Posted on 01/14/2013 11:18:53 AM PST by chessplayer
I concur. Heller establishes the principle that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear a weapon that is usable as a weapon for a lawful purpose, such as home defense. If you technically own a weapon but are denied the right to use it as a weapon, through such burdens as excessive security measures (the Heller scenario), or selective taxation, or targeted denial of supplies and components, the Second Amendment has indeed been violated, your right to self-defense infringed, and any proposed law or other governmental directive that systematically has that effect would be a nullity as self-evidently contrary to the Constitution.
$30 for a box of 50 rounds of .22LR? You gotta be kidding me. This is not the new norm. I have several backorders for 500 round boxes for around that same price.
Then you’ve made the financial decsion to wait for the back orders. You’ve got yours, congrats. $30 isn’t much if you have no ammo or other chance to get some. The point is that there is ammo available, it is wildly overpriced, but it is available.
The only boxes of .22 LR I have seen in this part of Texas were at an out-of-the-way gun store. They had about 20 boxes of 50 for $5 a piece. I have two 550’s on back order from Bass Pro Shops from a gift card I received at Christmas. We will see if anything shows up.
Holy Carp! I'm still shooting up stuff I bought for about $0.70/box.
/johnny
No doubt, should the gov't ban it? Supply and demand.
Conflicting stories on how the YouTube guy was shot. The "tied in a chair" comment is found with others that said he was left in his business office and another by the side of the road.
I have seen nothing, no evidence that Zero is running anything. He needs a teleprompter or follows a strict script, there really is no insight to who he is as a human being. He’s sheltered, protected by propaganda ministry, and from visitor description in White Hut, comes to meetings dazed, late, or misses them. This man is highly medicated sodomite and a compromised puppet, seriously.
Obama this, Obama that is all that’s heard from the press by design; he’s a useful foil, a “black man” who gains sympathy or racist charges, a calm very soft spoken metrosexual to placate the masses. All by design for the commies n muzzies behind him.
The reason so much chaotic changing messages out of the White Hut in my opinion is because it’s being run by women, that is Valerie Jarrett, and globalists, who have no understanding of American culture and are completely out of touch. And the RINOS have been compromised somehow, or filled with conservative cowards who can’t speak up. An executive order may be a way for them all to avoid having their votes cast and names on any legislation. In which case if confiscations start and innocent blood is shed, all 535 or so can be treated to early retirement.
“the RINOS have been compromised somehow”
Utah
NSA
data warehouse
equals
Blackmail & threats against their families
Thank Goodness for Obamacare: Hidden Amendment Prevents Gun and Ammo Registry
So if this registry story is true, then when Obama brandishes the idea of using constitutionally undefined executive order to trace guns, is he actually saying that he will use order to repeal Obamacare? /sarc
Also, note that the Supreme Court clarified in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1952, that executive orders don't have the force of law unless based on an existing law. So sadly, Obama is probably gambling that his supporters essentially don't understand how limited executive orders really are, but is just trying to sound impressive.
Contrary to the Constitution? Don't make me laugh.
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Something nasty about middle class people or the military? Like saying they cling bitterly to their guns and religion?
Most of his voters agree with that.
Wake up.
I received a very good pellet rifle for Christmas from a son who realizes his old hunting partner is kinda out of the wilderness shooting. I was zeroing the the rifle (not gun by military training) in part of the backyard with 28 yards of target distance. I think it was the neighbor on the other side of our high fence who called PD that I was killing birds. POs came and told me about the complaint. I told POs that I had called in a few days earlier about what I intended to do and I was told that my actions were o.k. as long as no pellets went into neighbors yard. I showed the POs my backyard range with the target setup in a cooler box with carpet,asphalt roofing, construction foam backed up by up sheet of thin steel against 2 in. cement walker at my fence. The POs said I should be doing my target shooting on my mountain property. I have since checked and cannot find any local code against using a pellet pistol or rifle in one’s backyard . I tell about this situation because I believe that ‘they’ will/could come for your pellet rifle/pistol even if based on your neighbors false claim. I do not/can not trust police or any lying neighbor as to using/having my pellet rifle.
I suspect/believe that any teaching/instructing Obama did was a preplanned goal to merely establish a mark of creditability. Whether or not he was really qualified to teach others or did so from solid background is not known. That so many people in the USA can give credibility to this guy just shows how depraved of history and government at least 50% of the people are. I don’t give the actions of our elected and appointed officials any better sense.
Not sure why you came at me with the eligibility stuff. Not that I disagree. Just seems a bit like a thread hijack.
Furthermore, there are a number of practical differences. I can’t personally eject Obama from office, no matter what I think about his eligibility. But I can decide what I will do about defending my Second Amendment rights in my local circumstances. And so I am doing what I can, and not beating myself up about what I can’t do. And while it matters what people believe about his eligibility, it also matters that people understand they have a say in hanging on to their own constitutional rights, no matter what foul wind comes blowing out of Mordor.
It may be that all the paper powers of DC are aligned against us, but the Constitution embodies an idea that cannot be killed, that we own our own freedom. No one but God can give it to us, and no one but God can take it away. If we understand that, we can live and fight as free men and women, and have a real chance of winning. But once we forsake that, we have in that moment surrendered to slavery.
So Obama can play and Congress and everybody else can dance to his tune, but that’s not for me. God gave me what he did so I could give him a return on his investment, and that’s what I mean to do, no matter what the little tin gods of Washington may think about it. And one thing I mean to do, have taken an oath to do, is to ensure the Constitution lives on, if not in DC, then at least in me. Never surrender.
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.