Posted on 12/13/2018 12:46:53 PM PST by SleeperCatcher
Unconstitutional: Whenever we see the Left moving to implement a new rule or law governing the use, handling, or ownership of firearms we are reminded of the very simple language of the Second Amendment, which reads in full: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Liberal and conservative scholars and lawmakers have debated the meaning of “militia” and whether or not the founders meant that the Second Amendment applied only to organized state military forces. But others have noted that based on historical data and references such as the Federalist Papers, a series of published documents written by a few of the founders explaining every part of the Constitution, it is clear the amendment applies generally to “the people.”
There’s another part of the amendment that is also crystal clear — where it says unequivocally that the “right …to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thenationalsentinel.com ...
“Don’t buy any more guns. One is enough.”
Dumb statement.
“I suspect”
Type in a few parts of the ordinance in Google and see where it came from.
“...amount to an infringement on a right that specifically prohibits infringement.”
I don’t care for the sloppy use of language, but I get the poster’s drift. The 2A does not confer any right at all: It forbids the infringement of an inalienable right, just like 1, 3 & 4. I’ve had this argument before with people. They always clam up or stomp away after I ask them where their right to free speech is conferred.
Otherwise the Founders would have phrased them all much differently.
Apparently they don’t teach anything about inalienable rights anymore. Pathetic.
We need leadership
Let me guess... it came from Google?
Be aware the civil war will be an economic battle.
Don’t buy stock mutual funds.
Don’t buy the stock, products or services of any hot new company.
Don’t buy new cars or new houses.
It’s a going to be a battle for money. If they don’t get it, they’ll get the message.
If you ask them what other amendments guarantee rights to the government, they look at you with a stupid look, before calling you a racist, sexist, climate change denier.
“Don’t buy any more guns.”
Obama’s helpers are making lists. Who naughty and who’s nice.
It’s illegal, but the Communist Manifesto is their legal guide.
Ever since they legalized dope it’s pretty much bat crap crazy from the Springs clear up to FoCo.
“Don’t buy any more guns. One is enough.”
Not hardly.
Beau Bennett was overeard to say “F@@@ ‘em all”
“...they start going door to door & searching every stopped vehicle...”
That won’t go or end well.
King County (Seattle) provided 500,000 of the 580,000 vote margin.
However, the Initiative received a majority in 10 other counties, so it would have passed with an 80,000 vote margin even if King County was excluded.
Heads up, Conservatives.
This is starting to get scary!
"Governor Synder, 1815- Our militia and volunteers were actually engaged with the enemy.."p99 ...if we destroyed the militia system, we did not indeed take away the right of the people to bear arms, but we destroyed the inclination, the habit of WEARING ARMS; and such was not his [Gov. Snyder]sentiment as to what ought to be the condition of things in a country like ours. He believed that not only right, but the habit of WEARING ARMS was essential to freemen, and to the preservation of the liberty of freemen. This was the principle inserted into the Constitution of the United States; and if we did away with this, the effect would be to destroy the principle and the feeling altogether." .100 p.105.
The terms of the Constitution he need not refer to; and the amendment now under discussion was simply an AFFIRMANCE OF A POWER,-THAT THE RIGHT OF A PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Who fought the Battles, of Lexington,Bunker Hill and Saratoga?
...Who saved Baltimore? ... Who obtained the victory at New Orleans?
These militia, trained and disciplined in their own houses; not practised in the field, but BRINGING THEIR GUNS WHICH THEY WERE TAUGHT TO USE WHEN CHILDREN..".111
viz [all above from p.168 are sourced from �"Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania", Vol. 4, by the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention, 1837-8
". Every man should be a citizen, and every citizen a soldier; and then he would be best able to defend his country and his own property.'"
p.180. "he right of conscience in relation to BEARING ARMS is a sacred right. It is equally sacred with the right to self-defence.
But what is meant of our militia? Why, when he spoke of them, he meant American citizens, accustomed to the use of arms; not in the camp or in the field, but American citizens accustomed to use THEIR ARMS, and to all that manual dexterity which could only be gained by long practice; not field maneouvering and marching, but a perfect knowledge of the rifle and the musket. Such a use of the rifle that you could take the eye out of a squirrel on the highest tree.
This was in all, and beyond this there was no necessity to go in this country. In this the soldiers of our country had a superiority of those of any other. Ask the British officers who were engaged in the last war whether there was no superiority in our troops in this respect.
WEll, was this to be learned at military musters? ....But when it is necessary, the American citizen is always ready to BEAR ARMS without this militia training. how was it before in the last war in this State? [War of 1812] Were there any militia trainings to make the cititzens of Pennsylvania prepared for service?
Not At all-they were ready to meet the enemy in the east and in the west. How was it in Tennessee before the Battle of New Orleans?
Did the men who fought that battle perform militia service to prepare them for it?
No sir- it was known that they did not. Were the militia of Bunker Hill, prepared for the events of that day of glory by previous trainings as militia? No sir. p183 p.79
viz [all above from p.168 are sourced from �"Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania", Vol. 4, by the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention, 1837-8
“prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Regarding this wording in Heller, the only weapons I can think of that should fit this category are biological and nuke type weapons, since their power can’t be controlled and they would indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of innocents. Of course Heller doesn’t clarify that statement, but any weapon that can be controlled by the owner should be Constitutionally protected. Guns with large magazine capacity certainly fit that category.
They’re libs. They don’t understand how to screw in a light bulb. Even a green one.
Second how can a state or federal law be passed that retroactively takes away an ownership right without compensation? Yes, the government can exercise eminent domain, but it has to go through due process. If you manufacture drugs it can confiscate your home or car, but usually that is suppose to be with “due process.” (Yes there are some cities that are settling class action lawsuits over abuse, but still they can't just take unless the courts look the other way.
Third, there are more firearms in the US than there are people. Yes “assault rifles” are a small but growing fraction, but still gun confiscation is an incredible logistics issue. I am more concerned about how in WA State they have defined any semi-automatic rifle (including 22 rim fires with tube magazines as assault rifles.)
Unusual = = >
Have you seen the Toilet Paper Blaster Skid Shot Blaster?
I figure 3. AR15 type, shotgun, and high caliber pistol.
“One is enough.”
Minimum of 3. Rifle, pistol, shotgun.
And ammo for all.
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.