• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Feinstein Tries to Thwart National Right to Carry / nra-ila

sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
MKEgal

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
The "hold" does not prevent passage of the bills; it just prevents the legislation from passing by an already unlikely "unanimous consent" vote.
Click to expand...
So she's posturing for the cameras.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) Feinstein called the bills "dangerous" and said that they would "create potentially life threatening situations for law enforcement officers." She also cited the controversial Trayvon Martin shooting as one of her reasons for trying to sabotage the bills.
Click to expand...
And she's unable to look at evidence, experience from the dozens of states where nothing bad happens when law-abiding people carry however best suits them.

The only bad stuff that happens is to the criminals, & I can't exactly see that as a problem.
 
N

nobama

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
756
Location
, ,
She is the modern definition of a "liberal" Who believes that the Constitution is a living,breathing document to mold into some european type document,she believes our freedoms come from Gov. NOT our creator,that means they(the Gov.) can take them away.She believes in equality that those who are successful must give a portion of their success to the less successful, but, since she worked so damn hard for her title,she is NOT required to give any of her wealth to any one else, liberals believe our founding fathers were terrorists. So none of this is a surprise. If she didnt try,some other libtard whould stick their nose in it, remember, the libtards know more whats best for us, so we just need to sit down and shut up.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
sudden valley gunner said:
The must carry photo ID act?
Click to expand...

+1 !!

Any talk of national right-to-carry is bullhockey spin by somebody, probably NRA. Especially spin if it involves any sort of permit or licensing (which this current proposal does) instead of constitutional carry.

It can't really be a right-to-carry if it can be licensed or permit-ed, now can it?

You see, we already have a national right-to-carry. Its called the 2nd Amendment and under Heller is incorporated against the states by way of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. If the fedgov truly wanted to give life to the national right to carry, it would just enforce constitutional carry on the states. It really is that simple. No other machinations needed.
 
Last edited:
S

scott58dh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
425
Location
why?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court said,,,

Grande dame of the Court’s liberal voting bloc,

“I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”

“ts influence is waning, It is “terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.”

Her personal recommendations would instead include “the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

:arrow: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/a...n.aspx?s=Diminishing+the+Constitution&st=&ps=

“ just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right "
Obama, 08'
 
Last edited:
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
scott58dh said:
Grande dame of the Court’s liberal voting bloc,

“I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”

“ts influence is waning, It is “terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.”

Her personal recommendations would instead include “the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

:arrow: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/a...n.aspx?s=Diminishing+the+Constitution&st=&ps=

“ just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right "
Obama, 08'
Click to expand...


Oh, really!?!

On the one hand, she's absolutely right. The constitution guarantees relatively few rights. Certainly, there are no penalties for individual government members who violate the rights it does mention; so by that light it doesn't even really guarantee the ones it does mention. But, there is also no mention of economic rights. No mention of a right to stable money. No mention of a right to use whichever currency the market decides is best. No mention of a right to not have government meddling and screwing up the economy. No mention of a right against government-authorized and aided predation by a banking cartel (Federal Reserve and its member banks.) No mention...

On the other hand, the Consitution is a fine place to start. No reason lots of rights can't be incorporated into it while giving teeth to the restrictions on government and diluting its power.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top