“[President Clinton] ... ordered the Justice Department to begin studying gun licensing, registration, and collection proposals.”

I wonder if the term "cold dead hands" rings a bell with the Washington Times editors. They had better watch this kind of hate speech in the future. It could cost them plenty.

A license is a privilege given to perform an otherwise illegal act. By way of example: it is illegal for someone to use the McDonald's logo, recipes, etc. without the owner of such giving the privilege to do so. A Constitutional problem with the licensing of any gun is; what is the lawful nexus that transferred the un-infringed inalienable right of gun possession to any intangible ethos. Under the 9th and 10th Amendments, how is gun possession unlawful? Article: I Section IX clause VIII (national prohibition), and Article: I Section X clause I; "No State shall ... grant any Title of Nobility"; (Constitution) A ‘Title of Nobility’ is: "To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted ... It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached, than to the otherwise empty title or order." (Horst v. Moses 48 Ala. 129, 142 (1872); Corpus Juris, 46, 598, Nobility note 4; Bouvier's Law Dictionary, (1884) Nobility. A licensed gun owner is a title of nobility. Registration and collection are just more fuel.

Free people do not need permission to bear arms. The founding fathers agreed.

I agree Mike. How can the right to bear arms for the individual (which the Supreme Court JUST reconfirmed) under the second amendment become a privelege subject to license? (As you said, "privelege given to perform an otherwise illegal act".) Is it to do with the exteme "bending" (shall not be infringed) of the law? Or could it have something to do with priveleges and immunities mentioned in the 14th amendment? Am I missing a dual citezenship here? One with rights and the other with priveleges (licenses) and immunities. Food for thought there.

This is a lousy quote. It borders on hearsay. It is not a quote from Clinton.

Waffler , can't you read ? This is not a quote by Clinton, it's a news item which appeared in the Washington Times. It says ,right at the top," The Washington Times Quote ".We know that the schools are bad in Arkansas but surely you can read plain English.

Checking facts, history, or sources are not Waffler's strong suits -- the few that he has produced only serve to advance his opposition's point of view. I second Mike's comments; well done with the sources.

This is a lousy quote. And so what. Bush is doing the same thing right now. He is trying to get concealed carry into National Parks and probably Disneyworld. Why don't you guys respond to my suggestion of the other day that we require all persons over the age of 18 to carry a handgun on their hip. Thus no one has to walk around being intimidated by criminals or by sneaky concealed weapons types.

Mike, nice take on the 'title of nobility.' I guess Waffler was asleep during Clinton's term in office.

This isn't even a quote, just a fragment of words ment to incite... no context, etc... we need a new "rate it" rating of "reject editors efforts that produced this hack of an entry"...

Waffler, by what authority can 'we' tell anyone they 'MUST' carry or not carry weapons? That is the @#$% point, you absolute moron. Again, you appear to lack even the simplest capacity to reason. The people do not have the power to tell other people what to do. We may suggest, plead, argue, request, appeal, etc. because the others have the right to decide, and they are responsible for their eventual decision. Get it through your thick noggin, YOU are the authority of your own life, and you will have to bear the consequences. You only show your cowardice to live by constantly deferring to 'authority' and then trying to get that authority to tell others what YOU would have them do, and to convince others that we must obey the authority because, well, they are the authority. Man, you are dense.

How do you rate a non quote?

Waffler, my response to your required hand gun carrying was my non-response. I am sovereign, you are sovereign (even though you believe you gave it up) etc., etc., etc. I do not have authority or right to require one person to carry a hand gun, let alone everyone over 18. You don't have such authority or right either. You and I together don't have such authority or right. Yours and my representatives only have lawful and just authority to represent you and me, SO they don't have authority or right either. This is not a democracy, when the majority of the sovereigns get together, along with their representatives, they unitedly have no authority or right to require all persons over the age of 18 to carry a handgun. Carrying or not carrying a handgun is an individual inalienable right that shall not be infringed (well, lawfully or legitimately). As I said to Logan the other day, Tennessee agreed with the U.S. founders when they wrote in their Constitution "That no citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law." (Article I, Section 28)

We make people wear clothes don't we!

Waffler, thank you, you're great, I smile, you just don't get it, but keep it up, great stuff! ;-)

Food for thought, if the right to bear arms is subject to being in a state run Militia please define Militia? The reason why I say this is because if the milita is the national guard then we here in Pennsylvania are in trouble. The reason being is that in Pa. and other states militia's are banned. Therefore if the militia's are baned and being in one is a precursor to gun ownwership.... then my right to bear arms is being infringed upon by the state. In other words the state has taken power away from the constitution and the national government, something if you read the constitution which can not be done...... at least legally, then again there is the problem with that 16th amendment!