Eric Holder as Attn Gen. Criminalize 2nd First Step. - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38

Thread: Eric Holder as Attn Gen. Criminalize 2nd First Step.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Glad I didn't buy a Sig Mosquito. Unless we're fending off an attack from a large number of vermon, I can't see how this would fit in to "militia use". OTOH, the larger calibers of Sig as well as the .380 and up calibers would be excellent choices for use when serving in the unorganized militia.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,322

    NRA email today...

    From today's NRA email:

    ***

    Obama Selects Janet Reno's Anti-Gun Point Man As Next Attorney General

    Friday, November 21, 2008


    So much for "I support the Second Amendment," and so much for the notion of "change."

    Media reports say President-elect Barack Obama has selected Eric Holder as his Attorney General, and that Holder may already have accepted the offer. Holder, as Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno during the Clinton Administration, said that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but instead protects the right to have a firearm when serving with a militia. After leaving office, Holder stuck to that assertion when he signed Janet Reno's brief to the Supreme Court in the Heller case, which stated, "The Second Amendment does not protect firearms possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia."

    At the Justice Department, Holder advocated a waiting period, limiting gun purchases to one per month, and so-called "gun show loophole" legislation--the fine print of which would have driven gun shows out of business. Holder made it clear that he, Clinton, and Reno were more interested in stopping gun sales than in regulating them. When ABC's George Will asked him about guns being used for self-defense more often than to commit crime, and Right-to-Carry states having lower crime rates than other states, Holder dismissed the facts that Mr. Will raised, with the flippant statement, "I'm not sure that we need more than the 200 million or so guns that we have on the streets."

    In the same interview, Holder claimed that gun control was responsible for crime declining in the 1990s, when criminologists, law enforcement professionals, and sociologists attributed the trend to other factors entirely. We wonder what Holder would say today, since the federal ban on "assault weapons" and standard-equipment magazines holding more than 10 rounds has expired, the number of privately owned guns has risen by 35-40 million, and yet, murder and total violent crime have declined even more than before.

    After leaving the Justice Department, Holder kept his anti-gun bona fides up-to-date by writing a column in the Washington Post advocating a law that would ban any gun sale without a background check--even between family members and close friends--and also "give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale." Holder claimed--since his column appeared just a month after the September 11, 2001 attacks--that his national gun registration scheme would help protect us from terrorists, when, in reality, this was just political opportunism at its worst.
    Obama's selection of a Clinton Administration veteran with an anti-gun record as long as his own, signals that the new president is just as committed to his promise of respecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as he is to his promise of change: "Yes We Can" get elected by lying to the American people.



    Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
    This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
    Contact Us | Privacy & Security PolicyNRA-ILA :: Obama Selects Janet Reno's Anti-Gun Point Man As Next Attorney General

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,322
    Y'know, I don't mind a background check. I know some who mind it. That's okay. I have nothing to hide. Never have. Others who mind it probably don't have anything to hide, either. It doesn't matter to the government if I/you/we/they have anything to hide. Why, then, does the government NEED TO KNOW that I/you/we/they have nothing to hide? Power. That's all, just power. Plain and simple, power. Well, maybe a little ignorance thrown in. Okay, lots of ignorance, and power! Power over civilians. However, I'm on the fence on this one because criminals have things to hide. Each time I purchase a firearm I'm background-checked. But, I still pass. When a criminal subjects him/herself to a background check they subject themselves to being "outed" and then "inn'ed" at the local metal-bar hotel. I say, "Let the background checks continue." Power over criminals is more powerful than power over me. Just my opinion. I am sure it's probably not a popular one.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Belleville, MI & Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    87
    I'm ready to sign up ..... and remember .... when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,437
    Might as well start practicing.

    Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics

  7. #16
    The recent supreme court decision clearly stated that a ban of a entire class of firearms was unconstitutional, as was the rendering of a firearm useless by forcing it to be disassembled or locked...

    BUT The Heller decision will not be worth the paper it is written on; if either Obama bans by executive order which many think he will and or congress legislates a gun ban...

    The Supreme court can not overrule the executive or legislative branch...
    Or the combination of the two...

    Just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do these windbags not understand?
    Nowhere in the constitution does it give exception to inalienable rights being able to be INFRINGED, BANNED ALL OR IN PART, CONDITIONALLY CONSTRAINED, OR OTHER WISE LIMITED etc...

    As much as they would like to convince us otherwise, you just can not read anything else into "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"!!!

    The founding fathers clearly stated and intended that the purpose of the Second Amendment was that every citizen should be allowed to be armed in equal or greater proportion to any threat foreign or domestic and trained to use said arms from as early an age as possible...

    AND that without the Second Amendment the entire Constitution is effectively rendered useless and meaningless...

    Further, that the Second Amendment is the most effective deterrent to Tyranny from our own Government...

    Read the unabridged second amendment...
    The Unabridged Second Amendment

  8. #17
    The Obama presidency will be a nightmare for us. Not only are our 2nd Amendment rights in grave danger but so are all of our rights. We can expect an all out assault on the constitution.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  9. Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    The recent supreme court decision clearly stated that a ban of a entire class of firearms was unconstitutional, as was the rendering of a firearm useless by forcing it to be disassembled or locked...

    BUT The Heller decision will not be worth the paper it is written on; if either Obama bans by executive order which many think he will and or congress legislates a gun ban...

    The Supreme court can not overrule the executive or legislative branch...
    Or the combination of the two...
    I have to disagree with this statement. That's the whole reason the SCUTUS was set up the way it is. They most certainly can override congress AND the Pres. They have in the past and I'm sure they will in the future. Whether it's on this issue or not remains to be seen. Executive orders can be overridden by both/either Congress and the SCOTUS. It's called a check and balance system so that no one branch has absolute power. Now, they can work in concert with each other to screw us on this. But they can fight against each other over it too. Federal laws can, have been and will continue to be ruled unconstitutional, and so can executive orders. There is no absolute with presidential power. The office can and has been reigned in by either of the other branches. The Heller decision is one way this can be done. Precedent has been set now and will be hard to overturn in the courts. This was not a regional or district decision that does not have to be followed by other districts. It was a decision made covering the entire US. Every court district has to follow it, or face further review by higher courts.
    Don't get me wrong. Heller is no panacea for our 2A rights. But it IS one big feather in our cap to use in the fight. This will be a long fight over the next four years minimum. We need to use every means available to keep the pressure on all three branches of government to uphold 2A and not let them errode it any further. IF we keep up the fight at every turn and oppose any and all attempts to limit 2A, we CAN win. But we have to be vigilant. Remember, freedom is not free.

  10. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by magicman007 View Post
    I have to disagree with this statement. That's the whole reason the SCUTUS was set up the way it is. They most certainly can override congress AND the Pres. They have in the past and I'm sure they will in the future. Whether it's on this issue or not remains to be seen. Executive orders can be overridden by both/either Congress and the SCOTUS. It's called a check and balance system so that no one branch has absolute power. Now, they can work in concert with each other to screw us on this. But they can fight against each other over it too. Federal laws can, have been and will continue to be ruled unconstitutional, and so can executive orders. There is no absolute with presidential power. The office can and has been reigned in by either of the other branches. The Heller decision is one way this can be done. Precedent has been set now and will be hard to overturn in the courts. This was not a regional or district decision that does not have to be followed by other districts. It was a decision made covering the entire US. Every court district has to follow it, or face further review by higher courts.
    Don't get me wrong. Heller is no panacea for our 2A rights. But it IS one big feather in our cap to use in the fight. This will be a long fight over the next four years minimum. We need to use every means available to keep the pressure on all three branches of government to uphold 2A and not let them errode it any further. IF we keep up the fight at every turn and oppose any and all attempts to limit 2A, we CAN win. But we have to be vigilant. Remember, freedom is not free.
    I will have to agree to disagree...

    In every case I have found where SCOTUS was asked to over rule congress or the executive branch, they stated that it was not their position to overrule the decisions of the duly elected members of the legislative and executive branches of the government...

    Congress can bring articles of impeachment against the President if he has commited a criminal act as a point of law...

    Historically the cases the Supreme Court have heard and ruled on are those that a state, city or other municipality has ruled on, that was deemed constitutional...

    The Legislative and Executive branches decide what actually gets imposed on us; if we let them...

    Take Prohibition for instance...

    A RADICAL CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT BROUGHT ABOUT THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE...
    (sound familiar?)

    WHEN CHALLENGED AND TAKEN TO THE SUPREME COURT, THEY WOULD NOT EVEN HEAR IT...

    IT TOOK ANOTHER PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS TO RE-RATIFY THE CONSTITUTION TO END THAT B.S...

    OR HOW ABOUT THE 16TH AMENDMENT (THE FRICKING IRS/BATFE!) CONGRESS RE-WROTE THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT A RATIFICATION BY THE STATES!
    To date, the Supreme Court has refused to hear any case challenging this clearly unconstitional amendment...

    LET ME REPEAT IT; THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER CONSTITUTIONALLY RATIFIED!
    Where are the checks and balances you speak of?
    Out the fricking window!
    HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT

    There have been two u.s. supreme court rulings that have found that the FEDERAL full-auto ban was unconstitutional as are any bans of a entire class of firearm...

    Changed NOTHING!...

