David, I never got past page 1. I offered the this view:
The Weekly's headline: "Alan Gottlieb’s challenge to a gun ban in the President’s adopted hometown has made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and fattened the ex-con’s wallet in the process." I'd truncate the headline but the gun banners think we gun nuts are as untruthful as they so I took the prudent course.
In the first paragraph of its story the Weekly characterizes Alan Gottlieb as being ". . .62, armed and affable. . . ." That's of more than passing interest.
You slime the man in the headline, probably more than is justified, because if he had been convicted of a felony sufficient to render him an "ex-con" Gottlieb would be taking a potentially life-changing risk by possessing a gun. He'd be very likely to looking out between the iron bars for an extended period.
How will you have it, Weekly? Would you like to offer us the straight truth about Gottlieb?
However, since then, even though to law still exists to allow restoration of 2A rights Congress has prohibited any funding of the program. Therefore, it has been de facto repeales, with benefits.
If someone tries to sue to have their rights restored they have no standing because there is a "due process" that they must follow and it is current law. Therefore they complain on grounds of "cruel and unusual punishment" i.e. a life sentence for minor or non-violent crimes, because the law allows for restoration of rights.
The fact that it is not funded and therefore no monies may be spent to render that due process, is not a matter for redress.
Is it just me, or did anyone else notice something wrong with this passage from page 5? "(Today's prevailing Brady Law, requiring gun-buyer background checks and opposed by gun-rights activists, was signed in 2003 by President Clinton; 1.7 million questionable gun buyers have since been turned away.)"
Sorry, i keep trying to refocus, but I cant get over the excitement that someone is taking on these NJ gun control nuts, Loudy-berg in particular... You call Frankie whatever you want, he is a control freak that is putting lives in danger with his control measures.
Hope Alan's not holding his breath. Anderson will just smugly clam freedom of the press annd try to smear Alan some more.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I never got past page 1. I offered the this view:
ReplyDeleteThe Weekly's headline: "Alan Gottlieb’s challenge to a gun ban in the President’s adopted hometown has made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and fattened the ex-con’s wallet in the process." I'd truncate the headline but the gun banners think we gun nuts are as untruthful as they so I took the prudent course.
In the first paragraph of its story the Weekly characterizes Alan Gottlieb as being ". . .62, armed and affable. . . ." That's of more than passing interest.
You slime the man in the headline, probably more than is justified, because if he had been convicted of a felony sufficient to render him an "ex-con" Gottlieb would be taking a potentially life-changing risk by possessing a gun. He'd be very likely to looking out between the iron bars for an extended period.
How will you have it, Weekly? Would you like to offer us the straight truth about Gottlieb?
Gottlieb had his rights restored in 1985.
ReplyDeleteGood to know that, David. Now we know how to answer cretins like Anderson when they try to smear Gottlieb.
ReplyDeleteHowever, since then, even though to law still exists to allow restoration of 2A rights Congress has prohibited any funding of the program. Therefore, it has been de facto repeales, with benefits.
ReplyDeleteIf someone tries to sue to have their rights restored they have no standing because there is a "due process" that they must follow and it is current law. Therefore they complain on grounds of "cruel and unusual punishment" i.e. a life sentence for minor or non-violent crimes, because the law allows for restoration of rights.
The fact that it is not funded and therefore no monies may be spent to render that due process, is not a matter for redress.
Nice little "fuck you Americans", isn't it?
My comment to the Seattle weekly wipe:
ReplyDeleteFor the record:
(1) The Constitution of the United States declares,"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
(2) The period immediately following the word "infringed" cannot be debated.
(3) The right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated right.
(4) The un-enumerated right to not keep and bear arms should not be violated.
I know of no gun owner who would, or even wish to, attempt to force ownership of a firearm upon anyone who does not wish to own a firearm.
I for one would appreciate the same courtesy.
Stay out of my business. I promise to stay out of yours.
W W Woodward [W-III]
Is it just me, or did anyone else notice something wrong with this passage from page 5?
ReplyDelete"(Today's prevailing Brady Law, requiring gun-buyer background checks and opposed by gun-rights activists, was signed in 2003 by President Clinton; 1.7 million questionable gun buyers have since been turned away.)"
"signed in 2003 by President Clinton"
ReplyDeleteYeah, I saw it and thought that the rest of the article is just as sloppy/false too.
I considered posting it on the site, to discredit the writer, but they wanted me to logon, and I felt they weren't worth the time.
Sorry, i keep trying to refocus, but I cant get over the excitement that someone is taking on these NJ gun control nuts, Loudy-berg in particular... You call Frankie whatever you want, he is a control freak that is putting lives in danger with his control measures.
ReplyDelete