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.
Yes, Newt is right on target with this (hence, the flak). Romney would go in the exact wrong direction (see his Mass. appointments), Santorum seems to have no clear understanding of the issue that I've heard him articulate.
Impeach them. Perjury on their "oath of office".
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
A right to keep arms, but not to bear arms.
Oh, that's like . . .
A right to keeps books, but not to read books.
“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
The late 18th century definition of “Militia” is simply an armed citizenry, “well regulated” has to do with the “regulation of Arms”, meaning military weapons....no more showing up with a squirrel rifle, bring a military arm.
Simple. ‘Nuff said.
To illustrate:
1. You are at home and a thug begins to break down your door. The thug intends to cause you great bodily harm or death. You display a firearm and the thug suddenly wants to be somewhere else.
2. You decide to leave your home on an errand. You are confronted by a thug who intends to cause you great bodily harm or death, but - oops, you don't have a permit to carry a firearm, and must now submit yourself to being severely injured or killed.
What's the difference? It's the same body! The same body that needs to be protected from great bodily harm or death in the home, also needs to be protected from great bodily harm or death OUTSIDE the home. The answer must simply be that the left believes that it is necessary to defend the home, not the body.
No, I think it just means we need to exercise it a bit more prominently until the Supreme Court can’t help but recognize it.
“Um, what about hunters? Sports shooters?”
In Illinois, they still don’t have the right to bear loaded weapons except on their property, or the property they will be hunting on. You have to have your hunting license with you, the ammo locked in an inaccessible compartment while you are traveling, etc, or they will bust you just like someone packing a pistol for self-defense.
I’m hoping. Andrew said “silver ponytails” were in it with the usurper. That could only mean Bill Ayers. I am wish-fulfilling the rest.
Our founding fathers believed that the Supreme Court was the weakest branch and that the legislative and executive branches would have ample abilities to check a Supreme Court that exceeded its powers.
See: White Paper on Combating Judicial Activism http://www.newt.org/solutions/protecting-life-and-religious-liberty
Here’s a better link: http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf
>No effective way to reign in the Judiciary, the fatal flaw of our Constitution.
Impeachment is *supposed* to be usable against Justices.
Though, in practice, you are right as nobody really seems to have the balls to be an advocate for the Constitution.
With Fast and Furious, Obama has shown us he will create problems with guns at the expense of hundreds of lives in order to manipulate the folks into supporting more takeaways.
You got it. Don’t bare arms in public. Wear long sleeves outside the house, the better to hide your derringer.
Not quite, there were no squirrel rifles in the 18th Century, they didn't come on the scene until all the hostile Indians and dangerous critters had been eliminated in the wilderness in the East. "Well Regulated" back then meant smooth running-operating, as in a well trained group.
“No effective way to rein in the Judiciary, the fatal flaw of our Constitution.”
NEWT CAN DO IT
The late 18th century definition of “Militia” is simply an armed citizenry, “well regulated” has to do with the “regulation of Arms”, meaning military weapons....no more showing up with a squirrel rifle, bring a military arm. Simple. ‘Nuff said.
Not quite, there were no squirrel rifles in the 18th Century, they didn’t come on the scene until all the hostile Indians and dangerous critters had been eliminated in the wilderness in the East. “Well Regulated” back then meant smooth running-operating, as in a well trained group.
Thank you, I stand corrected....have to get these things right.
Blast it, isn’t it about time to hang those who hate and want to destroy the constitution? This judge is what Newt was talking about. She needs to be impeached and thrown off the bench along with probably 10 to 15% of her peers. If that doesn’t happen before the chit hits the fan then her fate is a rope.
1. Please turn them in.
2ND Civil War ten minutes later
“If one is truly interested in reigning in these out of control courts that are destroying our culture then Newt should be your candidate, all others are either running from the issue or burying their head in the sand.”
Excellent. Well said.
No effective way to reign in the Judiciary, the fatal flaw of our Constitution.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Impeachment, you know that process that congress refuses to do. Even the justices of the Supreme Court are subject to same.
The judgey thinks like someone who has done way too many recreational drugs.
Flip answer: I have the right to keep arms trained on what I’m aiming at.
Serious answer: Shall not be infringed.
We should be grateful that our Founders created a government that limited our rights and individual liberties and thankful that our judges keep it that way.
That’s correct since impeachment creates a messy political climate and it’s so much easier to get Congress to simply dissolve a district and appoint Consitutionalists ala Thomas.
When was the last time that happened? The truth is there aren’t going to be any liberalesque quick fixes to our troubles. Government schools are indoctrinating kids to be ashamed of America, misunderstand the Constitution and dislike the fundamental Judeo-Christian traditions that created America. We’ll need school vouchers (along with a breaking of the government monopoly on what constitutes an education) and at least two generations of control over Congress. Then we’ll get our country back.
Common sense bump...
I remember when Clinton was in a panic to disarm the US too. There’s only so much tyranny the government can get away with if we are armed — the right to bear arms is like a shock absorber when creeps are in power. And it’s a chilling affect on thuggish government schemes.
Of course, without free speech and property rights, gun rights would also slowly erode. People todya rarely make a bold, united stand on a minor infringement; they don’t seem to understand the slippery slope concept well enough yet.
The perverse thing about removal of justices is that our current products of “higher” learning are taught that only bad personal behavior is a good reason to ax one, such as a justice who was removed for spitting in public. But according to our progressive ruling class professors, rulings enjoy immunity from removal.
The truth is different of course. Our founding fathers never wanted legislation from the bench, and removal of justices is an enumerated power. But our tenured acid-dropping professors of today will keep milling out more of our future leaders. [Note their fanatical support of Bill Ayers.]
Until college is reformed, the dangers of rogue courts will escalate. That is the fundamental divide between the ruling class and We the People. Individuals and government leaders funding colleges need to pressure colleges to behave themselves [regarding constitutionalism] far more than they currently are.
Corrupt judges, presidents, attorneys general etc., will not be impeached by corrupt legislators who themselves should be impeached. We are looking in a barrel of rotten apples and should not expect to find fresh fruit.
We have a totally corrupt government and we have it because the people have become weak and flabby. The national podium is occupied by people who spout pure idiocy and are confident that they will not be called out. Anyone who dares point out the Alice in Wonderland absurdity of modern life is called everything from racist to murderer. The “news” media is run almost exclusively by clowns of the worst sort. Who would have imagined that the ultimate replacement for Olberdoofus would be Al Sharpton who almost makes Olberdingdong look like a sensible man by comparison.
Why don’t we grab a few confirmed winos out of the gutter and bring them in complete with a bottle of “MadDog” wine and call them the new press corps, or is it corpse now, they would almost certainly be an improvement.
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.