The fight for the right to keep and bear arms

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by opaww, May 8, 2007.

  1. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    We are faced with a tough fight in the right to keep and bare arms arena again. Though I beleave we will win this fight.

    The left wing and right wing anti-gunners are doubling there efforts to convince the American people that the Right to Keep and Bare Arms is not a right given to the common peoples, but rather a collective right for the Government.

    In their endeavor to deceive the American people on this issue, they have forgot or purposely left out vital information about our rights. We must go back in history and look closely at the time frame, our founding fathers, and the documents that we hold so dear.

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    http://www.freespaces.com/opaww/Decloration.htm

    The Constitution of The United States

    http://www.freespaces.com/opaww/Constitution.htm

    The Bill of Rights

    http://www.freespaces.com/opaww/Bill.htm

    I post a link to the 3 main documents that were the backbone and or founding principles. They are as is written and not changed up by me or anyone else.

    Here is a link to my take on the Second Amendment that some of you have seen already but it applies just the same.

    http://www.freespaces.com/opaww/admin2.htm

    Note 1. A misleading term the anti gunners like to use when quoting the Second Amendment is milishia, instead of militia. Militia is the word used in the Second Amendment. Attempting to look up the meaning of milishia in the Webster’s Dictionary it tells me there is no such ward or meaning. But if we see how the gun grabbers use the ward we can place a gun grabbers value to it.

    The term milishia to the gun grabber is by their definition a military unit who member already belong to and are active participants. The definition I place on the word milishia is “a rogue body of citizens engaged in the act of legal or illegal armed confrontation, not sanctioned by the governing body, but called to arms by the peoples or the immediate need to act.”

    The assumption that some how the Second Amendment only applies to a military is a very misleading statement. If we look at the history of our great country we can see that this amendment applies to the citizenry as individuals and as a collective body. We must remember and actually separate the Bill of Rights from the Constitution in order to fully grasp the understanding of personal rights.

    The Constitution was ratified and became law September 17, 1787. The Bill of Rights was ratified December 15, 1791. Here is a historical account of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html

    The Constitution deals with the Governing body of the United States and not the individual rights of the citizens. This is one reason that the founding fathers had a long hard battle to ratify the document. A bargaining agreement was met to allow a Bill of Rights for the citizens to be wrote and become law.

    The bill of Rights was for every citizen in America and not the government. This document belongs to the people and not the elite. The first bill presented to the Congress had 12 Amendments to it, the first 2 being applied to Government were removed and the remaining 10 became our Bill of Rights.

    The Bill of Rights is Amendments to be added to our Constitution but as a separate document that dealt with personal right and not a governing body. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Government the athority to remove any of our rights, but they may enhance our right. (Add to, not take away) The first 10 were the core of our real freedoms as individual Americans.

    This alone shows proof that the Second Amendment applied to individuals who were citizens of America and not the military and/or the Government. Many of the founding fathers, wrote articles, letters, and books on the subject of our freedoms. In almost every one of them the Right of the individual citizen to keep and bare arms was paramount.

    Of the 13 colonies in America many wrote and ratified a type of Constitutions, and in what was to become a State Constitution they were very adamant about the individual rights to keep and bare arms. Here again we can see that the founding states of America understood the need for the individual to be armed at all times.

    With the oppression of the crown in America, many people resisted by arming themselves when they could. This was looked down on by whichever governor the crown placed in power and many people’s weapons were confiscated and powder, flint and shot were not issued them, from fear of reprisal by the populace.

    A second Item of the Bill of Rights is the term the People I cannot write a better response to this term then is already done here on this page.

    http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/library/kates.html

    Let us not forget that for over 200 years we the peoples have believed the Second Amendment applied to us as citizens, and individuals. At no time has the Government stepped in and corrected this belief. In recent years though the anti gunners have tried to change the meanings and tell the peoples that they were wrong all along. The anti gunners also attempt to make the Bill of Rights a living document subject to change at the whim of an oppressive Governing body. It is not a living document, but rather a document that is absolute.

