Posted on 11/14/2012 8:05:17 AM PST by lbryce
“So perhaps can others and have plans to counter them.”
Which is why all the gun and ammo buying and the prepping you hear about. Millions are preparing for the day this type of thing happens and for when it doesn’t go so smoothly as the liberals think it will.
Here's what the Constitution says in Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Can a treaty trump the Second Amendment? I don't think so, but then I'm not an America-hating leftist judge either.
Secession is sounding better all the time
Not so:
US Constitutiona, Art I, Section. 9, P2:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Eminent Domain is for the government to build roads, bridges, and federal installation and not for suspending private property rights; yet, the Supreme Court said it does. The government can take your property to sell, give away, collect more taxes, whatever, for any reason at any time.
Ah, good old Kelo. [/sarc]
The funny thing is that it would be EASY to reverse it: simply use it as reasoning to seize the real property of the Justices and see how quickly they would reverse it.
The Constitution does not give the federal government power to tell you what to or not to buy. Yet, the Supreme Court said they can. They just have to call it “taxation” first.
If you don’t think treaties are made law then you need to read up on our DOT (Department of transportation) rules and regulations, they are UN driven.
They don’t need to simply set aside the 2nd, they only need to regulate it out of practical use.
Good points.
“Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it”
Except the 2012 NDAA doesn’t require invasion or rebellion. It simply requires the federal government to deem a person a target.
“Secession is sounding better all the time”
How about we simply stay together as the 50 States may desire and kick the federal government to the crub? Sure, not all 50 want to remain together and that’s their choice but I personally like the union and believe we simply need to get control of this federal government and many State governments.
I don't remember where I saw it, but there was a conspiracy-theory type article I was reading which essentially claimed that some act (War Powers Act?) labeled the inhabitants of the US as enemies (argument that the civil war let the federal gov't conquer the States, thereby depriving the state-citizen of any rights)... if that is at all true, then We The People are the invasion, and asserting your rights (or state rights) is rebellion.
Sounds like a conspiracy. What does bother is that the government can decide under various laws what an “enemy combatant” is or who is deemed hostile and warrants detention. It is an open ended decription.
Just a reminder that we were discussing what it would take to get Obama, Holder and the other Gun-grabbers the excuse to eliminate the Second Amendment and confiscate all the guns.
It looks that they are going to open up with the Newtown Ct. School tragedy.
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.