|
|
Post by The Resister on Feb 1, 2023 16:07:09 GMT
I just noticed that we did not address the Second Amendment in all the threads we've done on this board. With the government now reclassifying AR pistols to become NFA registered weapons, this thread is way overdue. The far left is quick to accuse the right of " cherry picking" things to make it appear you have a Right to keep and bear Arms. Quite frankly, if you spent a lot of time researching the subject, the allegation would be insulting at best. Nevertheless, there is a need for us to put the Second Amendment into its proper perspective. Let's begin by interpreting the Constitution the right way. Let's quote Thomas Jefferson on a couple of points: " On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. " The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild,(sic) and government to gain ground." www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/natural-progress-things-spurious-quotation/George Washington weighed in on constitutional interpretation: " If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." Farewell Speech September 1796 oll.libertyfund.org/page/1796-george-washington-s-farewell-address-speechThis is the basis of original intent. What did the founders intend? Let's address the Bill of Rights first. Let's take ourselves back to the beginning as Jefferson admonished us: “ The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” – James Madison, Federalist 45, 1788 “ Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.” – James Madison, Essay on Property, 1792 “ The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry mspolicy.org/the-legitimate-power-of-government-begins-and-ends-with-the-people-while-its-authority-comes-from-the-creator/#:~:text=-%20The%20Declaration%20of%20Independence%2C%20July%204%2C%201776,our%20lives%20and%20interests.%E2%80%9D%20-%20Patrick%20Henry%2C%20attributed You know the Second Amendment: " 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." I think we should go right to the source for the facts. You will love the next posting. |
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Feb 1, 2023 17:33:27 GMT
The best evidence as to what the Second Amendment means comes straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. Why don't we ask the man who wrote the Second Amendment what it means?
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of...
the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
Is that clear enough? If not, consider that Madison was also president of the United States and nominated Joseph Story to the United States Supreme Court. Here are the words of a Justice of the United States Supreme Court, nominated to the bench by the man who wrote the Second Amendment:
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
The father of our country weighed in on the Right:
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions[/b].” -George Washington, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788
I don't know how much more clear the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment can be. I could do what gun Rights groups do and cite you many other examples, but I've cited the most authoritative sources on the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.
In my next installment on this thread, we will see how the earliest courts decided the issue AND how the more recent courts bastardized (watered down) your Right to keep and bear Arms.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Feb 1, 2023 19:04:58 GMT
If you aren't swayed by the wording of the Constitution (which calls for a regulated militia and NOT the regulation of firearms), then maybe the earliest court decisions may sway your thinking: " The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth.(1822) The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_StatesIn 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled: “ The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear: " The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." -Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859) Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in: “ The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence". United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875) In United States v. Cruikshank the Supreme Court could have over-ruled any of the state holdings. Instead they said that the Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. In other words, the Right was a pre-existing Right. In short, the Right to keep and bear Arms (as well as all Rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights) was held to be inherent, natural, pre-existing, absolute, God given, irrevocable, unqualified, unalienable and above the law making power. Now, I realize that isn't the way that Congress calls it any longer. That is a different thread. I'm answering all that in detail in my booklet The Resistance Manual. If you contact me through the Resisters website I will try to send a pdf copy as soon as the finishing touches are done (mid month February at the latest.) Until then, you might want to participate on this thread and also take a look at the following related forum topic: resisters.freeforums.net/thread/119/america |
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 413 
|
Post by professorx on Feb 2, 2023 21:10:06 GMT
Just to keep the thread active and up to date there are some things that we need to cover. The left wants to require background checks and Donald Trump leads the charge for trumpian zealots. www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/universal-background-check-law-would-not-violate-second-amendment/The basic problems with the universal background check is that they only work after someone has committed a crime. Also a minor's record is not considered nor should it be when they come of age and buy a firearm. That brings me to my main objection. Background checks are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. Where is the probable cause just because you choose to exercise a constitutional right? Somebody representing the anti-gun side needs to help me understand their views on these constitutional discrepancies. |
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Aug 10, 2023 3:24:18 GMT
Every time a new gun control law is passed, the left says, "well it's a start." The finish line for them is total gun control and such is always being pursued by the Democrats and Republicans alike because they don't give a rat's rear about what the Constitution says.
The latest outrage is going to come at the hands of the BATFE who, at the insistence of Lying Biden, is to outlaw private sales of firearms by forcing all sales to go through dealers. This is unenforceable UNLESS the firearms are registered. Now, do you stil doubt what a Form 4473 is really about?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Sept 7, 2023 21:58:20 GMT
I come down hard on the left because the party that is about abortion and making drugs legal (both contributing to the decline of America) would have you believe that give a rip about the lives of other people. What utter hogwash and THAT IS THE REAL REASON they refuse to post here and address the facts.
