Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 02/26/2013 4:05:27 PM PST by LiberTEAWatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: LiberTEAWatch
The MSM is being incredibly, unforgivably short-sighted on this anti-gun push.

No doubt they'll expect everyone to take them seriously the next time they wrap themselves in the first amendment.

2 posted on 02/26/2013 4:15:47 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LiberTEAWatch

Thank God there are still some patriots and defenders of the Constitution in Colorado. Mostly on the Western Slope from what it seems.


3 posted on 02/26/2013 4:44:46 PM PST by wetgundog (" Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is no Vice")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LiberTEAWatch; All
Given the remote possibility that you have not seen the following excerpt concerning the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, you might find it interesting. The Supreme Court has officially clarified that the 2nd Amendment does not grant rights, but clarifies that using arms against another citizen in self-defense is a natural right (my term) which Congress shall not infringe.
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." --United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.

Also, I'm glad that the article referenced in the OP mentions Article V. But beware that Democrats and the corrupt media cannot afford for voters to find out about Article V for the following reason imo. Once Constitution-ignorant voters find out that only the states, not the federal government, have the unique power to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution, then voters will known that the states have absolute control over the federal government, not vice-versa despite PC interpretations of the Supremacy Clause (6.2). And widespread knowledge that the states control the feds via the Constitution would likely throw a monkey wrench into the Democratic agenda to unconstitutonally centralize government power in DC imo.

4 posted on 02/26/2013 5:53:28 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson