Dangerous Dicta: What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Dangerous Dicta: What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-12-2012, 04:36 AM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Lightbulb Dangerous Dicta: What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

Found a very excellent article discussing the federal governments overreach in enacting "gun control".

Dangerous Dicta by Laurence M. Vance

Quote:
"Most people misconstrue the nature of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment confers no positive right. Nothing in the Second Amendment grants any American the right to do anything. If the Amendment didn’t exist, Americans would still have the natural and moral right to keep and bear arms of any kind for any purpose. The Second Amendment only recognizes an existing right. If the federal government had any authority whatsoever to make any law regarding any weapon, then that authority would have to be spelled out in the Constitution in Article I, section 8. The Second Amendment is merely an additional limitation on federal power to infringe upon gun rights besides the fact that no authority is granted to the federal government in its limited, enumerated powers to infringe upon them in the first place. As part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was designed to protect the rights of Americans from infringement by the new and powerful central government under the Constitution."
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 09-12-2012 at 04:45 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
4
People Like This 

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 09-12-2012, 02:22 PM   #2
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
robocop10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin,Texas, by God!!
Posts: 10,058
Liked 2729 Times on 1429 Posts
Likes Given: 230

Default

"Dangerous Dicta"? That is EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment is. A LIMITATION or RESTRICTION on the Federal Government and an affirmation of a natural, God given, right. The 2nd Amendment does not "guarantee" the right to Keep and Bear Arms. It prevents the government from restricting the RKBA.

All other replies were deleted because this topic immediately turned in to a political discussion. This section is for LEGAL TOPICS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE 2ND AMENDMENT, not political diatribe

__________________

In life, strive to take the high road....It offers a better field of fire.
"Robo is right" Fuzzball

robocop10mm is offline  
gripper Likes This 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Hard to find part for PT1911 Ruzai 1911 Forum 35 03-12-2012 07:11 PM
Would someone help me understand MoA. Garadex Optics & Mounts 6 07-12-2011 06:43 PM
I don't understand this........ winds-of-change The Club House 23 11-29-2010 11:28 PM
What part of illegal do you not understand? opaww Politics, Religion and Controversy 16 05-11-2010 12:21 PM
Remington 1100 receiver part missing. Is it dangerous? Wabash General Shotgun Discussion 8 04-02-2009 11:34 PM