Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rewrite the Second Amendment?
Magic City Morning Star ^ | Jun 2, 2004 | Richard D. Skidmore

Posted on 06/02/2004 12:44:36 PM PDT by neverdem

Richard Skidmore is a professor at Los Angeles Pierce College, Woodland Hills, California, having taught at Pierce College since 1975.

O’ Hear ye, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in their December decision that the Second Amendment of the Constitution was not adopted "to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession."

The left hails this courts decisions as decisive and correct, while the right sees the court as a bulwark to destroy our republican form of government and forging the links in chains of usurpation. Remember, this is the same federal court that declared the Pledge of Allegiance an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and has a record of more decisions reversed than any other court.

Have these judges made a sound judicial decision or legislated from the bench? The answer is in our history, our Constitution and especially the Second Amendment, a part of our "Bill of Rights." Some may think that surely this is a trick question that only a judge can divine. However, I assure you that the answer is meant for the common man in jury to resolve.

Judge for yourself, the Second Amendment states: "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."

Today’s media debates are often pro-gun and anti-gun advocacy matches. But reviewing the debates that confirmed our Constitution and our "Bill of Rights" we recognize that today’s debates are similar to those of 1787: Should we have a federal government that is overreaching and infringes on individual liberties or should the individual be protected and the federal government be limited?

Indeed I hear your question: Where can I find the answer to a limited or infringing government which in turn can resolve the debate on gun control and determine if the 9th Circuit Court gets an A or an F in its decision?

The answer is in two books, "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers." One may obtain them at any quality bookstore, each at under $10.

Federalists sought a central federal government to assure a "more perfect union," with the benefits that an energetic government would bring in commerce and prestige much as England had. James Wilson, Supreme Court Justice and signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, saw with particular clarity, strong government could as much serve the people when controlled by them as it could injure them when it was hostile.

Anti-federalists were skeptical of any new constitution and saw the federalist hopes as lust by ambitious men for a "splendid empire" where, in the time-honored way, "the people would be burdened with taxes, conscriptions, and campaigns." They saw the enlarged powers of any central government as familiar threats to the rights and liberties of the people.

Be not mistaken in this, Federalists understood the need to limit the powers of government having endured the long struggle to end the "tyranny" of kings and wanted insurance that government would be faithful to the people, stable, and filled with wisdom in its enactments.

As the debate over the new Constitution progressed, anti-federalist objections crystallized into specific proposals for amendments that would assure the new federal governments limited powers. In some state conventions, these amendments were insisted upon prior to their ratifying the Constitution. Their proposals being similar in nature were later included as the first ten amendments, which we call "The Bill of Rights."

Consider Virginia, in 1788, offered 20 amendments for consideration.

Its 17th states: "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."

Similarly Pennsylvania, upon ratification, issued 14 recommended amendments and the 7th reads: "That people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state … and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."

Considering our recorded history, one could reasonably ask: Did the 9th Circuit judges abrogate the history of our nation, ignore the grievances that compelled us to separate from England, discard the debates of the Federalists and Anti-federalists, legislate from the bench which is not their responsibility, and thus compel another re-writing of our natural history to justify their decree, relying on the general ignorance of the people to allow their decisions to stand? A simpler question is: What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood?

Richard Skidmore is a professor at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Ca. He may be contacted at rskidmor49@excite.com.

© Copyright 2003 by Magic City Morning Star


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: Maine; US: Pennsylvania; US: Virginia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2ndammendment; activistjudges; bang; banglist; guncontrol; gungrabbers; gunprohibition; judicialtyranny; limitedpowerofgovt; secondamendment; secondammendment; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-488 next last
The Ninth Circus uses magical thinking.
1 posted on 06/02/2004 12:44:39 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *bang_list

BANG


2 posted on 06/02/2004 12:45:26 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
3 posted on 06/02/2004 12:45:49 PM PDT by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The 9th circus sucks. Simple as that. Leftist who support socialism and homosexualism. Nothing more.


4 posted on 06/02/2004 12:47:03 PM PDT by RetiredArmy ( I am a Vietnam Vet, thus I am a war criminal according to Flip Kerry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Very clear and well put! Excellent post!


