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

To: neverdem
The court is just wrong. I'm not even a lawyer and I can see this. I'm embarrassed for the judge that handed down this ruling - like showing up to a packed court naked. Your foolishness is on display for everyone to see.

What part of fundamental, inalienable right do they not get? The right to defend ones self is perhaps the most basic one there is - it allows us to (try to) ensure our continued existence. The right to keep and bear arms as a means of doing that is so fundamental the Founding Fathers of our Country enshrined it in the 2nd Amendment. Ok, not the first thing, but the second out of ten. What they recognized is that the right to self defense is inalienable, and firearms are so important to this that they wanted a guarantee that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government.

That is a subtle but important distinction that would-be gun grabbers gloss over. The 2nd Amendment does not give nor grant us any rights. What is given/granted can be taken away. What the 2nd Amendment states is that the government shall not infringe on that fundamental right.

Consider the 1st Amendment, loved, used, and abused by so-called artists to shock and offend. (personally I think when you have to go for shock value, your "art" has no other intrinsic value and you're a poor excuse for an artist) But consider if the 1st Amendment was attacked by the courts and would-be "speech-grabbers" like the 2nd Amendment is:

Ridiculous right? And don't even get me started on religion side of the 1st Amendment. So why is it that people acquiesce to these attacks on the 2nd Amendment? I guarantee you that without the 2nd Amendment, we would not have the others either for very long.

10 posted on 12/06/2012 8:27:22 PM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ThunderSleeps

[[Your foolishness is on display for everyone to see.]]

That didn’t stop john roberts of hte supreme court- He shirked his oath before God and man and issued a ruling that violated our rights, and gave our dear leader to any danm thing he wants now under the false pretense that ‘the supreme court is not in business to protect citizens agaisnt bad choices’ Really? Because I was under the impressio n that the supreme court was our last and only hope of protection against a rogue goernment that tramples our rights- and now apparently that is the end of it

[[The right to defend ones self is perhaps the most basic one there is]]

They KNOW that but are hell bent on takign that right away from us- if they can’t take it away directly, they take it away indirectly by making it nearly impossible to obtain a gun or own certain guns- They falsely claim that that right was only for militias

[[What the 2nd Amendment states is that the government shall not infringe on that fundamental right.]]

Again, their FALSE claim is that that fundamental right is only for militias=- despite the constitution neve4r mentioning that it is only for militias- the ,left has been desperately tryign to make the claim stick, but they have no evidence that that is what the constitution says- they can’t even prove that we don’t have a fundamental right and that our government- whether state OR federal, can NOT infringe on that right.

I don’t know how this hasn’t been settledi nthe supreme court yet- the anitgunners have NO proof that the consitution was talkign only abotu militias-


18 posted on 12/06/2012 9:53:02 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: ThunderSleeps
The first three amendments are inextricably linked. There's thousands of years of history behind the First, but actually only a few hundred behind the Second ~ to wit, the extension of the right to keep and bear arms to those of other than noble birth ~ and about 100 to the third ~ which was the right to NOT provide room and board to the king's military.

Although the third looks like it targets George iii practice of housing troops in private dwellings, the real target was Louis XIV's practice of housing troops in private dwellings to force the inhabitants to attend the church of HIS choice.

26 posted on 12/07/2012 7:02:57 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

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