General Categories > Laws and Legislation

What the 2nd Amendment didn't say

<< < (3/4) > >>

Phantom:

--- Quote from: Dan W on March 09, 2013, 09:47:45 PM ---If I recall, the Supreme Court majority in Heller v DC found that the fundamental right to bear arms in defense of self predated the Constitution, and that the Bill of Rights merely affirmed the natural right to self defense, and limited the governments power to infringe upon it.
--- End quote ---

Dan they the government don't seem to be very limited in the power to infringe upon it right now

Hank:
skip everything else and just read under; Ratification Debates, thats all you need to know..lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Amendment_USA

GreyGeek:

--- Quote from: Hank on March 09, 2013, 11:27:33 PM --- Ratification Debates, thats all you need to know..lol
--- End quote ---

The Executive Branch has attempted to peal off a bit of the authority of the Judicial Branch by dividing the "Judicial Process" definition into two types: that of  the current "Judicial Process" involving the requirement for warrants to invade personal space or homes and seize personal property, trial by jury of ones peers with the right to cross examine accusers, etc..., and the new version called "due process" defined by AG Holder in which the POTUS, by Executive Order, has the "right" to declare any citizen on  American  soil a "terrorist" and have him or her executed without Judicial Process.   The "due process" Holder referred to takes place entirely in the mind of the POTUS.   It is EXACTLY the kind of "due process" that is used by Kings and Tyrants.   Holder was forced to back down but the E.O. has not been revoked.

Meanwhile, we now have a stream of warrantless searches  taking place in homes, on persons, at "DUI" road stops,  VIPER stops, all backed up by law enforcement officers who have been given military grade equipment and many show no hesitation using it against ordinary people who are considered guilty until THEY prove themselves innocent.  Some seem to enjoy  their ability to  abuse power with military grade  equipment.  The government has ordered thousands  of drones to supplement their warrantless seizure of emails and personal information from ISPs (Google refused!),  credit card companies, phone companies, some libraries, and their monitoring of ALL internet traffic using the grandson of Echelon.   The worst abuse is the  NSL, authorized by the hypocritically name PATRIOT Act, which prevents the accused or their attorney from mentioning the  accusation oir chages against them to  anyone,  including spouse or family, prevents them from seeing the evidence against them (to protect "national security"), and subjects them to trial in a special court with  a specially trained judge, exactly the kind of court and judge Hitler made extensive use of.    A  jury of peers is not welcome.   Local law enforcement, especially in cities with strict gun control laws, are attacking law abiding citizens who video tape their public activities on public land, filing bogus "resisting arrest" charges when no crime or suspicion of crime is evident, and then destroying the video record.  In cases where secondary videos were revealed in  court challenges the video record destroyed the testimony of police who often claim they were attacked first, or the accused was at a place or doing something the second video repudiates.

We are on the edge of slipping into a police state,  for our "own safety", or "for the children".   Despots always surround their public images with children or victims, real or imaginary.

Wikipedia relates the attitude of the Framers of the Constituion, especially the 2nd Amendment:

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"  Noah Webster similarly argued:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.

The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.

Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed....

"A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Those opposed to the 2nd Amendment are now in a battle not to infringe it, but to REPEAL IT.   Considering it  is they who want to use "due process" instead of "judicial process", who are now flying drones, seizing and searching our private communications, making warrantless road stops, and home searches and arrests, and doing all the other things the "Kings Men" did, we should be concerned about what their true motives are.    They took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic,  willingly, without mental reservations or purpose of evasion".   That they are now doing their best, against their own oath,  to infringe that which should not be infringed indicates that they have other motives. 

It isn't about "assault" rifles, because those were banned in the 1980s, and the vast majority of mass shootings taking place in "gun free zones" were committed by psychotic individuals carrying semi-automatic pistols, not assault weapons or even semi-automatic rifles.   Honest, law abiding citizens did not commit those  heinous crimes, and the "assault weapon ban" from 1994 to 2004 did NOT reduce the number of mass shootings.  In the 17 years before than ban there were 16 mass shootings.  During that ban there were 26.  Since that ban sunset  there have been 27 more shootings.  The ban had NO affect, and new bans will not be any more effective.  The shootings reveal a pattern that only an ideologue with an agenda could miss: the shooters are on psychotic drugs!    It is not law abiding citizens, or even armed felons, who  are doing the shooting in areas where guns are not supposed to be carried.   That doesn't seem to give THEM a clue that while the shooters are mentally disturbed, they are not so stupid as to not realize that they won't be fired upon while killing innocents in gun free zones because law abiding citizens will not carry arms in those zones, even to their own peril or death.

Now, Colorado has passed their solution, which increases the number of gun free zones and further disarms law abiding citizens so that they will be an even more vulnerable prey to  the psychotic shooter or the merciless thug, neither of which care a whit about gun laws.  It should be more obvious than ever that their real agenda is to replace our Republic with  their version of a Socialist Utopia in which the citizens are unarmed benefactors of their "benevolent" good will and "social" justice reigns supreme, unless you not on their "entitlement" list.

SS_N_NE:
I have offered up numerous times that the entire gun control debate is not about the control of firearms.  Although some individuals would enjoy the control they imposed on citizens they are not really interested in limiting a few firearms. The true goal is everything that can be hidden under the disquise of gun control safety. Using the media to drive people in emotion over fear politicians seek to control and get access to federal money. Politicians that exhibit the greatest desire to create a control bill have agenda driven by the need for more money to supplement shortages in their state. Money is power. A gun control bill would provide for huge law enforcement funds. Building state and city armies are power. A flood of studies and other related funding is money to anyone supporting the bill. These gun-grabbers are money-grabbers.
Gun owners are so focused on our loss of interest or potential loss that the core reason is ignored. Everyone on the other side of the gun control issue have been divided by fear and emotion. Divide and conquer...a typical battle plan.

Everyone from both sides can be brought together by exposing the true intent of gun control legislators. These politicians waited for a significant tragic event and are using it to creating a way to get money. Imagine the cold excitement that they had the media tool they needed. We should all be disgusted by the actions and intent of gun control legislators. Not necessarily that they threating our interests and rights but also that they used tragic events to get media emotion they needed to divide people of the United States against each other simply to get money for their failing state economic goals, lacking agenda and strive for power.

We can discuss the statistics of gun violence until we find ourselves over our heads in a bill. We can lament the tearing away of a natural and Constitutional right. Or, we can expose the true goals of these politicians and stop them.  The politicians may own several venues of media but it is becoming old. We have more ability to pass information on an individual level than ever before.
 
Pass the word, expose the true goals of these politicians and their dispicable methods of playing citizens against each other in the name of money and power. People hate being cheated. There is an opportunity to turn that into anger and resolve. In this time of excess government spending we should not be forced to pay for the issues of big city financial issues and crime problems.  Our interests and rights should not be stripped simply as a smoke screen for an agenda. Our leadership should not be using propaganda against it's people for their power.

Dan W:

--- Quote from: GreyGeek on March 10, 2013, 11:13:45 AM ---Now, Colorado has passed their solution, which increases the number of gun free zones
--- End quote ---

Whoa! what has passed?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page