"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."
Look, you got to have a gun to form a militia, right? So that's why they wanted the people as individuals to have guns, so they could form a militia, as needed. These folks on the 9th court have too much "education". hey have become terminally stupid.
Someone help me here; I'm only just seeing this.
This isn't Broken Newz? They did it? They REALLY did this?
My god.
Don't forget fuzzy logic (the bad kind).
Technically, yes, they use "magical thinking". They also show every sign of most of their members having the kind of brain damage you get from snorting cocaine too often.
the second amendment was written so we could protect ourself from the likes of this 9th circus court when our govt refused to....
That is why these judges are afraid - they had better be very much afraid because the amendment was written about THEM!
Richard Skidmore is a professor at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Ca. He may be contacted at rskidmor49@excite.com.
Bravo, great article Mr. Skidmore. Right in the ten ring.
And they were correct.
Any attempt to rewrite the 2nd Amendment is cause to USE the 2nd Amendment.
Limosine liberals and judicial activists had damn well better know this fact.
There are problably more threads on FR defending 9thCC decisions than criticizing them.
To a modern liberal, "well-regulated" sounds like a blank check for gun control laws. However, 200 years ago the term "well-regulated" did NOT mean "burdened down with laws and paperwork", but rather "well-trained" or organized. A clock that kept perfect time was said to be well regulated. So the intent was clearly to say to "the militia", which was pretty much all able-bodied men at the time, that they should not only be armed but know how to use it and be ready to do so. It was a call for vigilance and preparedness.
The second part of the Second Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Yet liberals even pick that apart claiming the assault weapon ban and registration don't "infringe" on a sportsman's right to hunt, and banning any gun that doesn't satisfy Ted Kennedy's definition of "sporting purpose" doesn't "infringe" on our deer/duck/target rights either.
Obviously I can't say anything here that hasn't been said a million times already and far more eloquently. Liberals (including John F'n Kerry) would have us believe that the Second Amendment is like one of those optical illusion posters where you have to stare and squint just right at it to see the picture, and they will provide the glasses.
Well I don't need their glasses, and I can see the picture. And I don't see anything about hunting, or sporting, or the National Guard or loopholes in there. It says we need to be prepared to remain a free state, so we can own and carry guns. Is that so cloaked in mystery that it takes the Supreme Court to run their Green Lantern decoder ring over it? I guess my eyes are just better regulated.
The Bill of Rights (first 10) limit the federal (general) government and do not apply to the states or individuals.
The bolded portion points to the fact that this is what we have today as a result of the 'many' states' abdicating their responsibility. Roe v. Wade and the Texas homosexual privacy decisions are but a couple of examples of the overreaching, illegitimate malignancy that today festers at the federal level.
Any and every 'infringment' on gun owners by the feds is an expressed violation of the 2nd ammendment.
Any state infringements are not disallowed. Example: if you live in the state of Chickensh*t, the legislators there could infringe to the extent of banning all guns. The trick for them is to get re-elected to the legislature in the state of Chickensh*t. If the majority voting population of the state are truly chickensh*t, you're out of luck.
However, a neighboring state, the state of MeanSonsofB*tches has no ban on guns, carry, or anything whatsoever. And lo and behold, they have less crime. Soon the folks from the state of Chickensh*t tire of all the rapes, robberies, carjackings, and home invasions, etc. and look to their neighboring state- MSB- for solutions. (Remember, the feds were taken out of the equation by the 2nd Ammendment, and that's rock solid)
What happens next is what the founders had in mind initially: little democracies experimenting in the wilderness and, over time, finding the truth and implementing it.
What they (founders) feared most is what we have today. Which leads me to a dire prediction: Unless we return to the original vision that was the basis of this country's founding, we'll bear witness to it's demise, perhaps in our lifetimes. It's in the cards as much as it's been spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.
As much as I love this country, it is my greatest hope that the federal misapplication of powers may be brought to an end and that we may once again enjoy the 'plan' that was slated for us by some very wise and long dead white guys. Absent that, we will surely be living in interesting times.
The Bill of Rights (first 10) limit the federal (general) government and do not apply to the states or individuals.
The bolded portion points to the fact that this is what we have today as a result of the 'many' states' abdicating their responsibility. Roe v. Wade and the Texas homosexual privacy decisions are but a couple of examples of the overreaching, illegitimate malignancy that today festers at the federal level.
Any and every 'infringment' on gun owners by the feds is an expressed violation of the 2nd ammendment.
Any state infringements are not disallowed. Example: if you live in the state of Chickensh*t, the legislators there could infringe to the extent of banning all guns. The trick for them is to get re-elected to the legislature in the state of Chickensh*t. If the majority voting population of the state are truly chickensh*t, you're out of luck.
However, a neighboring state, the state of MeanSonsofB*tches has no ban on guns, carry, or anything whatsoever. And lo and behold, they have less crime. Soon the folks from the state of Chickensh*t tire of all the rapes, robberies, carjackings, and home invasions, etc. and look to their neighboring state- MSB- for solutions. (Remember, the feds were taken out of the equation by the 2nd Ammendment, and that's rock solid)
What happens next is what the founders had in mind initially: little democracies experimenting in the wilderness and, over time, finding the truth and implementing it.
What they (founders) feared most is what we have today. Which leads me to a dire prediction: Unless we return to the original vision that was the basis of this country's founding, we'll bear witness to it's demise, perhaps in our lifetimes. It's in the cards as much as it's been spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.
As much as I love this country, it is my greatest hope that the federal misapplication of powers may be brought to an end and that we may once again enjoy the 'plan' that was slated for us by some very wise and long dead white guys. Absent that, we will surely be living in interesting times.
Penumbras?
You mean they actually think? Probably not, I suspect they use magical feeling. Possibly chemically enhanced feeling at that. Must be some good stuff.
Hey, I go to Pierce.
.
The Ninth Circus Court has a language barrier.
The 9th Circuit is further Left than was the Politburo.
BTTT
"Get a Rope."