Posted on 08/19/2019 7:07:16 AM PDT by Shane
For those who do not understand the meaning of “Rights”, we need to make it clear once and for all:
The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, does not apply to semi-automatic rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles or pistols.
The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant. The restriction on Government remains the same, regardless of the firearm.
The 2nd Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids Government interference in the right to keep and bear arms, period.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Want to stop drunk drivers?
Ban sober drivers from driving. That's how gun control works.
Amazingly, the exact same text can be seen here:
https://www.readingeagle.com/news/article/letter-second-amendment-restricts-government
And your point is?
Butt,butt, butt difi said....... NOT a laughing matter any longer.
Plagiarism maybe?
“This is getting serious folks.”
Agreed. But I don’t see that the original post does anything to help anyone understand or make clear ‘the meaning of “Rights”’ and therefore of “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Since when, in our Constitution, does the people mean government?
Shall not be infringed is equally clear.
NOAA and our highly abusive IRS have fully automatic weapons... shouldn’t that send a clear message.
There are not many “rights” here in CA.
Lefts we have. Lots.
These four words: SHALL, NOT, BE & INFRINGED appear nowhere else in our Constitution nor the Bill of Rights and not by accident or omission. Our Founding Fathers knew full well that there would come a time where would be tyrants would look for a way to wiggle out of the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment.
These attempts to negate the Second Amendment must be opposed in the strongest possible terms.
The NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, and the intentionally misnamed Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 pretty much gutted the 2nd Amendment.
Do we really have a Constitution when both parties agree to run ineligible candidates?
Do we really have a Constitution when both parties agree to run ineligible candidates?
= = = = = = = = =
Somewhat as we used to say inre the Ten Commandments..
They are COMMANDMENTS not SUGGESTIONS!!
The Communists (and their Weak Sisters in the GOPe) have no regard for the Constitution, Bill of Rights, our status as a Sovereign nation nor the status of United States Citizen.
Why WE permit these Domestic Enemies to continue to undermine Our Liberty and Freedom is beyond my comprehension.
bkmk
They are actively working to eliminate our sovereignty by flooding the country with fraudulently documented foreigners.
Once they achieve critical mass, we will be out voted.
Bush League Republicans MUST become extinct before the Republic does.
A nominative case or word, joined with a participle, often stands independently of the sentence. This is called, the case absolute.Examples. The sun being risen, it will be warm. They all consenting, the vote was passed. Jesus conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.
Explanation.
The words in italics are not connected with the other part of the sentence, either by agreement or government; they are therefore in the case absolute, which, in English, is always the nominative.
So according to Noah Webster, writing at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution, "The words in italics are not connected with the other part of the sentence...." So by 18th Century standard rules of grammar, the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is an absolute case clause and as such does not can not add to or modify the remainder of the sentence.
In writing for the majority opinion in the Heller decision, Justice Scalia referred to it as a "preferatory clause" but to the same effect:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed...."
So handwringing over the definition of "a militia" is pointless because any 18th Century man of letters would have been able to tell you that 2A makes no pretense to empowering the government to raise a militia.
Amen to that!
The first layer of gun protections is a stronger but forgotten layer imo, that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate arms outside the scope of militia purposes, Clause 16 of Section 8 of Article I a good example of a militia purpose, expressly delegated power.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming [emphasis added], and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
”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.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make peacetime penal laws, not even for murder.
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union, The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
So even if 2A was taken away, the feds would have no express constitutional power to regulate non-militia purpose arms.
It is disturbing that federal penal gun control laws seem to have started appearing in the books during the FDR Administration, FDR and the Congress at that time infamous for making laws which they had no express constitutional authority to make.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
What's going on with unconstitutional (imo) non-militia-related federal gun laws is this imo. Corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification career federal lawmakers are exploiting low-information voters, promising such voters every politically correct civil right under the sun, including constitutionally indefensible gun-control laws, to win their votes to stay in power, such voters probably never taught that the feds don't have the express constitutional power to make probably most of those protections.
In fact, regardless of the diverse sex and race-related protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its Titles, consider that the only sex and race-related rights that the states have amended the Constitution to give the feds the specific powers to legislatively protect are limited to voting rights issues, evidenced by the 15th and 19th Amendments.
Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added].”
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
In other words, a part of the cost of politically correct, constitutionally indefensible gun-control laws, also so-called sex and race-related federal civil right protections, that career lawmakers have been promising to low-information voters to stay in power, may be false imprisonment for some (many?) people.
Consider that patriots need to support PDJT in working with the new, post-2020 election patriot Congress to decide the fate of people in prison for breaking federal laws that the states have never given Congress the specific power to make. Such laws need to be removed from the books.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
Corrections, insights welcome.
Amazingly, the exact same text can be seen here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3772823/posts
I suppose you’d rather it was excerpted...
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.