5 posted on 06/02/2004 12:54:37 PM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The Ninth Circus uses magical thinking.

Not at all. They write what they think will work. They don't care a whit how well supported it might be in law or history. After all, liberals are fascists; to them, this is about using power to get what they want by any means necessary.

6 posted on 06/02/2004 12:56:32 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; THEUPMAN

ping and a bump.

We cant expound on this enough.


7 posted on 06/02/2004 12:57:43 PM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Good article. Bump.


8 posted on 06/02/2004 12:59:06 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Is it time to stop playing nice yet?


9 posted on 06/02/2004 12:59:07 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I wonder if this writer bothered to read the dissenting opinions in the Silviera case. If so, the words of Judge Alex Kozinski would have told the stark truth of the matter.

I believe Kozinzki actually fled the Ceausescu regime in Romania, so perhaps he values his liberties a bit more than does the average citizen. In any event, Judge Kozinski explained that history could have been vastly different had American slaves or European Jews been able to arm themselves and fight back against the governments that oppressed them.

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees,” he wrote in his dissent. “However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

Kozinski also made special note of the interpretive inconsistency of the judges on the Reinhardt panel given their usual proclivity to find individual rights when the Constitution uses the words “people” or “person.” “Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms,” he wrote.

You know Judge Reinhardt (the moron who cited Bellesiles' already-discredited book in his ruling, then later deleted that little "oops") must hate Kozinski's guts.

Kozinski's dissent alone serves to show how the 9th Circuit is trying to re-write the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

10 posted on 06/02/2004 1:01:47 PM PDT by Charles Martel ("Who put the Tribbles in the Quadrotriticale?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Did the 9th Circuit judges abrogate the history of our nation, ignore the grievances that compelled us to separate from England, discard the debates of the Federalists and Anti-federalists, legislate from the bench which is not their responsibility, and thus compel another re-writing of our natural history to justify their decree, relying on the general ignorance of the people to allow their decisions to stand?

Well, yeah.

11 posted on 06/02/2004 1:04:44 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Add the words - "this time we really mean it."


12 posted on 06/02/2004 1:05:34 PM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
...one could reasonably ask: Did the 9th Circuit judges abrogate the history of our nation, ignore the grievances that compelled us to separate from England, discard the debates of the Federalists and Anti-federalists, legislate from the bench which is not their responsibility, and thus compel another re-writing of our natural history to justify their decree, relying on the general ignorance of the people to allow their decisions to stand?

Yes, as the 9th often has and will no doubt do again. Next question.

13 posted on 06/02/2004 1:06:56 PM PDT by brbethke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Richard Skidmore mis-quotes the Second Amendment...

His version: 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.

The actual version: 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.

The difference, of course, is in the punctuation.

The version Skidmore author uses is much more definitive. Unfortunately, we have to live with the one we have. It makes no sense to use as a basis for argument language that does not exist in the actual Constitution.

By hyphenating well-regulated, Skidmore emphasizes the meaning of regulated that refers to drilling and practice. By eliminating the first comma, Skidmore makes it clear that the militia is what is necessary for state security. And, finally, by eliminating the last comma, the statement that the right of the people shall not be infringed is much more direct and unequivocal.

Unfortunately, this exercise in creative writing exists nowhere in the law, so it is moot.
14 posted on 06/02/2004 1:07:13 PM PDT by bondjamesbond (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; RetiredArmy; GrandEagle; Carry_Okie; Charles Martel; Dead Corpse
The author hit the nail on the head when he asks: "Do the 9th Circuit judges [rely] on the general ignorance of the people to allow their decisions to stand?"

The answer, of course, is a resounding "Yes!" And this is why the Left has targeted our institutions of education indoctrination: if you can control how the majority of people think (or fail to think), then you can control the nation.

America must dis-band the country's largest and most powerful union: the National Education Association (which is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America). And I urge all parents to pull their children out of the public "school" system.

15 posted on 06/02/2004 1:10:20 PM PDT by SpyGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Great article!


16 posted on 06/02/2004 1:14:03 PM PDT by NRA2BFree (I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore, I am perfect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Methinks the 9th Circuit isn't grounded properly. Somebody needs to make sure their wiring is up to code.


