The fight for the right to keep and bear arms

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

Molon Labe.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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!

 

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.

 

Where ya been, Clip? I was thinking you had left us. Glad you're back.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

'"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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.