Posted on 09/12/2016 5:59:53 AM PDT by rktman
Signer of the Constitution Gouverneur Morris wrote: “Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”
Thomas Cooley stated of the Second Amendment: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. … If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Frankly I think libs understand it far better than conservatives. They know that in order to rule it must be suspended for all but their own. Conservatives still are in the hunting/self defense camps. Very very few acknowledge its for over throwning tyrants.
Gun ownership is not a right granted by any law or even the Constitution. It is a natural right of man merely recognized by the Constitution. And yes, it is a bit frightening for our so called elected servants when We the People, the sovereign citizens they supposedly serve, are as well armed as the military, but that is the whole point, isn't it?
Of course, self defense, defense of family and hunting -- in that order -- are natural rights, too, but the primary purpose of a well armed citizenry is to strike an ongoing undercurrent of well placed fear into the hearts of our feral government servants, lest they forget who are the servants and who are the sovereigns.
Need No Permission,,,?
How Revolutionary!
It’s this simple: Read the 3rd Amendment. Then ask yourself: “How would you keep a solider from illegally occupying your home?”
Nuff said.
There are statements after statements from the FF's regarding the right to bear arms for self defense. You would have to be a USSC John Roberts to read as anything otherwise.
All this is moot. America is buying guns and ammo by the truck loads for the simple purpose of defending themselves against a BLM/Occupy zombie attack in the suburbs which they have pronounced, and an out-of-control Fedgov. I'm even looking at new and more precise weapons at my age of 66.
And no, the few firearms I have did not fall overboard in a boating accident, which I started years ago on this very forum. I was trying to give cover for myself and others at the time. At this late date in my life, I no longer care who knows I'm such equipped.
In fact, I'm having a sign made to put in front of my home...
THIS IS NOT A GUN FREE ZONE. My few arms are Fed and California legal...at least until 2017 when Cali will make many illegal, even "bullet button" AR types, and demand background checks just to buy ammo. We're moving by spring of 2017 out of this dumbass Socialist State. The illegals, homos, and commies can have it. Yes, I am "DEPLORABLE". God save my bigoted soul.
The only place ‘intent’ comes into play is when it comes to hanging chads.
So very few know that there is 10 USC law clearly stating all able bodied males between 17 and 62 ARE IN THE MILITIA. All females that have served in the national guard are also in the militia. It is part of your citizenship. It is law.
Sorry it's 45 not 62. 62 is for armed forces retirees. 10 USC 311
People may come and try to steal your guns if you post that sign! But then, I’m guessing you might be ready for that.
>
Too many feel gooders today apparently have ZERO comprehension skills ref. “infringed”. Notice the following, “shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose.” Kinda clear to me. Makes you wonder when all this garbage started. Was it the roaring 30’s when criminals put a bad light on gun owners? Was it back as far as some of the old west towns that “forbade” cowpokes from bearing their arms inside the city limits? Just one of the reasons I don’t care for “needing” a “permit” from the state to be armed. You can bet a progressive scotus appointment would not lean in the direction of the bill of rights.
>
30’s? IIRC, it was the uppity Negro whom started it all: Free Man = 2nd A. protections. DEMs couldn’t (still can’t) allow THAT to happen...
Right up there w/ those uppity Jazz musicians and their reefer madness (”Where all the white women at?”)
Pretty plain. So why is it that highly educated jurists don't understand "shall not be infringed" or even acknowledge the verbiage?
Damn, that was spot on.
Hear, hear!
They understand, they just think you are stupid enough to let them continue to treat Americans like they are idiots.
The US gov't has been lying to you for decades, why should they stop now?>
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.