Here's the Reason Why All Guns Are Going to be Prohibited

Libertygunrights ^

[processing please hold]

This report hopes to assist in protecting the right of the people to keep and bare arms, individually and collectively, for the safety of the individual, and for the safety of the nation. There are certain fundamental laws and principles over which public officials have no authority to alter or to deny--not even if they profess to have acquired the 'consent of the governed'. In this case, prohibiting possession and use of arms is not possible, because those rights which have been endowed upon man by the Creator are unalienable, and nor revocable by mankind. The purpose of this report is to show how 'consent of the governed' has become abused, and how government officials in the lead state with the help of change agents had set out to destroy the essential and unalienable right of the people to keep and bare arms, by setting into motion unauthorized and unlawful procedures and then pretend that they operated under the 'consent of the governed'.

[B4Ranch]

ping

[processing please hold]

Bookmarked, thanks.

[WLR]

“Are any of you aware that our second amendment can be handed over to the UN?”

Actually the idea that a Treaty can supersede the Bill of Rights is clearly wrong.

The Bill of rights does not establish those rights it only affirms them.

So if or when US Elected Officials try to use a Treaty to supersede, abrogate or interfere with any aspect of the Bill of rights Including the Second Amendment the Peoples answer will simply be ..

Molon Labe.

Then we shall see.

W

[Shooter 2.5]

Agreed. There’s a quote that says, “ If a person won’t fight when the fighting is easy, don’t expect them to fight when it’s difficult”.

Think about something for a second. There are gunowners who are mad at the NRA for sending them mail. They won’t get up from the lazyboy to throw out an envelope and they expect me to believe they will watch my back?

[robertpaulsen]

"But the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment is a right of the people of Kalifornia as well."

It offers limited protection from your state legislature in that it prevents total disarmament.

"To suggest that one has a right to "defend life and liberty" and "protect property" and "obtain safety" without the use of guns"

Personally, I would shoot for stronger language - something along the lines of "the people have the right to keep and bear arms".

[robertpaulsen]

"The second ammendment does."

Correct. It protects the right to keep and bear arms from federal infringement. The states are guided by their state constitutions (which explains why some states protect concealed carry and others don't).

"The up-coming D.C. case will clinch it."

The D.C. case involves a federal law, not a state law. The outcome of that case will only affect federal gun laws.

[robertpaulsen]

"i support a short waiting period for handguns for a quick background check."

A God-given, inalienable right ... with restrictions.

[Ditter]

Yeah, old women (like me) should never bare their arms.

[robertpaulsen]

"Is there not a brave enough person in Ca. to petition the courts?"

Sure. The latest was Silveira v Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) in which the 9th Circuit Court stated that the second amendment "protects the people’s right to maintain an effective state militia, and does not establish an individual right to own or possess firearms for personal or other use."

In an earlier case, Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), the 9th Circuit Court stated that the second amendment protected against federal infringement only and was not applicable to state or local laws.

Despite what others tell you on this forum.

[seemoAR]

What makes you think we haven’t?. ;0)

[tpaine]

William Tell wrote:

-- The pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment is a right of the people of Kalifornia as well. It's just not recognized by the government.

Notice how some here claim Californians should shoot for stronger language in their State constitution; - something along the lines of "the people have the right to keep and bear arms" -- even while saying that we, as a society, decide which rights we will protect. --- We may choose not to protect your right to guns.
If and when a majority of the people decide that we should, then we will.
Given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this.

The above type of 'majority rule' socialism is a strange political disease, one that completely ignores the US Constitutions restraints on all levels of gov't.

[tpaine]

i support a short waiting period for handguns for a quick background check.

You support an inalienable right ... with restrictions?

Well, you are not alone here. -- Fiat prohibitions/restrictions on 'dangerous' items and behaviors are supported by many FReepers, -- under the theory that 'majority will' can be used to trump our rights to life, liberty, or property, -- due process be hanged.

[the invisib1e hand]

What makes you think we haven’t?. ;0)

It was a rhetorical remark. I realize that sober Americans have.

But that loud, whining, mealy mouthed minority ought to go take some arms training, and begin to take their citizenship seriously, as opposed to predicting the doom of the very constitution that bestows upon them the responsibility of protecting it. It's a thin line between a right and a responsibility.

That was a mouthful, but I hope I make my point.

[tpaine]

Is there not a brave enough person in Ca. to petition the courts?

Careful on what you call them. -- There are many here that applaud the so-called 'right' of a gov't [fed/state/local] to deprive individuals certain aspects of life, liberty, or property.
If Legislators or the Courts decide certain types of guns/drugs/behaviors are 'harmful', they ciaim a power to prohibit them.

Fancy that indeed. ;)

I'll have to stick to my original remark about them, stupid idiots.

As we see, the idiotic 9th circuit courts have backed up the socialistic 'states rights' position.

Some on this forum inanely support that position. -- Fancy that.

[processing please hold]

Have you ever read the un's Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I'm no expert on our American Bill of Rights but it looks like the un tried to use aspects of ours but of course with a socialist twist. I believe nearly every American can recognize this---minus the "S" of course. I guess kofi couldn't help himself. I posted this picture farther back on the thread but I need to post it again to show how the un is encroaching on what we hold as dear to us. A picture is worth a thousand words so to speak.

So if or when US Elected Officials try to use a Treaty to supersede, abrogate or interfere with any aspect of the Bill of rights Including the Second Amendment the Peoples answer will simply be ..

Molon Labe.

Then we shall see.

We shall see, I agree.

[Ironfocus]

So which of the gun lobby groups is the best to join?

[ctdonath2]

Onesies-twosies, yeah, they can confiscate a few.
Yes, some will get taken down in “non-confrontational raids”.

Any serious attempt at widespread confiscation WILL be widely reported and acted on.

Remember Waco & Ruby Ridge? two hardcore confiscations that happened within just months of each other?
The feds do. They haven’t repeated that for, what, 15 years now?

Something less confrontational was tried after Katrina. Ya notice it stopped? and pretty quickly at that? Yeah, some people got theirs confiscated ... but we didn’t get the whole story, and indications are someone reminded someone else that extreme badness would occur if they continued.

There is a line.
There are people who will fight when that line is crossed.
Sure, some registered arms would be meekly handed over.
That won’t be anywhere close to all of them.
The question is: who cares more? the bureaucratic agents who ultimately just want their paycheck and go home to watch TV & play golf? or the citizen who isn’t going to go quietly? which group outnumbers the other?

[processing please hold]

"protects the people’s right to maintain an effective state militia, and does not establish an individual right to own or possess firearms for personal or other use."

So just who does the 9th thinks makes up a states militia? How do they reconcile that with it's American citizens who make up a states militia?

the 9th Circuit Court stated that the second amendment protected against federal infringement only and was not applicable to state or local laws.

Correct me if I'm wrong but as of late it seems as though our government, both federal and state are cherry picking which laws on which arm has the power to enforce or if they don't feel like catching heat, pass it like a hot potato? I'm sure someone more learned than I may have an example of what I'm talking about.

[ctdonath2]

You think they haven’t already?

[ctdonath2]

Waco & Ruby Ridge: ya notice there hasn’t been a repeat of those for a LONG time?