Second Amendment Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Pack Heat

Second Amendment Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Pack Heat
By Jim Kouri CPP (09/24/05)

A recent poll conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police indicated that almost 64 percent of police commanders and sheriffs favor a law allowing private citizens to carry concealed firearms for protection. Almost 73 percent said that citizens should not be restricted from purchasing more than one weapon, and 96 percent say they believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources.

Unfortunately most states -- especially those called Blue States due to their Liberal-leanings -- continue to prohibit private citizens from carrying concealed handguns.

At the same time, there are outspoken opponents of gun ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons, according to WABC Radio's Mark Levin. Levin, a recognized constitutional expert, heads the Landmark Legal Foundation. The LLF's goal is to protect American's from unreasonable and illegal government intrusions and violations of the US Constitution, including the Second Amendment.


Read the full story


-------------------


LMAO! Thes guys just cant stop inserting foot in mouth now can they?

 

The second Amendment is:

Amendment II – Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed

Do you see anything in that text about CONCEALED arms?

It is also funny that when you are so concerned about second Amendment, you have no problem with the fact that this government actions are against 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment. Do you defend the bill of rights only when it suits you?

Amendment IV – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V – Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, private property.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI – Trial by jury and other rights of the accused.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

I fully support all of those. So whats your point?

 

In this case do you agree that no American citizen should be arrested and imprisoned for indefinite time without trial or conviction as stated in Amendment VI?

Amendment VI – Trial by jury and other rights of the accused.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

Well I am not qualified to interpret the constitution and the amendments involved, however I am in support of detaining an American who has gotten involved in terrorism or terrorists training camps and who has possibly conspired to create harm or danger to the American public to be detained for a period of time for the safety of the public. Something you care little about by the way.

Should they have a trial? I am going to say yes. Should it be in two weeks or two years? Well, the constitution does not specify. Considering the fact that we currently have trials that last for years and years, I would say speedy could be interpreted in a variety of ways. But again, I am not qualified to interpret the constitution so I can only share my opinion on the matter.

My two cents or pence.

Now, are interested at all in getting back on topic about the 2nd?

 

What part of KEEP and BEAR arms do you not understand Gworld? Sounds like you have your own little definition for BEAR. Yep, hipocrosy permiates the left. Just like Streisand flying all over the US in a leer jet gobbling over 80 Gallons of feul per hour to land somewhere and give us a speech about global warming and electric cars.

 

What part of CONCEALED don't you understand?

 

gworld, that would require an amendment.

 

Isn't holding someone on suspicion of crime (Terrorism) is conviction and imprisonment without trial? This is exactly what sixth amendment was designed to stop.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Please tell me which part or word is not clear for you and I can explain it for you.

It is interesting that I got a red rep for quoting bill of rights. It seems for many so called "defenders of American way", constitution and bill of rights have become dirty words.

 

Its all clear to me, just seems as though it is a bit foggy to you but that doesnt surprise me.

Where does it give a timeframe? Where is the time limit?

Oh, and I know you ignore questions like they are a plague, but can I just ask you one and hope for an answer?

Question for gworld:

Would you prefer a suspected murderer and terrorist be able to walk the same streets as you and I and millions of innocent men, women and children while awaiting trial?

Just curious, because you sure have done a bang up job of painting yourself as a terrorist sympathizer.

 

As you said "SUSPECTED", isn't better to convict a criminal according to the law, instead of giving people life in prison for being "SUSPECTED" of crime without trial, jury, judge or conviction of any crime? How would you like if you be arrested because you are "SUSPECTED" of crime and put in prison for many years and without knowing when your sentence is finished without having a chance to defend yourself in a court and be judged by a jury?
Isn't this what soviet did to the enemy of states by sending them to prison camps?

The text says SPEEDY and public trial, it doesn't say that the government can wait as long as they like with out charging some one for crime. The amount of time before some one HAVE to be charged for crime or released is defined in US criminal code.

Keeping some one with out trial is also against 8th and 9th amendment.

