Posted on 06/14/2004 11:41:38 AM PDT by 45Auto
Standing in line behind some old crusty Korean combat Vets to spit on her coffin is something I would consider an honor.
Of course, I would probably puke on it instead of spit on it.
(Communists can realy get my gut wrenching.)
Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.
However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.
Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. WE must be prepared to maintain that security against even our own forces that are responding to the orders of a tyrannical government, and the only viable way to counter a standing army's qualitative advantage is with a huge quantitative one. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.
DiFi el al swore to "protect and defend" the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic. They have not upheld their oath. They are all, therefore, TRAITORS!!!
I posted a link to a document in 10 that seems to have a direct bearing on the constitutional aspect of the AWB. Care to give it a look and tell me your opinion? It's kind of wordy, and the meat of it looks to be down in the numbered sections, particularly the first two points.
So far we have been fortunate not to suffer a dire emergency that tied up law enforcement and emergency services to deal with a specific problem where the public at large are left unprotected. In a terrorist attack the enemy would like nothing more than violent a criminal wave cutting through the communities while authorities deal with a major attack.
Man, we can't even do anything about senators that kill young women in the back seat of their Oldsmobile let alone assualt on a right.
Actually "assault weapons" are whatever Congress (and the Million Marching Morons) say they are. The official DoD term is "assault rifle", which is a select fire, (ie full auto or burst fire, plus selectable semi-auto) weapon firing an intermediate power cartridge. Examples would be the M-16, and the AK-47/74 series. It doe snot includ any pistols or long guns firing pistol cartridges (those would sub-machine guns if fully automatic), long guns firing full power cat ridges (i.e. M-14, G-3, FN/FAL, etc) or any kind of handgun. The term Assault Weapon, as defined by that PoS law, includes semi automatic (ONLY!) versions of all of these.
The "older version of NFA weapons only need be older than 1986, and getting past the BATFE's screening is no big deal, it's no different than that now required, under the Brady Abomination, to purse any firearm. What's difficult (other than coming up with an extra $200 ) is getting your local Chief law enforcement officer, or other local official, to sign off on the fact that you are an upstanding citizen. Many will not regardless of the facts, unless you can come up with some serious "campaign contributions". Others are more than happy to sign for you (most Texas Sheriffs for example). Of course in many states there are state laws against possession of full auto weaponry.
Of course, I would probably puke on it instead of spit on it.
I had another "bodily fluid" in mind myself (but not a precious one :) )
While she is slimebag of immense proportions, you need to read that Constitution. It defines treason, and the definition does not include oath breaking. As much as I think that's too bad, but there it is.
Just another example of the deliberate misinterpretation of the word "regulate(d)". It meant to make to function properly. The AWB and all federal gun control rather than being attempts to promote or facilitate interstate commerce are instead restrictions on it.
AWB
RKBA PING............
As used by the gun grabbers in Congress, the Commerce Clause of the constitution is nothing more than a fig leaf to get their unconstitutional infringements of the RKBA through. After all, this is the same Congress that used the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify the Violence against Women Act and the Gun Free schools Zone Act, both of which were shot down by the Supreme Court. You can't impute any honest motivations in this regard to ANY gun control scheme that Congress comes up with under this rationale.
That's exactly right. And without it, it is not a valid exercise of power under the Commerce Clause.
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.