    One must remember that until the Bill of Rights was ratified and became law. No person had much of any rights that were an absolute. Even after the Bill of Rights was ratified woman and slaves had basically no right at all.

    When the Constitution was ratified and became law slaves were considered property by law. A person wishing to vote had to own property, (land or a slave.) Woman had no rights to property back then. With the defeat of slavery we now had another class of peoples who now qualified as citizens, with all the given rights that the Bill of Rights granted. Woman finely was granted their full rights also somewhere with in the 20th century.

    Just after the Civil War the anti gun movement started, with the intent of denying ex-slaves their rights to keep and bare arms. The anti gun movement has it’s roots in racism and not for the pretence of making America safer. Almost all quotes of violence are still directed toward the Black communities. When we see the news about violence and the need for gun control it has an ever-bearing presence of racism with in the statements. Here is a good article on the slavery and gun control issue.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/poe/poe3.html
     
  2. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    There is no shortage of reasoning, rationalle and history that supports that people must remain free to keep and bear arms if they choose to. What we are fighting is an ever-increasing number of people who are grossly ignorant to history and the facts.

    Very few people will agree that criminals follow the law. So, most will agree, when asked, that criminals will not abide by gun-control laws. But few people will reach this conclusion on their own by thinking it through.

    That's damned scary.
     

  3. jeffware

    jeffware New Member

    50
    0
    0
    according to my sep 2010 copy of "american hunter", page 16, on jun 28 2010, the supreme court says the 2nd amendment protects our rights in every state, city, and town in america. the case was mcdonald vs city of chicago. i may be writing this in the wrong part of this forum, but the last post here was in may. if i am a dumdum, tell me. however, this is a big victory. PLEASE research all the upcoming people up for nov elections. Please vote for the folks that will protect our contitutional rights. i vote independent. i have voted for repubs and dems in the past. you must not just vote for a party. vote for the right person. thank you. jeff.
     
  4. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    10,888
    1
    0
    The thread you replied to is over 3 years and 3 months old. I'm not sure if you are a "dumdum" (your word) or not, but you are not very observant. Perhaps you are using the search to make "drive-by" posts...
     
  5. 556plinker

    556plinker New Member

    338
    0
    0
    the right

    Heller V. DC and Mcdonald V. Chicago for the first time establishes CASE LAW in the affirmative with regard to the 2A. However, if the goofy a$$ liberals get the shift in the balance of power on the supreme court that could all go out the window irrespective of what they have said before but we do have the precedent. It just begs the question, "How much longer before we actually lose this right?" When we finally do lose, then what? Are we really going to fall for the gun grab? Do these communist pukes actually think all of us in fly-over country are going to capitulate? Who is going to take up this monumental and uneviable task? If owning a gun mean being a felon then come put me or try to put me in jail. I can assure you that I will not be on the one way choo-choo ride to one of their FEMA camps or whatever else they have contrived for once law-abiding productive citizens. I will always be an advocate for the 2A until its gone. I really hope it is sooner than later so we can finally figure out "The Will of the People" on this matter and put it to bed for a long time. These left wing trust fund idiots can have their riots and burn stuff and break out windows but trust me friends when the right wing gets pi$$ed off they won't have a snowballs chance in hell. All I can say is put a little trust in your fellow American and not in the law or the gov't. We have each other, our beliefs and our steadfast convictions which are only bolstered by the aftermath and historical catastrophy's of gun confiscation.:eek:
     
  6. Angry_bald_guy

    Angry_bald_guy Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    1,687
    0
    0
    Molon Labe.
     
