Comments on: Those Who Help the Terrorists…

By: Hud House

Hud House — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:02:13 +0000

Light House Collectible

By: the best u are

the best u are — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 05:36:22 +0000

Very nice blog.

By: loboinok

loboinok — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:04:21 +0000

C.K.L.

“The most intrusive way I can construe this is that the States have the right to conscript anyone who owns a firearm in defense of the State. I’m no constitutional scholar, of course, but this seems to be the original intent. I could be way off.”

In the early years of this Country, Firearms were REQUIRED by law. Each man was required to own a WORKING rifle, appropriate ammunition, powder. They were inspected and if they were found lacking any of these, they were fined and in severe cases, imprisioned. They were REQUIRED to carry their arms to Church. Arms were required to protect the individual, their family, town, State and Country.
The 2nd Amendment is the enforcement authority ( the teeth, if you will) to the ‘Bill of Rights’.
Read the first 10 Articles to the ‘Bill of Rights’. Do they pertain to the ‘People’ or the ‘State’?

By: Gribbit

Gribbit — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 03:09:58 +0000

Actually Christopher, the ACLU has basically no position on the 2nd Amendment. Their own website even says so. But they will say that they are not opposed to severe limitations to the ability for the general public to own guns.

The ACLU is an organization which claims that they defend the Bill of Rights, but they selectively choose which ones that they defend and which ones that they ignore. Like the 2nd Amendment and my favorite, the 10th Amendment.

Don’t you love it?

By: loboinok

loboinok — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:09:42 +0000

Jay…

Love the new site and look!
Idiots are still as stupid as ever but the responses are great!
You do have to admire the libs,commies and socialists though. They have no base values, no common sense or a leg to stand on, but they keep flailing blindly away hoping they hit something in that dark world they live in.

By: Christopher K. Leavitt

Christopher K. Leavitt — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:00:39 +0000

As far as terrorism goes, the States should be using “a well regulated militia” (read as “National Guard”) to help in certain areas, like in the border States on both sides of the country. Terrorist sleeper cells are all citizens responsibility to be watchful for, but a “militia” is not needed, or particularly helpful, at this point.

By: Christopher K. Leavitt

Christopher K. Leavitt — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:53:31 +0000

This sounds to me as if the States are encouraged to regulate their own militias, and that the people’s right to bear arms will not be regulated by the Feds. The most intrusive way I can construe this is that the States have the right to conscript anyone who owns a firearm in defense of the State. I’m no constitutional scholar, of course, but this seems to be the original intent. I could be way off.

By: nobody.really

nobody.really — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:44:29 +0000

How do you read the 2d Amendment to say, “Individuals have a right to guns, but not bombs”? I don’t see it.

I agree with the NRA (and others) that the 2d Amendment could be read to bar government from interfering with an individual’s right to bear arms. And I agree with the ACLU (and others) that the 2d Amendment could be read to bar the federal government from interfering with a state government’s right to have an armed militia. Both interpretations seem plausible to me.

But if you agree with the first interpretation, I don’t see how the text of the 2d Amendment permits us to distinguish between the right to bear pistols and the right to bear nuclear weapons. If the 2d Amendment protects the one, it would appear to protect the other.

But I’m open to hear how the language could be construed in some third way. Again, here’s the text: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

By: Insolublog

Insolublog — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 03:28:26 +0000

It is my understanding that the Terrorists are not and never were a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

Where was Bin Laden’s direct or proxy seat at Geneva? They don’t even get the limited protections as spies and saboteurs.

They violate almost every act listed as a grave violation in the convention articles.

They are afforded very limited rights under international law and custom only.

By: Dethanial

Dethanial — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 01:34:07 +0000

This guy must be another one of those lefty loonatics. I dont not know of any instance where the courts have allowed some criminal keep his weapons. The NRA has not said that criminals can keep arms. If someone had a suitcase bomb or other kind bomb the constitution would not support him or it. This one of those loonatics that just wants to throw _ _ _ _ into the game without thought before engaging his mouth.