Posted on 11/17/2009 10:38:27 AM PST by neverdem
Petitioner’s Brief for McDonald v. Chicago
The courts decide NOTHING as far as I’m concerned.
The Constitution which is the ultimate authority gives us the right to bear arms...
I’ll show them MY interpretation of the Second Amendment when they try to enforce their interpretation.
BPE
The Constitution does not give us any rights. Our rights are derived from our Creator. The Constitution is meant to secure those liberties.
Now that doesn’t mean the government won’t bankrupt you trying to limit your rights, but that’s another thread.
No, the Constitution does not give rights. God does:
"...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."The Constitution protects those unalienable rights from being infringed, abridged or otherwise interfered with by the federal government.
Misleading title. There can’t be any anti-RKBA “experts”, because the Constitution is clear on that right. There are lying gun-grabbers, but no “experts”.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
I would say this affirms our rights. Armed militias cannot be formed unless those joining the militia possess the arms in the first place. Regulated or not. If a militia is forming to prevent the abuses of gov’t, it would make no sense allowing the gov’t to control the arms the militia would require. JMT
And oh by the way, automatic weapons are protected just as much as semi-automatic. If a soldier can carry it into battle, it should be available for home use.
Suggested correction: The Second Ammendment ACKNOWLEGES our right to keep and bear arms, and forbids the infringing of that right.
EXACTLY!!
In fact, at the time of the revolution and writing of the Constitution, the citizens had more advanced fire arms than did the military.
Then the founding fathers should have said ‘Militia’.
It doesn't so you Statists can choke on it, okay?
How's about we make a deal with the Statists, that if they push this too far, incrementally chipping away at this right – paperwork for every firearm transaction, registration..
That after we send them off to one of their favorite Statist utopias like Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela, we PROMISE to rewrite the 2nd amendment just as:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
That should make all of us happy – they can exist in a third world Statist h*ll hole and we don't have to hear their moronic talking points about militias and such, problem solved.
Exactly, no need for an expert to weigh in ...unless they want to twit the heck out of the plain meanings.
The Constitution isn;t a document which limits the individual...it limits govt. However, the experts have tried to redefine even that.
I would like to add that if “Scary-looking” becomes some sort of standard of illegality, Frau Botox should start getting worried.
Talk as they will. “They” are not blind to the fact Americans are arming themselves like never before.
What “they” will do is to single out any person/persons who attempt to organize and make a severe example out of them/him/her. It will happen.
There are those who have not forgotten Waco and what an out of control government will do to us. The present regime is hell bent on destroying what is left of the Republic.
We have one more mid-term and one more general election to make the changes we need. After that.....history will be interesting.
Bingo!
Damn right.
The Constitution of the United States . . . provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But this restriction is . . . a restriction upon the power of the United States alone, and gave to James Lewis no protection against the law of Mississippi, which deprived him, because of his color, of a right which every white man possessed.
Mr. Browning’s Letter and Judge Handy’s Decision, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 28, 1866, at 4, col. 1; see discussion, supra, at 14.
From document page 38, my pdf page 56 of 91, from Gura's Petitioner’s Brief for McDonald v. Chicago, linked in comment# 1.
I believe you are limiting your options with a statement like that.
If I have to acquire a modern truck to pull my old 12 pounder to the front, why can I not procure a modern howitzer and do the same?
Just ask-en mind you. I'm gonna keep the howitzer no mater what.
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.