just cause they don't all run for president doesn't mean it wasn't a legitimate fear when he was of age. If he was or wasn't i could care less, if only because too much is seemingly placed on if a person served. (and for the record - i did) Its a volunteer force now... its way too easy to say what one would or wouldn't do back then. I'd like to think that i'd volunteer even back then... like i did when i did... but its much to easy to just "say" you would have... or what you'd have done if you were made to say. Plenty of young men did volunteer - and many were drafted... and many served honorably... including Kerry.... and for that i thank them - since its one of the most unappreciated jobs in the mighty US of A.

For the record - when exactly did we forget that the rich (name me a president who wasn't <don't know that there wasn't one... but seems unlikely>) don't take care of thier own - and that money = power in a lot of realms? Of COURSE if a dad had the cash and the want to make his son's life sancrosact even in revelation of a draft he would use it. Not saying EVERYONE's dad would... but several would... and several have. This isn't new... and many don't agree with it... but most of those of course - don't have the money to make it happen... so its a lot easier once again to judge.... (once again - i'd like to think i'd have said - "hey pops... i was drafted... it will be ok - i'm gonna go serve" and its easy to make that assertion now when i can't truely be called on it)

Course - that doesn't mean that two faced waffle house of blankcakes (kerry) is gonna get my vote because the punk got shot... a LOT of people got shot that never had wants on the presidency... that doesn't make the man right for the job.

Kerry voted to do the same war Bush did. He's just unsure why he did now... rofl... of course now... being that he is compaigning and all.... Can't seem to explain why he voted to go into iraq... and then voted to not supply the military w/ the supplies they need... nothing worse than being told to do a job - and then not being given the tools..... Which leads me to my next point.....

Troops dying - this happens in war. I don't like it ... you don't like it... doesn't make it not happen. When one projects the force of a nation - individuals in that nation die. Its a fact of life. Any other fact would be the pussification of the US since if we can't project... then we are lost. What use power one won't use... what use ability one won't harness. What use soldiers that don't soldier... They signed the papers - they knew they weren't signing up for summer camp. Just as i did. I cry when i see another name - and another life snuffed. Mad Man Tears... doesn't mean i don't think its necessary... doesn't mean i don't care... means that one more of my brothers has found a better place and i'm sorry he had to go too soon.

Torture - can't speak on this - i find what came out publicly as repulsive - when you stoop to the level of your enemy - you are your own enemy. As for the slime they caught and keep at guantanamo... i would hope the convention applies there... they are not citizens but POW's. They should be treated as such and if not the person's respsonsible court martialed for not following the very easy to follow UCMJ... Citizens who participate in war against us are (to me) obviously declaring thier allegiance. And it ain't to us. Make em POW's fine by me.

Bipolar on the patriot act... ain't doin nothin wrong so it shouldn't be any big deal... but it is. =( Makes it easier for the gubment to do thier thing - but it also makes it easier for the gubment to do thier thing w/o cause against people who ain't wrong for the right reason's. Thus circumventing rights of the people. =(

Detainee's... see above on POW's....

Enviornment - bah - not even gonna go here. Don't know enough to back up anything i'd say and i'm sure i'd come out sounding like a ...erm... "non" enviormentalist? heh

Jobs - oh COME ON... if you think a president can "whip" the companies into hiring people - then you have some serious thinking to do. That or you value a private companies desicions less than most american freedoms. What does the govt. do? Lower interest rates? erm... subsidize? what are they meant to do to MAKE COMPANIES KEEP AND PAY PEOPLE!?!? how does the government really effect the economy? Interest rates being the biggie i guess... but even then... you blaming the dot.com bubble burst on the pres? (clinton i hope.... not that he had anything to do w/ it... but hey - he was pres....) a politician can't create any more jobs than he needs fundraisers.... COMPANIES make jobs - if the economy is good and people are spending - then companies are good and are spending (and hireing)... if everyone gets "oh my" and quit spending - then companies suddenly don't have capital and lose money - and lay off and etc etc... The economy of the US is WAY to complicated to blame on ANY one president EVER... just too absurd to even contemplate. They can try to nudge it... they can try to ask around w/ the experts on how to try to nudge it harder... but they are NOT to blame for it. Just like clinton didn't do anything spectacular to make the economy good for those years. Slick Willy sure did have some luck tho in that area!

So there ya go - no college degree's here - just an uneducated person taught by life guy who thinks on his feet and reads a LOT. Very opinionated... quick to say when i'm wrong when provided w/ a decent reason why that might be the case...

J/Tharg!
 
Tharg, just for the record, I have no love for Kerry and certainly not for the woefully misguided Democratic party as a whole. I'm extremely conservative on some issues, moderate on others, and liberal on others. This election will be a "lesser of two evils" issue for me, and Bush is currently the greater of the two evils.
 
the story of a time when our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that individual States would be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical Federal government

So, Senator Feinstein, is this time over? Do we no longer need protection from the Federal government?
 
"Clearly, the NRA is leaving out half the story B the story of a time
when our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that individual States
would be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical Federal
government by arming well-regulated State militias B in other
words, today=s National Guards."

Wrong again, Feinstein. It's very clear what the Founding Fathers wanted and intended:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that’s good."
– George Washington

"The constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press."
– Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."
– Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
– Thomas Jefferson

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

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms."
– James Madison

"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 best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."–
Alexander Hamilton

"The right of the people to keep and bear firearms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…"
– James Madison

"And that said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
– Samuel Adams, 1789

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

"I ask what is the purpose of the militia? To offset the need of large standing armies, the bane of liberty."–
Elbridge Gerry



And your agenda, Mrs. Feinstein, looks like this:



Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
– Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc.

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of firearms is the goal."
– Janet Reno, December 10th, 1993

"We strongly endorse community initiatives to … encourage the disarming of civilians."
– Boutros-Ghali, UN Secretary-General
 
Dear Ms. Feinstein:

When it finally gets to the point where the authorities are going door-to-door confiscating guns, can I make a request? I want you to come and get my guns, not jack booted thugs dressed in ninja suits. Will you do that for me?


Sincerely,

Molon Labe
 
As far as Bush and Iraq are concerned:


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is is calculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
__________________

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Iraq poses a threat to the national security of the United States and the freedom-loving world."

"after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability"

Former President Bill Clinton, 1998
 
Grislyatoms, some of the Founding Father gun quotes you list are, according to the Second Amendment Foundation, either false or dubious. Ditto the Brady quote.
http://www.saf.org/Quotes.html

Very interesting reading there.
 
Thank you very much for that link. I collect a lot of quotes, (not just arms related), so debunking some of them is always important to me.

Thanks again!
 
Bubbles
What a freaking idiot!

quote:The National Rifle Association would like people to believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution gives every individual the right to own any kind of weapon...



Typical leftist attitude. The Bill of Rights doesn't GIVE any of us rights, it PROTECTS individual rights that we have because we live as a (more or less) free society.

Not just a leftist or anti-RKBA attitude, though.

When I was still an anti myself, I made an effort to hear and understand the pro-gun arguments, but many times when I asked on pro-gun forums "why is the 2nd Amendment still relevant today?", I got replies of the form "The Constitution gives me a right to own guns! You must be a Communist if you disagree!".

Almost every time I tried to debate the issue, I ended up being driven away from sympathy by bad/rude arguments.
 
"why is the 2nd Amendment still relevant today?",

I guess one response would have been "for the same reason(s) the First Amendment is still relevent." Neither the nature of man nor governments has changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top