Skip to comments.
How The Courts Are Using The Second Amendment Against Us
Federal Observer ^
| 17 April 2002
| Jeff Booth
Posted on 04/17/2002 10:44:23 AM PDT by 45Auto
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
To: Gig
Question: What do you call a government that ignores the basic rights of the people, especially those rights that are enumerated as being "inalienable?"
Tyrannical! Blackbird.
To: pabianice
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that the Second Amendment does not exist -- that there is no right to have firearmsSo has the California Supreme Court and the 9th Federal Circus Court of Appeals.
22
posted on
04/17/2002 12:30:16 PM PDT
by
45Auto
To: Arthur McGowan
It is inevitable that the day will come when the government is reminded first hand of the true reason for the second amendment and it may not be a huge event (like attempting to steal a presidential election) that will be the trigger.
Today's news has a story of a couple brothers in CA who wanted to get a permit to repair their house. They were told that their house had been designated an historical landmark and they would have to jump through some very expensive hoops to get the permits to do the repairs (repairs mind you, not remodeling). I was thinking some little local yokel with way too much self importance & power will probably be the cause of the straw that breaks the camel's back. It will start small and grow.
Believe me I don't want to see it happen but as long as government refuses to reform itself and as long as sheeple are blind to the downward spiral this country is in, there will come a day when somebody is going to say enough is enough. (Note: Tim McVeigh was a coward who took out his anger on innocents which only made matters worse.)
There's an old saying I can't quite remember but it goes something like "first the ballot box, then the soap box, then the ammo box."
23
posted on
04/17/2002 12:39:08 PM PDT
by
NEPA
To: 45Auto
Chief Justice Warren Burger, when asked for his opinion on the Second Amendment, said it was "...one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I've ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies--the militias--[preamble] would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment [referring to the preamble] refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires." Mr. Burger is correct insofar as there was much debate in the state conventions as to how the Republic would defend itself. He is incorrect about Jefferson's intent in writing the 2nd Amendment. The amendment is a paraphrase of an amendment proposed by Virginia as a condition for that state's ratification:
"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
There's no mistaking the intent in that wording. It's too bad that they reworded it. (You can find Virginia's ratification at Virginia.)
24
posted on
04/17/2002 12:47:15 PM PDT
by
OBAFGKM
To: 45Auto
BUMP
25
posted on
04/17/2002 4:52:17 PM PDT
by
Aurelius
To: William Tell
the reference to a free State, is not necessarily the geographical but can be interpreted as the metaphysical state of freedom that individuals possess when they are armed. "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," read this way, " A well armed and trained citizenry, able to fight for their freedom and that of their neighbors, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
26
posted on
04/18/2002 6:38:44 AM PDT
by
teeman8r
To: teeman8r
teeman8r said: "... the reference to a free State, is not necessarily the geographical but can be interpreted as the metaphysical state of freedom that individuals possess when they are armed. "
I am not sure that you meant to direct this to me. I understand the "free State" mentioned in the Second Amendment to mean the political entity which derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. That makes the Second Amendment as compelling with regard to fighting tyranny at the state level as at the federal level.
To: William Tell
i concur, sorry about the mispost... but, consider me a brother in arms...
28
posted on
04/18/2002 2:15:38 PM PDT
by
teeman8r
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson