Posted on 03/29/2011 7:22:21 PM PDT by DBrow
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Actually, the Constitution would have teeth, were it not a piece of paper that nobody cares to actually follow. The key is the Supremacy Clause. Fundamentally, it means that any government action which violates the Constitution is illegitimate, and those actions which on their face violate the Constitution are legitimate on their face.
If a government agent smashes his way into a dwelling in a fashion which a jury, appraised of the situation, would say fails to meet any of the following requirements, the agent is a robber and should be regarded as such.
How about the following:
Government personnel who would seek to illegitimately disarm free persons, or penalize them for refusal to disarm, shall be regarded as robbers; free persons have a right and duty to treat them as such.That's better, I think, than any government-imposed penalty.
I was mulling that over today, how could a form of penalty assessment be included and remain legal. Tie it to the States. I.E. generate a statement to be included in the Amendment along the lines of your thoughts and let it be determined by the same range of penalty in that State the offence occurred in. That would be determined by the residence of the Complainant, not the defendant.
Also, the penalty should not be any less than if the Complainant had been injured or killed as a result of the infringement of their Second Amendment right. This would apply whether or not the Complainant got so much as a scratch. Minimum, voluntary manslaughter.
If the Complainant actually did incur bodily harm? Whoooo buddy! Maximum? Same as Attempted Murder.
Around here azzholes like Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. WYDEN could wind up in prison for a very long time.
A TEXAS prison...
And if it was proven the Complainant dies due to not being able to defend themselves adequately in the face of an attack because they could not be legally armed at the time of the attack, Capital Murder and that could include Death Row.
.
I'm not sure you understood my point. Is it necessary to give robbers, especially ones who are not immediately obsequious, any quarter whatsoever?
None whatsoever. And I would not consider infringement of the Second Amendment mere thievery. When someone causes a Citizen to not be able to defend themselves, I liken that to forms of attempted murder and murder itself.
My reference to a Texas prison stemmed from my statement that if any of the commie politicians, domestic or foreign , did anything to infringe and thus endanger any resident of Texas they would have to pay the price in a Texas prison.
And that is something they would be WELL advised to avoid.
The above would apply to any legislation, local, county, State, Federal or foreign, that resulted in some form of a law or treaty. As far as any idiot actually showing up on the property of a Texas resident and attempted to disarm them as a result of such a law, well, here in Texas we have the Castle Doctrine...
We Texans highly recommend it to all other States that have not yet made it law.
.
Yup. Nothing sells more guns than an anti-gun legislator.
My point was that if a robber tries to steal someone's gun by force, regardless of whether the robber receives a government paycheck, the robber should consider himself lucky if he lives to see the inside of a prison.
If government-sponsored robbers were properly regarded as such, very few people would want to take the job.
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.