    Until a sitting Congress writes a new piece of legislation and or a sitting President overturns it; IT STANDS!

    The Heller decision was based on a ban put in place by a NON-FEDERAL ENITY...

    When Gun Ban Obama and Company show up for work on Black Tuesday January 20th, 2009, the bans will be at the FEDERAL LEVEL BY A FEDERAL ENTITY FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE (LEGISLATIVE BRANCH/Shared by the Vice President, who is also the President of the Senate) and the EXECUTIVE BRANCH...

    SLICK-WILIE CLINTONS' AWB BAN (Written by Vice President Elect Joe Biden) LASTED TEN YEARS, and the Supreme Court Refused to hear every single challenge...

    Granted the liberal left leaning SCOTUS did grant habeas corpus to Terrorists in Guantánamo effectively overturning a "W" Executive order...

    But that was clearly not the historically accepted practice of SCOTUS to date...

    I personally don't believe those guys have any rights any where; their own country does not want them and most of those we have released have shown back up on the battlefield and killed my fellow Marines...

    I digress...

    Like the people of England, Australia and Canada, et.al.

    We will be disarmed if we DO NOTHING!

    The government only has the power that the people give it...

    If we do nothing, we can only say we did nothing...
    Last edited by Bohemian; 11-23-2008 at 07:33 PM.

  11. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    I will have to agree to disagree...

    In every case I have found where SCOTUS was asked to over rule congress or the executive branch, they stated that it was not their position to overrule the decisions of the duly elected members of the legislative and executive branches of the government...

    Congress can bring articles of impeachment against the President if he has commited a criminal act as a point of law...

    Historically the cases the Supreme Court have heard and ruled on are those that a state, city or other municipality has ruled on, that was deemed constitutional...

    The Legislative and Executive branches decide what actually gets imposed on us; if we let them...

    Take Prohibition for instance...

    A RADICAL CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT BROUGHT ABOUT THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE...
    (sound familiar?)

    WHEN CHALLENGED AND TAKEN TO THE SUPREME COURT, THEY WOULD NOT EVEN HEAR IT...

    IT TOOK ANOTHER PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS TO RE-RATIFY THE CONSTITUTION TO END THAT B.S...

    OR HOW ABOUT THE 16TH AMENDMENT (THE FRICKING IRS/BATFE!) CONGRESS RE-WROTE THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT A RATIFICATION BY THE STATES!
    To date, the Supreme Court has refused to hear any case challenging this clearly unconstitional amendment...

    LET ME REPEAT IT; THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER CONSTITUTIONALLY RATIFIED!
    Where are the checks and balances you speak of?
    Out the fricking window!
    HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT

    There have been two u.s. supreme court rulings that have found that the FEDERAL full-auto ban was unconstitutional as are any bans of a entire class of firearm...

    Changed NOTHING!...

    Until a sitting Congress writes a new piece of legislation and or a sitting President overturns it; IT STANDS!

    The Heller decision was based on a ban put in place by a NON-FEDERAL ENITY...

    When Gun Ban Obama and Company show up for work on Black Tuesday January 20th, 2009, the bans will be at the FEDERAL LEVEL BY A FEDERAL ENTITY FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE (LEGISLATIVE BRANCH/Shared by the Vice President, who is also the President of the Senate) and the EXECUTIVE BRANCH...

    SLICK-WILIE CLINTONS' AWB BAN (Written by Vice President Elect Joe Biden) LASTED TEN YEARS, and the Supreme Court Refused to hear every single challenge...

    Granted the liberal left leaning SCOTUS did grant habeas corpus to Terrorists in Guantánamo effectively overturning a "W" Executive order...

    But that was clearly not the historically accepted practice of SCOTUS to date...

    I personally don't believe those guys have any rights any where; their own country does not want them and most of those we have released have shown back up on the battlefield and killed my fellow Marines...

    I digress...

    Like the people of England, Australia and Canada, et.al.

    We will be disarmed if we DO NOTHING!

    The government only has the power that the people give it...

    If we do nothing, we can only say we did nothing...
    With all due respect, you are simply wrong. The Court has often overruled both of the other branches when theiir legislation or actions was unconstiutional. One that comes quickly to mind had to do with the line-item veto. Congress passed legislation granting the President a line-item veto. This was challenged to the Supreme Court which struck it down.

    NO branch of our government is currently all-powerfull. We are in grave danger in the next few years as the Democrats have control of the Whitehouse AND the Congress. Obama WILL get to appoint everal justices to the Court and this will be a VERY VERY bad confluence of events. We MUST regain control of the House and the Senate in 2010 or Obama will have free reign to remake the nation as he sees fit.
    John - KJ4NSE
    Member NRA | GCO | GOA | SAF | ARRL
    Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast