Dems criticize Estabrook's 24-second "stumble"

If the very basic Republican /American values
dont come out the the first time, then you are not fit for any public office let alone US Senator

as bad as Tom Kean Jr. in the elevator

Words to live by from Anne Evans Estabrook. 

It seems that the GOP has found the one candidate who can make Lautenberg look eloquent.  

Calling all Estabrook operatives... Please carry a pocket version of the constitution at all times. the second and seperate clause of the 2nd only takes 5 seconds to recite.

While I support the 2nd amendment, I do not think that gun control laws and limited access to assault rifles limits one's freedom of self-defense. When the 2nd Clause was drafted the FOunders had no concept of semi-automatic rifles, and assumed "arms" meant little more than a musket.  The fact is a hand gun can be considered self defense and hunters have a right ot have guns used in hunting, but as far as collectors and proponents of self defense go you do not need a weapon designed to impact severe and deadly impact on muliple people to defend yourself and your home or complete a collection.  You cant drive a care without a license, registration and insurance there is no reason why owners of guns should not have to take similar precautions.

Interesting comments, it is almost as if the liberal democrats consider the right to bear arms arms an individual right here in the people's republic of new joisey.

As far as the semantics about assault weapons and the rest of the left wing mantra - they really need to wake up and smell the coffee.

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or when some condescending ignoramus decrees that a firearm looking more 'sinister' than another should not be allowed.  The 2nd amendment is about INDIVDUAL AMERICAN CITIZENS protecting themselves and their families and their community against a tyrannical government. 

The 2nd amendment is America's original homeland security.  That is why no foreign power has ever invaded us.  Would you invade a country which has more personally owned firearms then populace?

Paaalease don't get me started on the 2nd amendment ... you secular progressives out there who think the police will protect you or that your wishful thinking laws will disarm criminals still have a lot to learn - and experience.

I'd bet the ranch that the overwhelming majority of those pontificating gun control have never served in our military nor in any way, shape, of form ever served their community or state or nation or otherwise put themselves in harms way to protect us.

and not that I feel the need to justify my positions based on my resume. However, I did serve my country and have been in harms way and I have owned firearms. That said my service does not make my opinion on this matter any more relevant than that of someone who has not. I also need no lectures about what the founders intended for the 2nd amendment. Talk about semantics-a sinister "looking" gun-I pointed out weapons designed to kill muliple humna beings-weapons designed for offensive combat not defensive action or prevention have no place in the hands of irresponsible people. I could care less how it looks-I only care about its abilites 

No matter how misguided your efforts on 'assault weapons' - I'll leave you with these parting thoughts:

The only weapon is the human mind. An 'assault weapon' is no more deadly than an ink pen, it just depends how you utilize it.

Being a former military man and having been in harms way myself, I made the general characterization because it has been my experience that the gun grabbers generally for the most part have not served and have never been in harm's way. And, like you, they have perverted thoughts on the second amendment and how it can be legislated away as a collective right, not pertaining to scary looking guns, for defenseive and not offensive use, etc.

If you want to go the constructionist route - the militia was every able bodied man between I think 18 and 55 when the Bill of Rights was drafted. 55 being a very late age in life at that time. Compare the USA to say the Scandanavian countries which every able bodied man between I believe 21 and 61 (last time I checked) is required to keep a so called 'assault weapon' and ammunition in his home for national defense.

We could go round and round and I can counter every single gun grabbers claim with solid repudiation, but that really wasn't the basis of this article's comments - it was how Anne Estabrook "stumbled" for 24 seconds looking for her gun policy position.

Don't go away mad, just go away.

SJBlue, you completely miss the point raised regarding the danger of assault weapons or, in this case, the lack thereof.  The point made was that a rifle by itself, absent overriding malice (i.e. a prisoner using it for nefarious purposes) or ignorance (a child using it inappropriately) to guide its course of action, poses no greater actual danger than a pen.  Obviously a rifle has greater POTENTIAL to cause harm than a pen if misused.  But that does not change the fact that the rifle in and of itself cannot under any circumstances cause harm of its own volition -- being an inanimate object, it has no volition. 

Applying your "logic" as pertains to rifles, most any instrumentality can be converted to a dastardly use with very little effort or intelligence.  The same fertilizer a gardener uses to grow his tomatoes in his back yard can be put to use by a terrorist to make a bomb.  A car can easily take out scores of innocent pedestrians if driven into a crowd.  Virtually any instrumentality can be perverted to destroy as much as it can be employed to create or protect.  The only variable that enters into this equation between good and evil is the intent of the person making use of an item. 

Also, 32 states currently maintain some form of militia, chartered by the particular state and not beholden to the federal government.  Defense expert Lawrence Korb recently wrote a very insightful piece dealing with the evolving role of these militias since 9/11.

Like guns, drugs are of no danger to anyone if not misused. Physicians dispense narcotics every day and do so to further the medical arts.  For every 100 medicinally valid prescriptions issued, you will always have a handful of Rush Limbaughs who abuse the system.  To be honest, I could keep cocaine in a decorative urn on my fireplace for the next century and never take even a sniff.  The only way this drug becomes an agent of destruction is if I choose to use it to cop a buzz.  The cocaine hasn't changed at all.  Just my preferences for its use.  My bad.

As for the particular design of an item, the use to which they are put is dependent on the person employing said item.  A firearm is designed to propel a bullet at a given target.  Nothing more, nothing less.  If the user chooses to shoot a deer to feed his family, that is his decision.  If he chooses to shoot at a target for sport, again, that is his choice.  If he decides to use it for decorative purposes, so be it.  And if he decides to kill someone with it, he has chosen poorly absent the necessity of self-defense.  In the context of the 2nd Amendment, the founders viewed private ownership of firearms as the last line of defense against an oppressive government.  They certainly did not advocate the wanton slaughter of innocents.   

As I stated previously, guns are inanimate objects and as such have no agenda.  You make your own subjective assessment that the gun is designed to kill.  Thus, you impute your own preconceived notions to this otherwise value neutral piece of machinery.  You do the same for fertilizer, which you, being a stable, productive member of society assume is there to grow crops.  To a terrorist who is raised in a climate typified by arid soil incapable of producing a harvest, fertilizer is a component in a bomb.  Same item, different perspectives, wildly different outcomes. 

As for the pen, there is a reason that the saying goes "the pen is mightier than the sword."  While you see a pen as merely an artifice to write down and convey relatively wholesome thoughts, those such as Hitler used the written word (see Mein Kampf) to spark a genocidal regime that left millions of innocents dead in its wake.

The problem is never the instrumentality.  The problem is human nature. 

ircask.com
sohbet sitesi üzerinden sohbet ve aþk odalarýnda sohbet edilebilir.