Skinning Cats: Legal Means to Disarm the Second Amendment

Vanity | May 6, 2007 | Mark Edward Vande Pol

[I got the rope]

BTTT

[antisocial]

Bookmark!!

[Joe Brower]

Related article to my previous ping.

[Eagle Eye]

I’m scared spitless what the world will look like in 50 years.

Predator drones for surveilliance and instant intervention on those who don't comply within 10 years, maybe 5.

Who knows what 50 years will bring? I don't think I want to know.

[Dead Corpse]

The Brits were heading in to clean out the Armory. The Colonists objected to that.

We'd object just as strongly. Bank on it.

III

[OneWingedShark]

>The Brits were heading in to clean out the Armory. The Colonists objected to that.
>
>We’d object just as strongly. Bank on it.

No kidding. That’s why so many are stocking up on projectiles...

[Noumenon]

There are lots of ways for to skin a cat, this is but one of them.

There are lots of ways to start the next American Civil War, this is but one of them. In the push to disarm the American public, the pushback will be more than they bargained for. That's one of my lines in the sand.

[Noumenon]

Three percent

[Carry_Okie]

I know this sounds like spamming, but it is in fact the enthusiasm of the discoverer. Please consider the original disaster preparation and civilian military plan, misunderstood for 3,000 years, now revealed for the first time: Shemitta: For the Land Is Mine.

It is amazing.

[ExSoldier]

Lest we forget, the Battle of Lexington-Concord was over Gun Control.

Never forget that should history repeat itself in that region of the country the outcome would NOT be the same. Quite the reverse, in fact.

[ExSoldier]

But blue helmets make such wonderful aim points.

Agreed, but as the days pass, those who would squeeze the triggers grow fewer in number. I think we may be toast. All I can say is that when they finally DO get my guns, they're going to be warmer than me!

[DLfromthedesert]

To read later

[Dead Corpse]

Yep...

[Noumenon]

This is a very interersting document. Will read and comment later. Looks like it might a good complement to Bethells and Chodorovs works. I’m trying to come up with a short and plain-English exposition of Man’s natural right to his life and to the fruits of his labors for the Constitutional Restoration site.

Now, that right there is enough to get me labelled as an enemy of the Obamunist State.

[Carry_Okie]

I’m trying to come up with a short and plain-English exposition of Man’s natural right to his life and to the fruits of his labors for the Constitutional Restoration site.

You'll find its origins in one of the Hebrew roots of Genesis 1:28, "ur'du" (resh.dalet.vav), which is the same phoneme for your back "yard." It is sometimes translated as "have dominion" or "tread down" but it originates in the ancient concept of walking the land to establish it as private property. Thereafter there is a short list of the critters over which one is to exert control: birds, fish and bugs, which are all MOBILE and difficult to control. Hence the earlier use of the verb v'khivshuhah which is a word of struggle and conquest.

It's all discussed in Shemitta. If you want a review copy, please email me from the site.

[Noumenon]

Will do - thanks!

[DuncanWaring]

I presume you’ve heard Walter Williams observation for when the word gets out that they’ve gotten his guns.

[ExSoldier]

I confess that if it's the quote I just offered I think I swiped it from somebody here on FR. Probably Squantos or Joe Brower a long time ago. LOL

[wastedyears]

I started thinking about writing a new draft of the Constitution after reading this. I’ll probably start on it some time soon and hash it out as I go along. Not to say it’ll be made up on the fly, but rewritten in today’s language, modified for the 21st century.

[Carry_Okie]

Well, we certainly do need amendments. Did you see the other article on treaty law? I published it here yesterday. In it I proposes one amendment, and near the end of the thread there is discussion of another on the supremacy clause.

In general, I don't want to see a rewrite, not because it couldn't be better but because in the current crop of politicians it WOULDN'T be better.