Quantcast
  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.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. qlajlu

    qlajlu Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    410
    Location:
    Kearns, Utah
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/06/nra_foe_jefferson_ordered_to_s.html

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

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,085
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    No suprise. Antis are very well armed.
     
  3. alucard0822

    alucard0822 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,229
    Location:
    Westminster, MD
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    Gainesville, Fl
    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 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    100
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    546
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    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

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Man,

    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 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,508
    Location:
    Looking through the scope at a coyote
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    653
    Location:
    Florida mostly
    I heard he was facing something like 270 years in prison.
     
  11. Tob

    Tob Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    95
    Location:
    La
    I'd like to know the last time he's been hunting.
     
  12. Elza

    Elza Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    692
    Location:
    North Texas
    I would like to know what kind of guns he owned. EBR's perhaps?
     
  13. metallic

    metallic Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    225
    Location:
    Shreveport, LA
    Wasn't this guy reelected too?
     
  14. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    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.

    Jefferson
     
  15. Jim K

    Jim K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,613
    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.

    Jim
     
  16. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    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.

    Woody

    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. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    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.

    Woody

    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 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,324
    Location:
    northern nevada
    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. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    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.

    Woody
     
  20. stevelyn

    stevelyn Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,290
    Location:
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    Yeah. Dosen't say much about the morals and integrity of the voters in his district either.:scrutiny:
     
  21. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    ...or maybe the integrity of those in charge of tallying the votes...

    Woody
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2007
  22. Autolycus

    Autolycus Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,456
    Location:
    In the land of make believe.
    Got to love the stereotypes about liberals. Lets not forget that many "conservatives" are hypocrites.
     
  23. Johnnybgood

    Johnnybgood Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    Messages:
    206
    If I may. It is not LIBERAL elitist, there are many liberals who believe in the 2nd amendment. It is Leftist elitist. Just my 2 cents worth.
     
  24. Frog48

    Frog48 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,201
    Location:
    Somewhere down in Texas
    "Do as I say, not as I do." What politician isnt a hypocrite?
     
  25. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    Ron Paul of Texas

    Jefferson
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page