Hasta La Vista, 2nd Amendment

Liberty Belles ^ | Jennifer Freeman

[TexasTransplant]

You said it

[novacation]

The people of California made the legislature repeal the car tax by booting Davis. Ahnold was just the messenger.

[lowbridge]

This article is nonsense. It's about the federal ban on assault weapons. Since when did governors set federal law? And if the ban is already in place, then the damage is already done.

So we can count on Arnold to help us tear down the state of California's own little local ban?

[FairOpinion]

Lucky we didn't get Bustamante as the "messenger".

[Dan from Michigan]

"Gun controls should be stiffer." - Arnold.

Well, he's a Kennedy.

[Dec31,1999]

And people need the right to have machine guns because.... ? This whole article makes it sound as if the right to keep and bear arms is being negotiated, when in fact, it's not. It's a hit piece against the Governor.

IMHO, things are OK the way they are now. No less, no more. Just my opinion.

You may say that the citizenry needs more powerful and more effective arms, but I ask you to question how far it should go. Should grenades be OK? How about private nuclear mini devices?

My opinion is to leave well-enough alone.

[Dec31,1999]

I don't know how we will be able to stave off the Left and the Far Right Whackos and the libertarians and the press. Their four prong attack on America's only chance for advancing democracy is vile and sickening.

Worthy comment. I consider myself a moderate, albeit right of center. Of course, the faceless internet is a free for all forum of sorts.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Bump..This is exactly why we voted for McClintok.

[William Tell]

Dec31,1999 said: "My opinion is to leave well-enough alone."

What was wrong with "well-enough" as of 1900? or 1933? or 1967? or 1993?

The assistance you are lending the anti-gunners is invaluable to them.

Do you think that bayonet lugs suddenly became so powerful in 1994 that otherwise legal military-look-alike rifles should be banned if a bayonet lug is added? Try to remember, we aren't even talking about a bayonet. Just the little square lump of metal which would hold one on a rifle.

[Eastbound]

"“As you are well aware, Californians overwhelmingly support the ban on these dangerous weapons,” . . ."

Show me your data, Ahnold.

Ahnold: 'I don't own that make. I carry a Thompson sub.'

No, I meant show me the proof you have that we are all supposed to be 'well aware of?

Ahnold: 'PROOF? Well, I have this old Walker Colt that was never fired, but I'm not sure it's 'proof.'

Gee, Ahnold. I'd like to own that.

Ahnold: 'From mah cold, dead fingahs!'

[Dec31,1999]

Seems to me that things are pretty much OK, what with the increased popularity among the states for concealed carry laws. As to whether rifles should or should not be permitted to have bayonet housings, I cannot say. Why not carry a sword? :)

The part that concerns me is the 2nd enthusiasts cutting off their noses to spite their faces by getting Kerry elected, just because Bush won't capitulate to their specific demands.

I mean, there is enough fire power at your local Wal-Mart to discourage any home invader, not to mention giving would-be gov't thugs something to think about.

[TERMINATTOR]

"I don't run around every day with a gun in my hand. So I want kids to understand the difference; one is make believe, like we do in the movies. But in reality, I'm for gun control. I'm a peace-loving guy." --RINOld

[P-Marlowe]

If you want to be a constitutional purist, the second amendment does not apply to the states, and the right to bear arms contemplated only that every free man was entitled to own a single shot musket.

But that interpretation would only apply to constitutional purists. Are there any here?

[William Tell]

Dec31,1999 said: I mean, there is enough fire power at your local Wal-Mart to discourage any home invader,

The only thing I see on display at my local Wal-Mart is air-rifles. When Feinstein is allowed to outlaw them, they will be gone.

As for gun-owners suffering by not voting for Bush, perhaps it is those who would trade my rights away so freely who need to consider the cost. If Bush signs a renewal of AWB he will lose my vote, my wife's vote, and as many others as I can deny him. If he doesn't know that already, then he hasn't been paying attention. Or he doesn't care.

[William Tell]

P-Marlowe said: "If you want to be a constitutional purist, the second amendment does not apply to the states, and the right to bear arms contemplated only that every free man was entitled to own a single shot musket."

A Constitutional purist might consider that immunity from infringement of the right to keep and bear arms would be among the immunities guaranted to the citizens of every state by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Try to remember that our nation's founders were treasonous rebels who attacked their own government's Fort Ticonderoga and dragged the captured cannons hundreds of miles through the snow to force the government's navy to abandon Boston harbor. The idea that there was any limitation whatever on what arms citizens could keep and bear is a modern invention.

Please tell me what limitations existed prior to 1933? Do you think the government just overlooked the fact that only muskets could be owned during the first century and a half of our nation's history, or is your suggestion ridiculous?

[TERMINATTOR]

The First Amendment does not apply to the states, and the right to free speach never contemplated anything like you. You should be restricted to a quill pen, and a single page printing press. (/sarcasm)

[agitator]

Remember the 9th Amendment. The AWB sycophants usually take the ass backwards position "show me in the Constitution where it says they can't do that!"

Sooner or later a line has to be drawn in the sand.

[vannrox]

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights

---

[This is a note to me from Dr. Linda Thompson of the American Justice Federation that I am passing along to everyone...email me with your comments ken]

[to ken]
You left off the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution and if it didn't, the amendments were rights of the people the government couldn't screw with.
Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!!
Here's a copy!!!

---

Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

---

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.

End the deception.

Return to Know Your Rights
http://www.harbornet.com/rights/lindat.html

[epow]

If you want to be a constitutional purist, the second amendment does not apply to the states, and the right to bear arms contemplated only that every free man was entitled to own a single shot musket.

The clear intent of the 14th amendment was to make the BOR, including the 2nd Amendment, applicable to the states whether the SC "incorporates" it or not. And if you want to claim that the 2nd A only applies to 18th century muskets, then the 1st A would only apply to hand cranked printing presses.

The authors of the 2nd wanted to ensure that the militia, an informal armed force comsisting of the people themselves, would always be well armed to counter a federal standing army, something which they considered a menace to liberty and state sovereignty. That notion may seem obsolete today, but that doesn't repeal the amendment, only the people acting through their representatives can do that.