  7. jeffware

    jeffware New Member

    50
    0
    0
    yes, i made the mistake of saying no posts have been made here since may. i should have said something like may of 2007. mr. skullcrusher, i accept your burn without any problems. however, my post is meant to get all of us out to vote for the right politicians. but i have another BIG proposal to run by all of you. THE SUPREME COUT JUDGES ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE LAW. THEY ARE NOT ELECTED. how do we get our elected representatives to change this? these people can ruin our 2nd amendment rights. i am proposing that we all start writing our congessmen to get this changed. this will be a big change to our government, but we need this to protect OUR rights. a am going to write my congeessmen and suggest a change that supreme court judges are ELECTED, not appointed. thank you for doing the same. please check my postings on this site. i may only post time to time, but i am not a drive by thanks jeff.
     
  8. FreedomFighter69

    FreedomFighter69 New Member

    212
    0
    0
    2nd Amendment....

    The fact alone that the 2nd amendment uses language that pertains to citizens is clear ! The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed !
    That one word, people means you, me, and everybody. It doesn't say right of the military, militia, or special group. The people have the right to form a militia if they choose is the first part. The people have the right to bear arms is the second. It's language is plain and simple but the dopey libbys will forever try to twist it out of the peoples favor. I have no problem with people who want to hug trees, but people who want to take my firearms and my fellow american's firearms away I do have a problem with them that do ! You see, a liberal is nothing but one who likes to start trouble. They just do it a bit more subtle, that's the difference. The day will come when a mugger will knock one to the ground and possible break a jaw or cut them with a knife, then they will sing a different song. We don't live in a world of grass, flowers, and butterflies.
    Life isn't like a disney movie, these people just need to wake up from their daydream and get a taste of the real world. :mad:
     
  9. M14sRock

    M14sRock New Member

    5,549
    0
    0
    No harm, no foul, Jeff. I'm glad this issue comes up regularly, necro thread or not.
     
  10. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    I refer you to the Col. Jeff Cooper quote in my signature:

    ..."That is why our masters in Washington are so anxious to disarm us. They are not afraid of criminals. They are afraid of a populace which cannot be subdued by tyrants.” – Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, Vol. 2, No. 5, May 1994

    Molon Labe B*tches!
     
  11. clip11

    clip11 New Member

    178
    0
    0
    over the past 40 years or so, the liberal media has gone out of their way to make guns look bad. Notice how tricky they are, everytime a crime is committed with a firearm, they will use the term "gun crime" as if to say it is the gun's fault for the crime being committed.

    In the city of Chicago where you have so many shootings, the media makes it seem like those gang members doing the shooting would be nobel prize winners or astrophysicists, if not for those evil guns.

    You would not believe how much some people in my own family is against me having guns. The bottom line is I have guns to defend myself. In fact, a lot of people think you are a criminal if you own or carry a gun, and unless you are selling dope or robbing people, you don't need a gun.

    I believe in the 2nd amendment as much as many people believe in the Bible.
     
  12. M14sRock

    M14sRock New Member

    5,549
    0
    0
    Where ya been, Clip? I was thinking you had left us. Glad you're back.
     
  13. Publius98

    Publius98 New Member

    8
    0
    0
    It's actually simpler than that. The Militia was the Colonists' self-defense organization. Every able-bodied male citizen over the age of 15 of every hamlet, village and town was required to own, maintain and keep within their own homes, arms, powder and shot of any description, and be ready to respond, bearing them on a minute's notice to the common defense of the town. The call could come as a result of Indian attack, invasion or civil disruption of any kind. That is why it is an individual right. Individuals who owned their own weapons and kept them in their own homes formed the collective militia.


    In the first paragraph of the Declaration, it refers to the "... separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ..." This phrase is the source of the arguments for and against Natural Law, and is one of many confirmations in our founding documents confirming our founding as a Christian nation. It is also a forewarning to King George III of what's coming, and validation for their establishment of a "separate and equal" nation.

    The second paragraph of the Declaration, in part, reads: " WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and Organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them seems most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness."