17 posted on 06/02/2004 1:14:17 PM PDT by TheLurkerX (Libs are creepy & the're kooky,hysterical & spooky,they're altogether loopy, they cause me apoplexy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpyGuy

We already home school.


18 posted on 06/02/2004 1:14:20 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SpyGuy
My daughter is 9 months old. We are already planning on homeschooling.

I've even got her first .22 picked out. ;-)

19 posted on 06/02/2004 1:14:49 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Another amendment that was submitted and rejected was one that stated the BOR would also apply to the states.

In the above article, the Ninth Circuit was ruling on a California state law, which is not affected by the second amendment (which only applies to the federal government).

20 posted on 06/02/2004 1:17:22 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
Great article!

And written by a college prof in L.A., no less.

21 posted on 06/02/2004 1:17:27 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SpyGuy
America must dis-band the country's largest and most powerful union: the National Education Association
ABSOLUTELY!!! Along with the Department of Eduction.
This is why my children are in private school.
22 posted on 06/02/2004 1:20:09 PM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; PhilDragoo; Ragtime Cowgirl; Cindy; SusanTK; AdmSmith; seamole; Valin; Luis Gonzalez; ...

I wonder how long they would last, if they had to work for
love...instead of money?

23 posted on 06/02/2004 1:27:38 PM PDT by Smartass ( BUSH & CHENEY IN 2004 - Si vis pacem, para bellum - Por el dedo de Dios se escribió.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondjamesbond; boris
His version: 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 didn't notice the hyphen in his version.

IIRC, Boris had a reference about which of the one or three comma versions of the Second Amendment was correct. The version that the Congress voted on was different from the one that the state legislatures ratified. I think the clerk of the U. S. House of Representatives made a transcribing error.

Regardless, in all of the other amendments in the BOR they referred to individual rights. One of the first laws passed by Congress, the Militia Act in 1792, IIRC, expected every swinging Richard to bring his own piece if he had one.

24 posted on 06/02/2004 1:30:35 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The Ninth Circuit is the Volksgerichtshof of the Left.


25 posted on 06/02/2004 1:31:35 PM PDT by SAMWolf (Be careful when playing under the anvil tree.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smartass
I wonder how long they would last,
LOL!!!! That's GREAT!
26 posted on 06/02/2004 1:32:12 PM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All
Text of 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."


Anyone who actually reads AND understands the 2nd Amendment will see that there is no need or authority for any type of gun registration and there is no need for anyone to have to apply for a license to carry a gun.
Any political party, politician, judge (etc), organization or individual who trys to convince you that:
1) you must register a firearm
2) you must pass a background check
3) you must wait (x) amount of days before you can get your firearm
4) you need to have a license to carry a gun
is either uneducated about OUR rights as citizens
OR is actively working to undermine OUR country.

How Did the Founders Understand the Second Amendment?

CONGRESS in 1866, 1941 and 1986 REAFFIRMS THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms,
originated in the United States Congress in 1789 before being ratified by the States.
On three occasions since then--in 1866, 1941, and 1986--
Congress enacted statutes to reaffirm this guarantee of personal freedom
and to adopt specific safeguards to enforce it.


ON THE DAY BEFORE Thanksgiving 1993,
the 103d US Congress brought forth a constitutional turkey.
The 103d Congress decided that the Second Amendment did not mean what it said
("...shall not be infringed") and passed the Brady bill.

How the Brady Bill Passed (and subsequently - "Instant Check")
When the Brady Bill was passed into law on November 24, 1993,
the Senate voted on the Conference Report
and passed the Brady Bill by UNANIMOUS CONSENT.



27 posted on 06/02/2004 1:32:39 PM PDT by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub (Want better gun control? Try eating more carrotts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
In the above article, the Ninth Circuit was ruling on a California state law, which is not affected by the second amendment (which only applies to the federal government).

In your opinion, are they correct? Remember we're talking about the Ninth Circuit Court, here.

28 posted on 06/02/2004 1:36:51 PM PDT by tacticalogic (I Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
And written by a college prof in L.A., no less.

THAT is truly amazing! He gets it right, just in time for Diane Feinstein to try to sneak her AWB through Congress!! RATS never give up!!

29 posted on 06/02/2004 1:37:10 PM PDT by NRA2BFree (I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore, I am perfect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
He gets it right, just in time for Diane Feinstein to try to sneak her AWB through Congress!!

Q: When is infringing the right to keep and bear arms not "infringing the right to keep and bear arms"?

A: When it's "regulating commerce among the several states".

30 posted on 06/02/2004 1:42:24 PM PDT by tacticalogic (I Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Congressman Billybob
Another amendment that was submitted and rejected was one that stated the BOR would also apply to the states.

Do you have any idea how they managed that trick? If the states are subordinate to the Federal government, how can states infringe on supposedly, federally recognized individual rights, not that they don't try? Has SCOTUS ever made any definitive Second Amendment decision.

31 posted on 06/02/2004 1:48:50 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

See Tenth Amendment.


32 posted on 06/02/2004 1:52:47 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub

Thanks for the links.


33 posted on 06/02/2004 1:55:29 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Art 6
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
34 posted on 06/02/2004 1:59:00 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The ninth court out to be retired. These folks are supremely senile.

"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."

Look, you got to have a gun to form a militia, right? So that's why they wanted the people as individuals to have guns, so they could form a militia, as needed. These folks on the 9th court have too much "education". hey have become terminally stupid.

35 posted on 06/02/2004 1:59:14 PM PDT by RISU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Someone help me here; I'm only just seeing this.

This isn't Broken Newz? They did it? They REALLY did this?


My god.


36 posted on 06/02/2004 1:59:27 PM PDT by Old Sarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel

Thanks for the comments on Kozinzki.


37 posted on 06/02/2004 2:01:15 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

It is a common misunderstanding that the BOR applies only to the feds. Properly read the 9th and 10th Amendments should have taken care of that at the founding. The 14th Amendment should remove all doubt. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." I admit that historically courts have been mixed on this subject (mainly because some jurists want to be able to oppress minorities IMHO).


38 posted on 06/02/2004 2:02:40 PM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Good point.


39 posted on 06/02/2004 2:03:47 PM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Don't forget fuzzy logic (the bad kind).


40 posted on 06/02/2004 2:04:10 PM PDT by Liberatio (Please forgive my misspelling. Veritas Vos Liberabit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Are they correct in their interpretation of the second amendment? I don't know. I would think not, but it's a moot point.

The California legislature can write any gun law they please since the citizen's RKBA is not protected by the California Constitution.

41 posted on 06/02/2004 2:05:46 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RKV
There is also this one:
Art 4
Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

As it is an "enumerated Right", this Right should extend via this mechanism, and the others, to ALL US citizens who have not had their Rights removed via due process in a criminal proceeding.

Unless of course, our government considers us all "criminals"... in which case the government itself would need to be disabused of that notion.

42 posted on 06/02/2004 2:06:38 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Technically, yes, they use "magical thinking". They also show every sign of most of their members having the kind of brain damage you get from snorting cocaine too often.


43 posted on 06/02/2004 2:07:06 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

You are still a gun grabber. And very wrong as well.


44 posted on 06/02/2004 2:07:10 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Color me a 2nd Amendment absolutist, in fact, I am pretty much of an absolutist about the whole %&^$ Constitution. Not that the judges and legislators have ever let the actual words/meaning of the document stop them from doing what they wanted.


45 posted on 06/02/2004 2:10:15 PM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RKV

Amen...


46 posted on 06/02/2004 2:11:51 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Just doing a consistency check on the "It has to be wrong because it's the Ninth Circuit." argument.


47 posted on 06/02/2004 2:11:54 PM PDT by tacticalogic (I Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So that means that states can infringe on federally recognized individual rights?

48 posted on 06/02/2004 2:13:37 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
From the Dred Scott decision, "...For if they [blacks] were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
49 posted on 06/02/2004 2:16:22 PM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RKV

Ditto. Color me a Life Member of the NRA.


50 posted on 06/02/2004 2:19:49 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (STAGMIRE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-488 next 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson