Posted on 02/13/2012 1:19:23 PM PST by Nachum
When Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), spoke at CPAC on February 10th, he predicted that if Barack Obama wins a second term it will usher in an all-out attack on the Second Amendment. In so many words, he said the same people who brought us Fast and Furious, “a criminal enterprise” for which there has yet to be prosecutions, will use four more years to gut constitutional protections on the right to keep and bear arms. And anyone who wonders what this assault on the Second Amendment might look like need look no further than Illinois, where a judge that President Obama appointed has just ruled that we have the right to keep arms, but not to bear them.
That’s not a typo. Rather, it’s an unbelievable decision recently delivered by U.S. Judge Sue Myerscough, in a challenge which the Second Amendment Foundation filed against Illinois’s ongoing prohibition against carrying concealed weapons in that state. Said Myerscough, in rendering her decision: “[Although the] plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment protects a general right to carry guns that include a right to carry operable guns in public … [the] Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home.”
This is troubling for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Myerscough has completely disregarded the fact that our natural, God-given rights are not subject to court approval for viability. Rather, our Founding Fathers used the Bill of Rights to build a hedge of protection around those rights with which we were endowed by our Creator. And one of those rights was the right to self-defense, and therefore the right not only to keep but also to bear the arms necessary to defend ourselves. On this point, the language
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Yes, Newt is right on target with this (hence, the flak). Romney would go in the exact wrong direction (see his Mass. appointments), Santorum seems to have no clear understanding of the issue that I've heard him articulate.
Impeach them. Perjury on their "oath of office".
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
A right to keep arms, but not to bear arms.
Oh, that's like . . .
A right to keeps books, but not to read books.
“Americans of the Revolutionary generation distinguished between the individual’s right to keep arms and the need for a militia in which to bear them. Yet it is equally clear that more often than not they considered these rights inseparable
The late 18th century definition of “Militia” is simply an armed citizenry, “well regulated” has to do with the “regulation of Arms”, meaning military weapons....no more showing up with a squirrel rifle, bring a military arm.
Simple. ‘Nuff said.
To illustrate:
1. You are at home and a thug begins to break down your door. The thug intends to cause you great bodily harm or death. You display a firearm and the thug suddenly wants to be somewhere else.
2. You decide to leave your home on an errand. You are confronted by a thug who intends to cause you great bodily harm or death, but - oops, you don't have a permit to carry a firearm, and must now submit yourself to being severely injured or killed.
What's the difference? It's the same body! The same body that needs to be protected from great bodily harm or death in the home, also needs to be protected from great bodily harm or death OUTSIDE the home. The answer must simply be that the left believes that it is necessary to defend the home, not the body.
No, I think it just means we need to exercise it a bit more prominently until the Supreme Court can’t help but recognize it.
“Um, what about hunters? Sports shooters?”
In Illinois, they still don’t have the right to bear loaded weapons except on their property, or the property they will be hunting on. You have to have your hunting license with you, the ammo locked in an inaccessible compartment while you are traveling, etc, or they will bust you just like someone packing a pistol for self-defense.
I’m hoping. Andrew said “silver ponytails” were in it with the usurper. That could only mean Bill Ayers. I am wish-fulfilling the rest.
Our founding fathers believed that the Supreme Court was the weakest branch and that the legislative and executive branches would have ample abilities to check a Supreme Court that exceeded its powers.
See: White Paper on Combating Judicial Activism http://www.newt.org/solutions/protecting-life-and-religious-liberty
Here’s a better link: http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf
>No effective way to reign in the Judiciary, the fatal flaw of our Constitution.
Impeachment is *supposed* to be usable against Justices.
Though, in practice, you are right as nobody really seems to have the balls to be an advocate for the Constitution.
With Fast and Furious, Obama has shown us he will create problems with guns at the expense of hundreds of lives in order to manipulate the folks into supporting more takeaways.
You got it. Don’t bare arms in public. Wear long sleeves outside the house, the better to hide your derringer.
Not quite, there were no squirrel rifles in the 18th Century, they didn't come on the scene until all the hostile Indians and dangerous critters had been eliminated in the wilderness in the East. "Well Regulated" back then meant smooth running-operating, as in a well trained group.
“No effective way to rein in the Judiciary, the fatal flaw of our Constitution.”
NEWT CAN DO IT
The late 18th century definition of “Militia” is simply an armed citizenry, “well regulated” has to do with the “regulation of Arms”, meaning military weapons....no more showing up with a squirrel rifle, bring a military arm. Simple. ‘Nuff said.
Not quite, there were no squirrel rifles in the 18th Century, they didn’t come on the scene until all the hostile Indians and dangerous critters had been eliminated in the wilderness in the East. “Well Regulated” back then meant smooth running-operating, as in a well trained group.
Thank you, I stand corrected....have to get these things right.
Blast it, isn’t it about time to hang those who hate and want to destroy the constitution? This judge is what Newt was talking about. She needs to be impeached and thrown off the bench along with probably 10 to 15% of her peers. If that doesn’t happen before the chit hits the fan then her fate is a rope.
1. Please turn them in.
2ND Civil War ten minutes later
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.