Posted on 10/05/2007 3:39:13 PM PDT by 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'.
(Excerpt) Read more at libertygunrights.com ...
Yes. The 2nd Amendment, the reset button for our Republic.
There might some merit to this:
Seeking to understand why so many Germans followed orders during the Holocaust, Dr. Stanley Milgram, a Yale University psychologist, took out a classified ad in 1960 and 1961, inviting residents of New Haven, Conn., to take part in what they were told was a study of the relationship between punishment and learning.
A man in a white lab coat introduced the participants to a student, and told them to shock the student each time he made a mistake, increasing the voltage with each error.
In reality, the machine was a prop, and the student was an actor who wasn't shocked. Yet nearly two-thirds of Milgram's subjects gave what they believed were paralyzing jolts to a pitifully protesting victim simply because an authority figure -- the man in the white coat -- had commanded them to do so.
"With numbing regularity, good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe," Milgram wrote of his results, which were later replicated in nine other countries
hell, women couldn't even vote until a mere 90 years ago!
but you're right again in that many poor minorities, let alone felons, don't vote. and where they DO vote, democrats would win anyway.
all i know is that my job would be a lot easier if normal citizens could carry guns in large cities. it has been shown that imprisoned felons do worry about armed victims and it does stop them from committing crimes.
§ 2573(c) Statutory construction
Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any policy or action by any Government agency which would interfere with, restrict, or prohibit the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms by an individual for the lawful purpose of personal defense, sport, recreation, education, or training.
It is our individual and collective responsibilities to insure, by any means necessary, the government’s adherance to Section C.
Remember, think Hillary! There are an awful lot of stupid people in this country.
disarm us?
You know nothing about what happened in NOLA after Katrina other than what the MSM wanted you to know. I lived in New Orleans for many years; my family goes back to the 1840s in New Orlewans; my wife’s family goes back to the 1780s in New Orleans. We have family there to this day. Believe me, what you saw on TV was an exception. The vast, vast majority of New Orleanians did NOT give up their guns, nor were they ever asked to do so (and they would not have given them up had they been “requested” to do so, and the authorities knew that). In fact, the authorities pretty much relied on the armed citizens to keep the peace in many of the neighborhoods. The MSM has an agenda. Keep that in mind when you watch the news.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The problem is that per senate rules a treaty can be voted on in the Senate with as few as three senators voting (so you can get a 2/3 vote) and one presiding. It can be done with a voice vote.
Remember Lott during the Shamnesty mess saying that we can put anything we want through. I only heard it reported one time, but it's true.
Lott was majority leader when the Desertification Treaty (gave a little more power over our land to the UN) was signed by Clinton, sent to the Senate and was confirmed by a voice vote. We still don't know how many were there to vote or exactly who they were. Larry Craig was asked about how this was done and he answered at the time, "At the request of the leadership."
This treaty was buried by Richard Douglas, the majority counsel, in a bundle of other treaties of little lasting importance such as agreements with other countries for return of stolen property or to settle common place legalities. It is possible that the senators present didn't know what they were voting on.
When the issue was pushed with larry Craig, he said he had written a letter to Senator Helms and Helms had responded and everything was OK. Because Helms was our biggest defender of our sovereignty and against the UN, we all trusted him totally. (BTW I don't think we ever heard Helms himself say so.) Larry Craig's voting record was so exemplary (before Shamnesty) that nobody really forced the issue.
Bottom line is we probably have no idea what "treaties" were "considered" and confirmed by the Senate...
Phsstpok, this is what I was referring to in one of the Sunday threads about possible blackmail going way back. I do NOT know that happened, but Craig was never totally forthcoming (maybe he didn't know) and a lot of his reassurances were fishy--at least IMO.
The second ammendment does. Until CA secedes from the Union they'll have to abide by our Constitution.
The up-coming D.C. case will clinch it. Certain things require a national precedent and self defense via individual ownership of arms is one of them. (Abortion is not, but let's not go there).
UNITED NATIONS - Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) CONVENTIONAL ARMS AMMUNITION>/a>
I agree 100%. Unarmed citizens are an easy mark when the criminal is armed.
Our elected officials will only get away with what "WE" let them get away with.
Huh? I do see the erosion which is why I posted the article.
Remember, think Hillary! There are an awful lot of stupid people in this country.
A lot.
See how easy it is to do? LOL
So why say this: A waste and disgrace. when it IS inevitable that they will try?
Also remember, L.O.S.T. They should vote on it's ratification in 2-3 weeks. Some of our leaders want to throw our country away with both hands.
Bottom line is we probably have no idea what "treaties" were "considered" and confirmed by the Senate...
Did you know that we signed over 460 treaties last year, give or take a couple of treaties. Bush is pushing for 35 treaties and I can't for the life of me find out what they are. But they're very important to him.
Citizens of California do not need to amend their state constitution to protect their gun rights. They need to petition the Congressional, Executive and Judicial branch officials of both Fed and State governments to enforce the 2nd, just as they are bound by Article VI.
Are there enough conservatives left in California to do that? The left applauds losing our guns. Stupid idiots.
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..
I was saying because they gave up, surrendered without a fight. That's the waste and disgrace I was talking about.
If everyone who was remotely concerned about it went out and bought a piece or two, I'd say the problem would be nipped pretty much in the bud.
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.