Posted on 01/28/2011 3:03:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
>>Yet a majority of our Supreme Court chooses to ignore the “well-regulated Militia” part of the Second Amendment and focus exclusively on citizens’ right to bear arms.
>
>Ok smart guy. what does the phrase “well-regulated Militia” in the 2nd amendment mean? Go on, give us a chuuckle.
There’s a good reason that they don’t look into that phrase: it would show that the Supreme Court could be prosecuted for Treason.
It is defined in Art 3, Sec 3, of the Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
In 1973 the Supreme Court declared abortion-prohibitions to be illegal in Roe v. Wade.
From that time to 1992, there were a total of 28,511,400 abortions; of these 25 million we could multiply by .5 to get the approximation of the number of males, slightly better approximation would be .51*, which yields 14,540,814.
The selection of 1992 is not a coincidence; it is the year in which everyone born would now be 18, which is the age normally cited in State Constitutions as being in the militia. {i.e. “All able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45.”}
Now everyone knows that one way of defeating an army is to deplete its population; that is kill or maim or severely wound all who would be capable of resisting violence. (So, a massive killing of people who would otherwise be members of the Militia IS giving aid & comfort to the enemies of the States.) The above statistics show that the Supreme Court has DIRECTLY deprived the several States of more than 14 MILLION such persons.
Therefore, the Supreme Court is guilty of Treason. (Especially since it could have revisited Roe v. Wade at any time since.)
* http://www.bookofodds.com/Health-Illness/Pregnancy-Birth/Articles/A0042-Predicting-Baby-Gender
Uh no, Mr. Science, what they see is an opportunity a government can hide behind to advance the cause of tyranny, and want to get theirs while the getting's good. Moron.
Gabby's Jewish? I didn't know that.
1 — Restore the right to keep and bear arms to ex-felons.
2 — Allow felons and other criminals to carry weapons, for their own protection, within [federal] prisons.
3 — Give actual consequences to governmental-agents who would deprive a freeman [or even otherwise] of the right to keep and bear arms."
Man! I need you to explain #2 to me. Did you mean, "NOT allow"???
Nope, it WOULD allow them to carry weapons in prisons (re-read how it is written).
Now, you might be uncomfortable about the prospect, but if you’ve either been a [US] prison guard or known one then you’ll know that prisons actually have a LOT of weapons therein. The prisoners themselves are crafty about making shivs, in particular — some of the methods are quite unsanitary and that is the point in some of them: to introduce not only a wound but encourage infection.
Keep in mind that these are our current prisons I’m talking about. The “no weapons” policy is therefore more of a myth and illusion-of-safety. If we remove the federal government’s ability to prohibit people from carrying weapons wholly and completely then this illusion is destroyed. {Furthermore, it would mean that any secure/”no weapons” prisoner-facility MUST be under a State’s control.}
No, I’m sorry, I still don’t get it. Help.
Hm, ok.
Let’s put it this way: if we allow the federal government *ANY* way to deprive people of the right to keep and bear arms they will. It may start off as a small thing like them saying “well, gee, no civilian REALLY needs a minigun...” (ie 20,000-60,000 rounds per minute) and then they’ll say “well, we don’t want bad-guys to have fully automatic rifles” and so they illegalize civilian possession thereof. Then they say, well felons are bad-guys, why don’t we bar them possessing guns? And so forth, until you get where we are today.
You may think we have a lot of gun freedom, but we really don’t. In fact there’s a bit of a timebomb: in 2014 obamacare kicks in and makes it a felony for someone not to have qualifying healthcare. {As far as I know there are no exceptions for unemployment or ‘gaps’ in coverage if you want to switch providers.} Now consider that carefully, a felony for not having health insurance! And out current real unemployment rate +20% , and looking like it won’t improve any time soon.
So yes, I mistrust the federal government when it comes to weapons so much that I’d rather see every felon issued a 9mm upon internment into federal prison than have the government abridge the rights of people who have otherwise served their sentences (which is the case today). What’s the worst they could do? Kill each other and reduce the prison population? Kill prison guards? {Yeah, they could... and then the question becomes “who’ll bring them food?”}
Ha! Ha! I getcha. I guess I'd rather see the same, also - every felon issued a 9mm upon internment into federal prison than have the government abridge the rights of people. Thanks so much for taking the time to keep responding.
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.