Posted on 04/06/2018 7:13:35 PM PDT by Kaslin
See post 92
There is nothing in the second amendment that bans guns that were first manufacuted for military use. Traitorjudgeyoung needs to be impeached, removed, tried, convicted, sentenced, and publicly hanged for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
[Thankfully I dont own an assault rifle by the real world definition, all of mine are passive rifles.]
Yes, like that scoped bolt-gun dangerous sniper rifle.
They are coming FOR...
Thanks.
From the decision :
“...In a 4-3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts’ dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that “[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists”. ...”
Then why don’t the courts affirm in favor of the 2nd Amendment individual right to self defense, given that the public duty doctrine doesn’t allow the cop to defend the individual person?
Right on! Well said.
This is total BS!
kingu wrote:
“Eh, let’s play devil’s advocate and say that it strictly applies to the militia.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
“
From the link:
“...and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. ...”
By that “devil’s advocate” reasoning of the link,
all the US citizen women between 17 and 45 that are not in the National Guard are not in the militia, and thus don’t have any 2nd amendment rights.
The 2nd amendment came before that link, so I believe the wording in that Amendment takes precedence.
It states (modern word in parentheses) the reason for the right:
“a well regulated (trained) militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
and then the right itself:
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
“The people” then includes women also.
I agree, no upper age limit for the citizen militia.
“17 to 45” is military/4 branches of service age limits, with some exceptions on upper end.
Outstanding video. That man is an AMERICAN after my own heart.
Make it go viral.
The only thing I disagree with is his statement about “you pass the law, I’ll follow it.”
I absolutely refuse to give up my Right, and the means to defend it.
No surprise. Boulder = Kalifornia East
The only thing I disagree with is his statement about “you pass the law, I’ll follow it.”
><
I picked up on that, too. But I think it was hypothetical and was part of his points on how counter productive and stupid it would be because then he went on to say it will never happen....”come hell or high water”.
Right on!
We're veering dangerously close to the point where The People will have to weigh in.
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
Daniel Webster
Thanks for that. We must never forget it and I appreciate your excellent point.
This needs to be repeated, often. Our rights come from God, and are Natural Rights that are unalienable. The Bill of Rights was a set of declarations and further RESTRICTIONS against the government violating our already-existing rights. Many people do not know this, but the Bill of Rights has a Preamble that explains this:
“Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
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.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
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.”
(People should note that the original Bill of Rights, as proposed, had 12 Articles of Amendment, 10 of which were ratified in 1791. The original 2nd Amendment was the 4th Article in this set of 12).
So, are they going to go door to door confiscating already-owned weapons and ammo magazines? Just like the Demonic-rats denied they would ever do?
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.