Posted on 02/13/2012 1:19:23 PM PST by Nachum
When Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), spoke at CPAC on February 10th, he predicted that if Barack Obama wins a second term it will usher in an all-out attack on the Second Amendment. In so many words, he said the same people who brought us Fast and Furious, “a criminal enterprise” for which there has yet to be prosecutions, will use four more years to gut constitutional protections on the right to keep and bear arms. And anyone who wonders what this assault on the Second Amendment might look like need look no further than Illinois, where a judge that President Obama appointed has just ruled that we have the right to keep arms, but not to bear them.
That’s not a typo. Rather, it’s an unbelievable decision recently delivered by U.S. Judge Sue Myerscough, in a challenge which the Second Amendment Foundation filed against Illinois’s ongoing prohibition against carrying concealed weapons in that state. Said Myerscough, in rendering her decision: “[Although the] plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment protects a general right to carry guns that include a right to carry operable guns in public … [the] Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home.”
This is troubling for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Myerscough has completely disregarded the fact that our natural, God-given rights are not subject to court approval for viability. Rather, our Founding Fathers used the Bill of Rights to build a hedge of protection around those rights with which we were endowed by our Creator. And one of those rights was the right to self-defense, and therefore the right not only to keep but also to bear the arms necessary to defend ourselves. On this point, the language
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
And of course, if the Supreme Court has not recognized a right, we don't have it, right?
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
She doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
It’s going to be so much fun watching the Left implode with cries of “RACISM” when Breitbart releases those videos of Steve Dunham quoting Marx and Alinski to an eager radical audience composed of the likes of Ayers and Dohrn a couple of weeks before the election.
The second Amendment guarentees this right.
It does NOT require affirming by ANY court!
Can you imagine the fools trying to confiscate weapons anytime in the next 20 years?
1. Please turn them in.
2. Amnesty
3. Confiscate all FFL records
4. More threats and pressure
5. 2nd Civil War
Um, what about hunters? Sports shooters? That’s outside of your home! Idiot leftists trying to splice language to fit their “feeeeeeelings”.
Somebody buy this dipsh*t a dictionary.
Deconstructionism A term tied very closely to postmodernism, deconstructionism is a challenge to the attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text. Basing itself in language analysis, it seeks to "deconstruct" the ideological biases (gender, racial, economic, political, cultural) and traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and religious "truths." Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination - of nature, of people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc. Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all.
The words of the Constitution are what the 9 Supreme Court Justices - including the total fruitloops like Souter and Ginsberg - say they are on any particular day.
It’s not so much a Constitution as an Etch-A-Sketch.
No effective way to reign in the Judiciary, the fatal flaw of our Constitution.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
“Americans of the Revolutionary generation distinguished between the individual’s right to keep arms and the need for a militia in which to bear them. Yet it is equally clear that more often than not they considered these rights inseparable.”
I can tell you what means, lady. It means “Tread on me at your own risk.”
This is typical lefty obfuscation, like those who try to say that Article 2’s use of the words “citizen” and “natural born citizen” was just a redundancy.
They can blow me
))
))
a kiss on Valentines Day.
It provides for impeachment and removal but Congress is too gutless to use that mechanism anywhere near as often or as broadly as it now needs to be used.
time to fight fire with fire........... ok, if I cannot bear then outside my home, then it does not matter what type and kind of firearms I keep inside my home... machine guns, mortars, grenades, cannon, howitzers... it does not matter....let’s see what the libs say to that one
Come and take it, Barky.
Wow. Is that what Breitbart has? And was he using yet another alias back then?
Sue Turnyourheadandcough is clueless and full of crap.
The building is not on fire. Please remain in your seats.
baraq is running for reelection while at the same time ramping up his assault on the Constitution.
Ususually a sitting president does everything to endear himself with the American people.
This cocky sob is stirring the pot.
Like they think this thing is in the bag.
interesting.
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.