Second Amendment applied to all cities and states - Page 6
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Second Amendment applied to all cities and states

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-30-2010, 10:26 AM   #51
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonium View Post
I am SOOOO relieved that this case was settled BEFORE that POS Kagan was a sitting Justice, we would NOT have gotten the ruling we did!
Uh, yes we would have. She's a liberal replacing a liberal. We will not gain or lose anything by her being on the court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonium View Post
This is just the begining! It will I am sure, take many more years yet to MAKE these Justices, sitting on the highest court of the land, to understand PLAIN ENGLISH! It is only 11 words for crying out loud! And they aren't even BIG words, what the hell is SO DEBATEABLE!
Four of the five are letting their personal views trump the written law. That is the one thing they are not supposed to do. Sotomayor said she would support 2A in her confirmation hearings yet voted against it in this ruling. She lied, in other words.

Congress continues to do a lousy job of vetting candidates for the court by not asking the tough questions and carefully scrutinizing the answers. That is why Kagan will almost certainly be confirmed.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2010, 04:53 PM   #52
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pandamonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,601
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Opaww and BKT, thank you for pointing that out.
Yet another case of cerebral flatulence!

__________________
GUN CONTROL, I GOT THAT

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Thomas Jefferson
pandamonium is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2010, 07:25 PM   #53
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
Four of the five are letting their personal views trump the written law. That is the one thing they are not supposed to do. Sotomayor said she would support 2A in her confirmation hearings yet voted against it in this ruling. She lied, in other words.

Congress continues to do a lousy job of vetting candidates for the court by not asking the tough questions and carefully scrutinizing the answers. That is why Kagan will almost certainly be confirmed.
Looking at her in the news walking around the corrupt halls of DC with that s**t eating grin is like looking at the rat that ate the cat.
She knows shes "in",and whether we like it or not she'll be there for the next 30-40 years,making rulings based on 'precedent','living document' BS,and even the laws of other nations like the treasonous Ruth Baader Meinhoff.
She'll be there making rulings based on anything but the Constitution that people like her hate so much.

As you pointed out- four out of five of the justices on the court have been doing what theyre not supposed to do and compromising their rulings and the rule of law with their radical anti-American agendas rather than obeying the Constitution.
But even the '5 on our side' are compromising with the law to appease the mass phobia and terror surrounding arms that has been ingrained in our society by decades of systematic indoctrination and court 'precedent' often in total contradiction to the law and that is a blatant violation of the Constitution itself.

On the topic of guns,this brings me to a stark realization.I caught a Stossel show last night about guns and the problem isnt even the radicals alone.

The radicals are being helped along because a good number of Americans believe that government should have the right to regulate firearms in one manner or the other.I'm constantly hearing about how 'prohibited persons' should still not be 'allowed' guns,and how background checks and fingerprinting for government permission to carry -to bear- arms is a good thing.
And I'm hearing this from gun owners as well as the hoplophobes.

Gun owners need to stop stooping to the level of debate with these kinds of issues.

The Second Amendment does not authorize 'reasonable government regulation', and it sure as hell doesn't authorize foreign legislation like the Nazi-inspired GCA68 to determine who has the right to keep and bear arms.
All free Americans have that right.

Unless you are currently incarcerated by a court of law via due process in either a penitentiary or a mental institution and your freedom is curtailed,you are free to excersize your inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
Despite popular sentiment,when we open the door for government to go out of its bounds,when we allow government to make and enforce laws that violate its charter,it then has no limits.
Its a sign of the times that we allow government to act outside of its lawful limitations without setting new limits by amending the Constitution,because we are being convinced by radical activists and nothing more or less than fear-inspiring media propaganda that we must allow government to define its own terms rather than ensuring government is under the same letter of law that we all must obey.

The Second Amendment isnt up for debate.Its THE LAW.Period.

It doent say government can institute 'reasonable' anything "for the good of society" or whatever.

No background checks.
No prohibitory lists.
No sporting uses,"assault weapons" or other gun classification regulations.
No government permission slips to bear arms.