    The use of the word "unalienable" as an adjective modifying "rights" is as significant as the use of capital letters to emphasize words they thought important. It shows the understanding the founders had concerning their relationship to GOD; that the unalienable rights to which they referred were theirs by the Grace of God, and since they were given by God, they not only couldn't be taken away by government, but more importantly, they couldn't be revoked by man as an individual or as a group. Man has no power superseding the laws of God. So you can't take MY natural rights away, I can't take YOUR natural rights away and neither of us can claim as a right anything which when exercised by either of us interferes with the others (any others') ability to exercise his/her rights.

    During the Clarence Thomas Senate Confirmation Hearings, then Senator Joe Biden (now VP) raised numerous objections and engaged in vociferous arguments against the concept of Natural Law, and anyone who has been alive and conscious for the past 50 years has seen the manifold attacks leveled against religion and Christian influences in our daily lives. Most of it has come at the expense of a moral compass, replaced in our government schools by the philosophies of moral relativism, secular humanism and values clarification.

    If the government can replace the influence of religion in our lives -- in effect becoming our God -- then we have let it become by default the source of our rights. Consequently, it can take our rights away at will, or determine arbitrarily which rights we really have. It started with the Patriot Act, now currently up for renewal.

    I guarantee, though, when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms, whether revoked by government fiat or by U.N. Treaty, the largest army in the world will resist with all we've got.
     
  14. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    The handwriting is on the wall here. Obama didn't win the election by a

    landslide, far from it. He KNOWS he has NO CHANCE of re-election.

    The only way he can stay in office is to trash our Constitution, first, then make

    a bid to become president for life through radical

    political manipulation.
     
  15. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Interesting idea, but I don't think so. While he might like that idea, there are an awful lot of Americans who would say "Oh hell no!" in many creative ways.
     
  16. Publius98

    Publius98 New Member

    8
    0
    0
    '"Oh hell no!" in many creative ways. '

    Love that understated subtlety. My wish would be a demonstration slightly more dramatic ... like for instance 5 million of us showing up in Washington carrying arms and marching on the White House ... just to make a 'subtle' point.

    "The real trouble with common sense today is that it isn't as common as it used to be." - Will Rogers
     
  17. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,568
    184
    63
    On the news today. There is a concerted effort to force gun control on Switzerland. I believe they are the only European country that have free citizens and not subjects.
     
  18. Publius98

    Publius98 New Member

    8
    0
    0
    With the change January 1st of the permitting process for carrying weapons here in Iowa, people like me who've had a permit issued under 6 sheriffs dating back to 1968 still have to re-take the class on weapons safety, handling and ethics (albeit a shorter one). Although not a state requirement, I think it's a good idea for permitees to qualify on the range to demonstrate that they can physically handle the weapon safely and hit that at which they're aiming. Although rare, there are a few John Wayne-types out there who haven't got a clue, either about the skills required or the responsibility involved.

    Consequently, tonight I was at the local Isaak Walton indoor range practicing for my Saturday qualifier. This was my 2nd session. I've fired about 100 rounds in the two nights, and it was a bit of an eye opener, proving to myself not only that I can still qualify but just how much practice is needed on a regular basis to keep the skill level up. It's too easy to take for granted. That's why those John Waynes make me nervous.
     
  19. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    Not for nothin', but I've NEVER had a problem with a fellow gun-owner's ethics.

    IMO, the politicians need the full, four class course on ethics.

    Because they certainly seemed to have missed it in College.

    Maybe somebody here can explain how a president, sworn by his inaugural oath to uphold and defend the people and the

    constitution of the United States can get away with trashing the same constitution, and ignoring the American people?

    My bet is Obama won't be an ethics instructor anytime soon. :cool:
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2011
  20. eaglesnester

    eaglesnester New Member

    73
    0
    0
    Lutenburg and 2nd amendment

    Look at how many of us have lost our 2nd rights retroactively because of Lutenburg. Look at how many of us have lost our 2nd amendment rights because of Bull **** DV charges by disgruntled wives in divorce cases. Lutenburg must go, I am supprised that congress has not done away with it.:mad: