Posted on 10/23/2016 9:42:10 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
I guarantee you Hillary Clinton will continue Obama's legacy
All rights come from God. We are born with them. They are unalienable, which means no power on Earth can take them away. They stay with us for life. All rights are individual, and they are absolute within the context of the right. If rights are not absolute, then they aren’t a right at all. If one aspect of a right can be shed, then so can the whole right. If a right can be “interpreted,” then it can be interpreted out of existence. One right that is universal and a natural right is the right of self-preservation. Included in that is the right of self-defense. Implicit in that is the right to possess the implements to defend oneself. It is because rights are absolute that the right to the implements of self defense can not be touched by government. Because if the implements (arms) could be touched (infringed), then the right wouldn’t be absolute, and therefore wouldn’t be a right at all. Which is why there is no such thing as a “reasonable restriction” on a right.
Sure there are - it’s entirely legitimate to impose zoning restrictions on the possession of nuclear weapons.
Reasonable restriction=infringement.
Hillary! What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?!
A “little bit” of regulation of the 2nd A. is very much like being “a little bit pregnant.”
Reasonable restriction kind of like in Russia and China guess what is to ensue.
The Second Amendment is pretty unequivocal, using the meanings of the words at the time the Bill of Rights was drawn up.
All able-bodied citizens of the United States of America are by definition members of the ultimate militia, defense of the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is the duty and responsibility of every citizen to maintain that degree of freedom and God-given right of personal defense. And to that end, I would strongly support a movement to make the care, feeding, grooming and proper respect for ALL sidearms a mandatory course of instruction for ALL children of legal US citizens of the age of fourteen and above, including familiarization fire and target practice on an annual basis. Voluntary courses of instruction may be given to children as young as the age of six, so we do not have the incidences of a “toddler playing with guns”, that worry Herself so much, because of the much tighter parental control in the home.
And what part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, does Herself or any of her minions not understand?
Reasonable restrictions on 2nd Amendment? Yes, there are: felons, non-citizens. As well, if there was transparency and simple recourse, anyone identified as Islamic, mentally impaired, on terrorist watch list, etc.
Seems to me it's the first part: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", what those words include and exclude.
Note that the author states if "you are driving with a gun to a bank with the intent to rob it, then you have crossed into the criminal use of a firearm, and are not protected by the Second Amendment". That would mean that, if not keeping, bearing an arm with criminal intent is not covered by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and by the author's logic, laws against doing so would not be an infringement.
The problem though, is going to be with the definitions of *mentally impaired* and *terrorist*.
ANY of us at ANY time could be put on a terrorist watch list or deemed *mentally impaired* because we aren’t brainwashed minions of the left parroting PC crap.
Make them justify the alleged limits of their “reasonable limits”:
I’ve had 300 hours of firearms training, 7 intensive background checks, no criminal record, use 3 safes, buy exclusively thru federally recorded & verified transactions, an registered with the Selective Service, and otherwise have multiply satisfied every “reasonable restriction” they can throw at me ... So why the he11 do they want to throw me in jail for cosmetic transgressions or a “happy switch”?
Since, to my knowledge no one has ever claimed the right to KBA nuclear weapons, that is an absurd example. A typical moron red herring.
Buying all the firearms ammunition manufactured, or taxing it, or otherwise preventing the ability of citizens to obtain any is clearly a violation of every citizen's absolute right.
Want to try a real life example applicable to planet earth? Among citizens with an IQ exceeding 70?
Ever heard the phrase “...to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”?
If I do not have the right to own a nuclear weapon, I cannot delegate that right to the government, and the government then does not have that right.
Ever hard of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments?
What’s that have to do with this issue?
We know from leaked emails docs they confirm common sense gun control is code for dismantling the 2a.
Although the states have reasonably constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate military-use firearms as evidenced by Clause 16 of Section 8 of Article I, it remains that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate civilian-use firearms.
And the Supreme Court has made it clear, in broad terms, that powers that the states haven’t constitutionally delegated to the feds, the specific power to regulate civilian-use firearms in this example, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Note that the Founding States probably would have liked to put the language of the 2nd Amendment into the 1st Amendment, prohibiting Congress from making gun-related laws altogether. The problem with doing so is that they had already delegated such power to Congress for military purposes.
Also, note that federal laws regulating civilian-use firearms don’t seem to have appeared in the books until the time of FDR, FDR and the Congress at the time infamous for making laws which they could not justify under Congress’s Section 8-limited powers.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
So Hillary is looking at two major constitutional obstacles that she would hypothetically need to deal with as president in order for the feds to regulate civilian arms.
She would first have to admit that the Constitution exists.
She would then have to lead Congress to successfully petition the states for a civilian-use gun control amendment to the Constitution; it ain’t going to happen.
As far as dismantling the 2nd Amendment, good luck with that and no, it takes more than the Preezy’s pen & phone and yes, I know, try buying a handgun in NYC, got it.
Meanwhile, the AR-15’s are flying off the shelves even faster than before. Some believe the Armalite has acquired the ability to walk.
Lesson from Prohibition: never pass a law you know no one is going to obey.
The laws give them pretext to go after people on their lists. Thats why they want it.
That’s nothing less than our “Republican majority” in Congress’ fault!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.