No 'gun control'.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Period.

Unless its amended to allow this 'reasonable regulation',even the court justices supposedly on our side have it wrong-because it clearly says that it "shall not be infringed".

The problem isnt just that we have these activist traitors on our court,these "enemies corrupting our body politic from within" as Cicero would put it-the problem is that we TOLERATE and even ENCOURAGE debate when there is only one solution-either amend the Constitution or obey the law as it is.

The problem is us.

And its time for us to make a decision-either we will have a government under the law,or the government will be free to make the laws it sees fit,"for our own good",of course.
__________________
"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; 06-30-2010 at 07:50 PM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2010, 07:30 PM   #54
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

And then something else that I personally find is not addressed frequently enough by us.

The fact that 'gun control' has been used as a tool of tyranny by oppressive regimes that in the past century alone murdered around 200 million people in cold blood.

The fact that 'gun control' got its roots here in America as a racist agenda to disarm newly freed slaves.

But I've said enough here.

__________________
"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; 06-30-2010 at 07:52 PM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2010, 08:37 PM   #55
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
General_lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lumpkin,Georgia
Posts: 1,268
Liked 17 Times on 9 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
Looking at her in the news walking around the corrupt halls of DC with that s**t eating grin is like looking at the rat that ate the cat.
She knows shes "in",and whether we like it or not she'll be there for the next 30-40 years,making rulings based on 'precedent','living document' BS,and even the laws of other nations like the treasonous Ruth Baader Meinhoff.
She'll be there making rulings based on anything but the Constitution that people like her hate so much.

As you pointed out- four out of five of the justices on the court have been doing what theyre not supposed to do and compromising their rulings and the rule of law with their radical anti-American agendas rather than obeying the Constitution.
But even the '5 on our side' are compromising with the law to appease the mass phobia and terror surrounding arms that has been ingrained in our society by decades of systematic indoctrination and court 'precedent' often in total contradiction to the law and that is a blatant violation of the Constitution itself.

On the topic of guns,this brings me to a stark realization.I caught a Stossel show last night about guns and the problem isnt even the radicals alone.

The radicals are being helped along because a good number of Americans believe that government should have the right to regulate firearms in one manner or the other.I'm constantly hearing about how 'prohibited persons' should still not be 'allowed' guns,and how background checks and fingerprinting for government permission to carry -to bear- arms is a good thing.
And I'm hearing this from gun owners as well as the hoplophobes.

Gun owners need to stop stooping to the level of debate with these kinds of issues.

The Second Amendment does not authorize 'reasonable government regulation', and it sure as hell doesn't authorize foreign legislation like the Nazi-inspired GCA68 to determine who has the right to keep and bear arms.
All free Americans have that right.

Unless you are currently incarcerated by a court of law via due process in either a penitentiary or a mental institution and your freedom is curtailed,you are free to excersize your inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
Despite popular sentiment,when we open the door for government to go out of its bounds,when we allow government to make and enforce laws that violate its charter,it then has no limits.
Its a sign of the times that we allow government to act outside of its lawful limitations without setting new limits by amending the Constitution,because we are being convinced by radical activists and nothing more or less than fear-inspiring media propaganda that we must allow government to define its own terms rather than ensuring government is under the same letter of law that we all must obey.

The Second Amendment isnt up for debate.Its THE LAW.Period.

It doent say government can institute 'reasonable' anything "for the good of society" or whatever.

No background checks.
No prohibitory lists.
No sporting uses,"assault weapons" or other gun classification regulations.
No government permission slips to bear arms.

No 'gun control'.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Period.

Unless its amended to allow this 'reasonable regulation',even the court justices supposedly on our side have it wrong-because it clearly says that it "shall not be infringed".

The problem isnt just that we have these activist traitors on our court,these "enemies corrupting our body politic from within" as Cicero would put it-the problem is that we TOLERATE and even ENCOURAGE debate when there is only one solution-either amend the Constitution or obey the law as it is.

The problem is us.

