<devils advocate mode on>

Bingo!

Which is also why public education has devolved into such a wretched state. Nothing is more dangerous to politicians and activists than a truly educated public.

"David" wrote in news:X%EWa.317943$ snipped-for-privacy@twister.southeast.rr.com:

Lautenberg responds: Why make it easier for them?

Schumer responds: Why make it easier for them?

len.

Agreed. Of course, when has reality ever prevented "feel-good" yet "do nothing" legislation?

- Rick "Disappointed" Dickinson

I think Reagan was the last Republican politician who actually understood that Republicans were supposed to be different from Democrats.

All I'm going to say is anyone who believes that, should read "A Texan Looks At Lyndon."

Randy

Welcome to rmr... oh, I'm sorry, you were already here. Carry on. ; )

Randy

California. Although it's really more "alternate" than "reality". ;)

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

I feel sorry for the other hobby groups if they don't have the debates that we do. Allot of things here might seem OT, but allot of what we talked about does impact our hobby in some way.

That said, JW must have been crushed by the NY/NJ news conference.

HDS

But he will never take responsibility for getting us into a situation where those Senators had the opportunity to make such a scene.

-John

Yes, the Supreme Court is supposed to fill that role. However, that does NOT mean that they can "interpret" it to suit their whims.

When the Constitution clearly says one thing, and the Supreme Court says the opposite, they are wrong.

Right or wrong, what the Ssupreme Court says, becomes the law of the land, or at least how the law is interpreted and applied.

I was just wondering if the judge presiding on the NAR/TRA/BATFE case is a Democrat or Republican.

Alan

"John DeMar"

---------

Yea... can't wait to see the spin. It must be a good one, because it's taking pretty long this time around.

HDS

One way or the other, elected is elected... there's no constitutional provision for modifying the powers of the President according to the margin of victory. (Admittedly, such factors as the relative representation of the parties in Congress may have an indirect effect.... Imagine if we had something like the British system, with the president selected by the majority party in Congress...)

-dave w

Now I'm confused. Who wanted this bill to pass? And now it's JW fault for it not passing?

Joel. phx

I'll have to send him some contributions in addition to those two dolts on the East coast.

That's not how it works. At any given time it means what the Supremes say it means, regardless of what you or Mark think it "clearly" says. The Constitution is just a set of symbols on paper. It has no meaning until interpreted, and the interpreters are (self-referentially defined) the Supremes.

"That said, JW must have been crushed by the NY/NJ news conference. HDS"

Why would he be "crushed"? Would he be more "crushed" if the ATF paper hadn't appeared?

" But he will never take responsibility for getting us into a situation where those Senators had the opportunity to make such a scene. -John"

Because he asked Enzi to introduce it in the first place? Because he asked the 2 senators to stop the Hatcheted bill? Because he asked the ATF to present that paper and convince obvious anti-gun nuts that rockets are dangerous? Why is it his responsibility these 2 senators decided to use the ATF paper to push their anti-gun, anti-terrorist, anti-freedom agenda?

Joel. phx

It's your logic, bud.

The difference, John, is that there have been many times in history when the Supreme Court has done the Politically Correct thing, then later on gone back and reversed themselves with a more (objectively) "common sense" solution. (the "Dred Scott" decision is one that comes quickly to mind). I'm unaware of any case where they have later gone back and reversed the "common sense" decisions, and would be happy to hear if you know of any.

Mark's point (I believe) is that while certain decisions may have been made by the Supreme Court and are thus CURRENTLY the law of the land, more objective viewing of the Constitution will assure that it will come up in the future, with a good chance of being reversed (I'm not trying to put words in Mark's mouth, that's simply how I've interpreted this conversation).

David Erbas-White

Because he insisted on pursuing the legislative approach, although he was warned that it was significantly more risky than the judicial course currently being folllowed.

But, no, Mr. Wickman knows best, what do some little podunk "hobby organizations" know? :|

And, as one RMR poster put it (paraphrasing) "'cause he's the guy that's brought us this far". ;)

Jeff Vincent - Rocket Cynic(Tm) (comes from reading RMR for 9+ years)