That in no way lets the right off the hook. The standard bearer for the Republicans is Donald J. Trump. Quite frankly I don't understand the left's objection to that dirt bag. Trump wants to outlaw so - called assault weapons, raise the age limit to purchase a firearm, have increased background checks (whatever that means), and eliminate Due Process. Trump babbles on about "take the guns early then give people their Due Process." I shudder to think how many people support that dumb ass for the leader of our country. He should be a poster boy for the far left (actually he is a silent poster boy for the Democrats.)
Gun control has never worked and it serves as a precursor to tyranny. The right repeats the talking points; however, rare is the person on the right that understands and lives by the concept of Rights that are above the government. Nobody, on either side of the mainstream aisle, wants to discuss how to reduce firearm deaths without gun control. Apparently the sanctity of life doesn't matter to the majority of people in the United States. Sorry to be so glum, but how much conversation do you see on this subject?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Feb 16, 2024 18:57:58 GMT
The threads in this forum almost never become outdated. But, something happened today that gave me a reason to revisit this thread and add some thoughts. Here they are: A woman named Sheryl T. from Decatur Georgia posted a reply to me on another board after I stated that I could virtually take mass shootings off the table without gun control. This was her response: " No wonder no one will listen., “address shootings without Gun Control.!!!” Curious, What is the ONE thing that all gun violence has in common? GUNS… that’s the common denominator… If it wasn’t a GUN, would it then be “GUN” violence…??" I told that poster that all DUI deaths have a common denominator: BOOZE. Now, you know damn well that she isn't advocating outlawing alcoholic drinks. And, since most of what I want to say to her would be deleted on that other site, it can be said here without censorship or deletion. The federal government of the United States does not have the authority under our Constitution to disarm the public. And anyone that is not committed to defending the Constitution should not be allowed the privilege of voting. Rather they should be investigated for sedition and possibly treason. But, that lady shows the abject ignorance by which the population views our Rights. She will not have the courage to come here and challenge me where people can be apprised of the facts. And she doesn't give a rats ass about saving lives. It is about gun control. It's about a pie in the sky fantasy of disarming the people. It's about an unrealistic fantasy that they can make the guns disappear. The right and the gun owners in general are an embarrassment because they don't address the real issues and they don't support what I'm saying. So, I have to give the Devil his due when the left says that the " conservatives" want the mentally ill to have guns. There is a grain of truth in that argument. The reason is, there are a lot of people strung out on drugs. If they get a whiff of my proposals to take mass shootings off the table, they think I'm coming after their pot or their prescribed " feel good drugs." The reality is that the shopping mall / school type of mass shootings are mostly committed by younger people on SSRIs. The known side effects of SSRIs are homicidal and suicidal tendencies. At the very least Congress should require that people undergo non-drug therapies before being given a prescription for psychotropic drugs. But, that seems to be too much to ask of either side on this issue. Now, let me address the left: There are more guns than people in the United States. Even IF I could agree with them on confiscating all the guns (and I can't), there would still be people being killed by firearms every single day for DECADES to come. So, if we could save lives with a few preventative measures that don't infringe on the Rights of the citizenry, WHY wouldn't we do it? Why? Isn't the objective in this discussion one about saving lives? And, if you can't get gun control passed right now, WHY wouldn't you consider other alternatives that could save lives TODAY? I can only come to one conclusion since nobody has ever answered that question in an open forum. They don't give a rip about saving lives; it's strictly about control. My view about what they want to achieve is a reflection of my own personal experiences. A couple of years ago a woman in my neighborhood had her home broken into by armed assailants. She took her own gun and defended herself: www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/video-shows-woman-firing-several-shots-home-intruders/U8jGpj16rIFjbtF1bO1A1I/The dumbassery of gun control advocates would have DENIED that lady from defending herself and / or IF she would defend herself she would have been outgunned. Her pistol probably held 13 rounds, which was only about three shots per intruder with the homeowner having to fight in near darkness and clouds of drywall dust when shots rang out. Who in the HELL are gun control advocates to tell a property owner what kind of weapon or how many shots they should be able to defend themselves with? I have a lot more to say along those lines, but just opening the door to see if Sheryl has the courage to defend her silly remarks aimed at me on a more liberal site where this could not have been posted. |
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 413
|
Post by professorx on Apr 26, 2024 3:11:40 GMT
Worth your time to watch. Support GOA
|
|