And its time for us to make a decision-either we will have a government under the law,or the government will be free to make the laws it sees fit,"for our own good",of course.
Sir, you read my mind. Couldn't have said it better myself.
I just had a discussion with a Vietnam vet that is a regular customer at the gun store that I assist manage.
We were discussing the 2A, I personally believe that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means, technically that even NICS background checks are unconstitutional if you really think about it... they
can approve or deny your right to own a firearm.
He pointed out that the background checks help keep people that "don't need" guns from buying them. Buying them from a FFL dealer, True, but that doesn't stop a personal transaction not carried out at an FFL.
Y'all can call me nuts if you want to, but I think that if everyone were allowed to have and carry a firearm, with no restrictions, then we would have a lot less crime. There's no way to stop the occasional nutcase from trying to do another Ft. Hood or Columbine, but maybe if more people carried, there would be less of a chance of that happening, and even if the bad guy did manage to get a couple shots off, someone else would be able to take the BG down quickly.

Am I weird for thinking like that?
__________________
General_lee is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2010, 10:13 PM   #56
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Well,a Brady rep pointed out on that Stossel show that 4 cops were killed in an ambush by a gunman in Washington state,and so that must mean that the only defense against crazed people looking to kill other people is more 'preventative' 'gun control'.
What that Brady stooge forgot to mention was that this person that did that shooting was a once convicted murderer,and that all 20,000 or so federal 'gun control' laws currently on the books failed to prevent him from getting a gun.

Of course,to the Bradys- that means that ALL SALES should have background checks.That means we should all have to suffer because the justice system is allowing people that kill other people,rape other people,and commit armed robberies back out on the streets.
We should all have to allow more government control of our inalienable rights because of what killers and other scumbags are doing.

What he fails to realize is that killers intent on killing someone will find a way to do the deed even if we have background checks on everything that could possibly be used as a weapon.
So the guy might have used a kitchen knife,or a bat,and gotten a gun from a cop.
Or rammed his vehicle into the restaurant booth those poor cops were sitting at or whatever.

But according to Brady,its the guns fault.Not the person committing the crime-and we should all have to suffer increased regulatory nonsense because of this.
Despite the fact that the highest law of the land clearly states that the government may not infringe on our inalienable rights.

Brady says restrict us,punish us,violate our rights,and forget about the problems we have in our justice system.Violent Crime is the fault of an inanimate object,says Brady.

And in particular in this instance what Brady fails to mention is that one of the cops actually shot the scumbag killer.Those cops at least had the means to fight back,rather than being rendered impotent sheep cowering behind whatever they could find and waiting for the slaughter,as all these 'victim disarmament' laws do to Americans.

Sure,maybe the next chosen victims of the next crazed madman wouldnt 'win' against him-
-BUT-
At least they could fight back if Brady would just stop pimping their failed 'gun control' policies!

Something else the 'gun control' advocates fail to be able to explain is that if 'gun control' worked so well why do Mexican drug cartels have guns and rocket launchers and grenades and all that happy fun stuff when the law in Mexico strictly prohibits private gun ownership at all?

But Brady says this is also our fault.
We should re-enact that dumba$$ 'assault weapons' ban for the sake of our southern neighbor.

That'll keep the cartels from getting automatic rifles and grenades.

I dont know how,being that last time I went to purchase a firearm at an FFL dealer I never saw any grenades for sale to 'eligible' people and getting fully automatic weapons requires more than just a background check.

The cartels know something Brady and all the laws in the world cant compete with.

Its called the 'Black Market'.

If a drug cartel can ship tons of cocaine and other heavily regulated and prohibited items on the world wide black market,whats to stop them from doing the same with firearms?

If Brady actually got their way and everyone in America had to beg permission from government to excersize property rights to trade and sell arms,and a criminal who has connections to drugs wants a gun,where do you think he'll get it?

So what good are all these laws really?

They do nothing but give government the power to regulate people who otherwise have no criminal intent,period.

They do nothing but allow government a legal monopoly on the use of force,where once we American citizens had the inalienable right to own and carry arms to defend ourselves with no government involvement unless we violated the rights of another person-now in order to do so legally,you must have permission.

And this is dangerous.
Adolph Hitler,Stalin,and Mao dangerous.

Because when the American people can own guns without having to have the permission of or the fear of reprisals from government,then more Americans will have more guns,and there is no possible way something like the Holocaust or the Holodomor could happen here.
But when Americans are told they must have permission and government must have control over our arms,then less people will own guns and of the people that do,government will know who they are and be able to confiscate them in the remote but horrible circumstance that our government becomes as evil as the Soviet Empire or Nazi Germany.

More than all that argument-there is the fact that our Founders KNEW this.

They knew that when people owned guns without any government intervention whatsoever,that when government didnt know who had what,then a modicum of the power of the use of force rested squarely with the people,rather than government having a monopoly on the use of force-and government would be hesitant to behave tyrannically.

"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!"
-Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson

Thats why they wrote the Second Amendment.

Which is the law.

Which needs to be obeyed.

Period.

Are you 'weird' for wanting to and wishing that your elected representatives would obey the law?

I dont think so,but I bet Brady would like the majority of Americans to.........

__________________
"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; 07-01-2010 at 12:14 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2010, 10:49 PM   #57
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 25
Default whirley

The Second amendment says "A well regulated MILITIA". Many anti-gun people claim that refers to today's National Guard. However in the Constitution of many early States, the MILITIA is defined as every able bodied male between 16 and 65 years as militia. They can be called out by the Governor of the State to serve under the direction of Sheriffs or other appointed legal authority. Unlike the Nat'l Guard, the Feds have no authority over the State militia. They can report as ordered with or without weapons, and can be used in any legal capacity. Actually, a woman named Ann Hupp during the Rev. War held a fort in SW Pa. for several days against a group of hostiles. She was the only person experienced in the use of firearms. As you shooters know, when a woman steps up to the firing line, she doesn't get any gimmes or extra points. I've watched several that could beat your socks off on clays and one I know is real tough competitor at 1000 yards. Ann Hupp was given a pension for her heroic defense by the Pa. legislature. So a "Well regulate MILITIA" is all of us including the women, with our personal weapons and ammunition. Trying to exclude pistols and revolvers is just harassment. Vote the rascals OUT!.

__________________
whirley is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2010, 11:29 PM   #58
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

While I agree with you 100% about your history and voting the criminals out of DC,we've had the discussion about the preamble of the Second here before.

"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."
-United States Constitution, Second Amendment, 1789

The first thirteen words of the Second Amendment are a preamble.They essentially are not the law which is found in the second half,or 'body' of the amendment.

And that makes sense too,being that the first 10 amendments and the bill of rights itself were written to clearly dispel fears of the new charter for the federal government -the Constitution- giving that government too much power.
Basically,the bill of rights was written to restrict the power of the federal government beyond even the 'enumerated duties' which were supposed to delineate the actual authority and purpose of the central government,and to ensure that the newly created government could not trample on the individual rights of the citizens.

Why would the government be granted authority over the object of an amendment enumerated in a list of 10 others which was created itself to intentionally limit government power?

So where government is told by the First Amendment it shall make no law infringing on the right to free speech,peaceable assembly,and the practice of religion,government is told by the Second Amendment that it shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and to bear arms.

That is the operative part of the law known as the Second Amendment.

The 'militia clause'(actually the militia preamble,as it is rightfully known) has been abused by those seeking to give government power where it is expressly told it does not have authority and may not infringe,and this has been a total travesty of justice and a Constitutional blasphemy that has led to no end of violations of the inalienable rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms with which to defend themselves.

Heres a good place to start learning about the TRUTH about the preamble to the Second Amendment-

How The Courts Are Using The Second Amendment Against Us


Quote:
The Declaration of Independence and the Second Amendment share something in common; they both have preambles. The Second Amendment is the only amendment enumerated in the Bill of Rights that contains a stated purpose, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This is a preamble, an introduction, a preface, a whereas,--not a therefore.



Quote:
"The body of the act may even be restrained by the preamble, when no inconsistency or contradiction results, ...where the intention of the Legislature is clearly expressed in the [body], the preamble shall not restrain it, although it be of much narrower import." A Treatise on the Rules Which Govern the Interpretation and of Statutory and Constitutional Law, Theodore Sedgwick. 1857, pg. 55.
Quote:
Our judicial system has handed down "inconsistent or contradictory results" on a regular basis concerning the Second Amendment because of their inclusion of the preamble in their decisions. Many times, if not always, allowing it to take preeminence over the right itself. Gun grabbers totally rely on the preamble to "restrain" the Second Amendment at every turn. If the preamble read; "In order to ensure a fresh supply of venison, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the courts would argue that supermarkets always have a fresh supply of meat on hand and restrict firearms ownership on that basis. It’s the courts illegal use of the preamble that’s causing all the grief for gun owners because it’s difficult, if not impossible, to misinterpret "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That’s why the judiciary avoid it and constantly addresses the preamble.
And thats also why the hoplophobes are always bringing up the preamble as well.

Because they're pulling at straws.

Its bad enough that their failed 'gun control' policies simply dont work and in many cases have even posed a real detriment to the preservation of innocent American life,but that they abuse the law and get their way in court so often is why people like myself have become so fixated,so determined to decry,denounce and stop their insane madness.

They have no legal leg to stand on,and they have no moral leg to stand on.

And its time their house of cards fell.

Quote:
Justice Joseph Story wrote in Rules of Interpretation, "Where the words are plain and clear, and the sense distinct and perfect arising on them, there is generally no necessity to have recourse to other means of interpretation. It is only when there is some ambiguity or doubt arising from other sources that interpretation has its proper office." Story also said that a preamble "...is properly resorted to, where doubts or ambiguities arise upon the words of the enacted part, [but] "...never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the source of any implied power..." Try telling that to our courts.
Indeed.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Thats the law.

Not:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms is subject to militia service and thus government regulation".

Not:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation".

"Shall not be infringed" means what it says.
It means that no matter how they try to wheedle it,double-speak it,manipulate it, or re-interpret it-the government may not infringe on my right,your right,and every other Americans right to own arms and to carry them as we will.

The government may not write,enact,or enforce any legislation to the contrary of our rights.Period.

Doing so is against the law.

Thus-

'Gun control' is in sum and total-illegal.

But YOU try telling it to the courts,and the congress,for that matter!
__________________
"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; 07-01-2010 at 12:25 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2010, 12:49 AM   #59
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 25
Default whirley

You're totally correct and to the point. As you are aware, there are those who insist the "Militia" is now the National Guard. A completely erronious interpretation of the term.

__________________
whirley is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2010, 01:07 AM   #60
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Yes.Blatantly erroneous.

And one that --conveniently-- places the Second Amendment under the direct control of government,if one buys into the whole 'collective militia interpretation' lie,which to the credit of the SCOTUS-has been clarified with Heller and McDonald.

Yes,the Second Amendment is in fact an individual right.This right applies to individuals and not just the militia.

But no-it IS NOT subject to "reasonable regulation".

So now we come full circle.

Instead of the 'militia' interpretation,now the hoplophobes will say that banning everything but a single shot break breech .410 and a .38 revolver is 'reasonable'.

Rather than having our rights fully affirmed and fully acknowledged.

Our inalienable,natural rights end only where the next persons rights begin,not where the government,being manipulated by a bunch of crack-pot charlatans promising to keep the streets safe for the children or whatever, sees fit to assert itself despite 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; 07-01-2010 at 01:13 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Cities that have differing ordinances. Agent_H Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 4 08-22-2010 06:43 PM
An Example to Other Major Cities! BigByrd47119 Politics, Religion and Controversy 2 09-19-2009 03:10 AM
US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive crowbar Politics, Religion and Controversy 10 06-20-2009 09:48 PM
most pro-gun to anti-gun states taseal The Club House 2 08-23-2008 06:47 PM