Posted on 12/17/2004 4:36:19 PM PST by TERMINATTOR
Bookmark for later.
Nutcases belong in nuthouses, or at least in the care of someone who will keep them away from sharp objects, and the like. Serial killings and foreign agents are already illegal. Do you think that criminals will obey so called "gun laws", while commiting their crimes?
If serial killers, nutcases, and foreign agents are hanging around your neighborhood, you better get a gun and learn how to use it!
The OLC certainly slithered out of that difficulty, didn't they? Absent the verbosity of legalize, they just said that even though the OLC considers the RKBA to be individual, they have no problem with those laws that "collectively" now infringe upon those same "individual"rights.
IMHO, "Collective Rights" is an oxymoron. "Rights" are inherently "Individual. "Collective" applies only to "Protections" and "Powers" only to government. "Groups" have "Protections", "Government" as "Powers". Neither has "Rights". Only Individuals have "Rights".
But at least the new opinion is a start.
Anyone who might need more proof that our gun rights must be preserved at all costs should check out the site for 'Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership'....www.jpfo.org More than anyone who's studied gun confiscation their research indicates that prior to every major genocide in this century there were major gun confiscation efforts.......the result was literally millions of people killed in various countries around the world.
Long but good read Joe, I like the ending;-)
L
Only idiotic ACLU jackwits and other Leftists think "the People" means the National Guard.
I always respond with "you mean like the Ohio National Guard at Kent State?"
I don't think there is an argument there; the problem with leaving open the door to even a slight infringing set of laws involving the 2nd is that the enemies of freedom in this country (who are citizens and who do not want anyone but their own agents to be armed) will seize upon any loophole to pay off the corrupt RAT legislators to pass anti gun laws.
Since the courts, especially the federal judiciary, are corrupt to the man when it comes to the 2nd, it is extremely expensive and time-consuming to fight these laws once they are on the books. The real turning point in the fight for the 2nd was 1968 and the passage of the Federal GCA of 1968. Over the intervening 36 years the RKBA has been reduced to the PKBA - Permission to Keep and Bear Arms.
The sunsetting of the 1994 Clinton AW ban is a good start, but I doubt if the bastards in Congress had to actually have voted to overturn this unconstitutional law, that it would now be gone; they are not only tin-pot despots in training, they are cowards. The members of the US Senate believe they are the anointed ones, the ruling oligarchy. Small wonder. With the election of Senators by popular vote, many have taken up permanent residence there. It would seem (with a few exceptions) that once in, the Senate seat is good for life. That is a powerful incentive for the AWs (a$$wipes, not assault weapons) to simply ignore the Constitutional restraints upon government power.
The RAT party is actively engaged in the destruction of the Constitution and the first step is the total banning of the armed citizenry. The Repubos talk a good game, but they really would rather maintain the status quo (i.e., allow present gun laws to stand) and for the most part are embarrassed by the 2nd. So, the ultimate outcome will be the end of the 2nd. It may take another 50 years, but that's where we're going. No, I don't like it and I fight for the RKBA every day, sometimes in only small ways.
This report is indeed good news, but until the bastards actually embrace the idea of "shall not be infringed", we are going to have to fight this war for our entire lives.
As if the ACLU and it's membership would survive the struggle.
My brother in law is a lawyer, got ya.
WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
A no-brainer made plain for those with no brains.
My God, it just dawned on me.
Why would an Amendment guaranteeing a Right To Bear Arms, be necessary *under any circumstances OTHER* than to guarantee it to individuals??
Governments in general possess the right to bear arms inherently, as representative of sovereign States. There is no need to codify *that*...
To what, in anyone's imagination, could an Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing to some entity the right to bear arms, possibly refer, OTHER than to to individuals?
My point is that there would be no need to explicitly express or codify such a right, except in such case as where there might be doubt as to who might possess such a right. In fact, if (as Leftist/Socialist/Liberal/"Progressive" scum are wont to argue), the Second Amendment were designed to confer such a right upon the individual States, *WHY* on earth would the Founding Fathers NOT have written the Second Amendment to state "The right of the ****INDIVIDUAL STATES*** to form militias shall not be infringed." ??
If they DIDN'T intend for the Amendment to confer an *individual* right,, WHY on earth would they have therein referred to "The People"?
Somehow, I now feel like a complete idiot for even having bothered to entertain the possibility of debate on this issue.
My brother in law is a lawyer, got ya.
My cousin has a jurist doctorate. That's like a doctorate in ambulance chasing. Would you like to raise or call?
Yep, all you have to do is read it, and put it into context and there it is, WHAM!, just how the founders intended it.
"Do we really need lawyers to tell us what we can read for ourselves in the Constitution?"
No, we need lawyers to tell the lefties what they cannot read for us in the Constitution.
Logic MUST be sacrificed on their agenda's alter.
"Them are fightin' words to a liberal."
Never met a liberal I couldn't thumb like a bug.
It's not a subordinate clause, it's a present participle.
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.