Amendment VIII – Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel or unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX – The Bill of Rights does not take away any right already held by the people under the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th amendment means that because it doesn't the time before the trial, you can not take away the right of people regarding for the period of arrest as defined in US criminal code.

I do not say that terrorists or any other dangerous criminal should be released while waiting for trial, they can be denied bail if they are danger to the society, what I am saying is that they should be charged, represented by a lawyer, judged by jury and get a prison sentence if they are convicted or released if they are not. This is what bill of right and US criminal code says, I only ask that government should respect the rule of law as required by anyone in a civilized society.
How can we teach the children the respect for the law or speak of law and order when the government shows no respect for the law?

Lets talk about your favorite the 2nd amendment.

What happens if couple of AMERICANS that are from Arab decent with names like Mohammad, Hassan,.... decide to exercise their right according to 2nd amendment and go out and buy some assault rifles to go and play soldiers in the woods in the weekend.

The government decides that because they have strange names and have bought rifles, they must be terrorists. Are you going to defend their rights according to the second amendment or just let the government put them in prison without any charges because they are suspected terrorists with guns?
How are you going to know the truth, if they have no chance to defend themselves and you just accept that government said that they are suspected, while in the mean time it is the government that is not respecting their right according to 2nd amendment?

 

Ooohhhh.... a political discussion.

Flame war in 5... 4... 3... 2...

Just joking.

Firstly, from I can see, the US constitution allows for citizens to keep and bear arms. However, it doesn't state how many per person, just a minimum of one (as you have to have at least one gun to be considered acting your rights) and it does. To "bear arms" normally means you can transport it around, however it doesn't imply whether it must be concealed or not.

Thus, to limit the number of guns and/or state they have to be visible when carrying doesn't break the WORDING, but is certainly breaks the SPIRIT of the Constitution. If I remember correctly the Constitution was formed during a time of "wildness" in America (when compared to today's America) where people needed to have guns.

However, back on topic. It IS hypocritical to try and advocate against private gun ownerships while owning guns yourselves, but then politicals and hypocracy are bedmates. It's found in all political leanings.

 

I thought the second ammendment was the right to arm bears. Now you're telling me it's to keep armed bears? Who would keep an armed bear? Forget gun control, what we need is bear control.

 

Lol, an old classic.

Or:

"Forget gun control, what we need is bullet control!" - Chris Tucker. lol, $5000 a bullet.

 

LMAO - "you're lucky I can't get a bullet on lawaway!"

 

"There won't be no innocent bystanders anymore!"

 

Finally an area where I get to break my 'liberal' mold, not that I actually am liberal but have been called it in other threads.

I personally feel there should be no laws on the books against gun ownership, you break the law with a gun than fine yank the rights then, but otherwise if you want to own a fricken tank I personally feel that constitution allows for it. I read the constitution to mean that private individuals should be allowed to own the same weaponry our military does, otherwise there is no fricken point in it. It is not there for hunting guns as so many argue, something such as 'what do you need an m16 for you're not going to kill a deer with it' well of course not and the 2nd amendment was not put into place for hunting either now was it? It also can be combined to protect hunting guns of course because they are guns, but personally I feel if you are law obiding you should beable to own much more than simple hunting guns

People who are going to kill will do it with or without a legally purchased gun, possibly by making their own, buying a stolen one, stealing one, or using a fricken car. Taking away our rights as citizens in the name of 'protecting people' in my opinion is a BS argument. I'd rather live with the chance of a bullet in the back of my head then shred the constitution.

 

If they are US citizens than in my opinion they should have full protection under the constitution, I like it applied acrossed the board and not just in one single spot at my choosing

 

Theyve already dealt with bear control

The Vanishing Bear examines the decline of the grizzly bear in the last 300 years. An estimated population of 100,000 grizzly bears in the lower 48 states has been reduced to 600 to 800 grizzlies in four northern states

http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/bears/overview.html

 

Thanks for getting it back on topic. Much appreciated.

I thought it was clear to see that there was a double standard here. Guess I was wrong.