Posted on 01/11/2013 5:22:21 AM PST by Bull Man
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.
As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.washingtontimes.com ...
You know...I never thought of that, but can't say it is a bad idea. As a matter of fact, rather like it!
I was over there in country during OIF when that “certain” incident occurred — and thought to myself - he did what any great commander would do for his troops — I remember an O-6 (MP) telling my about it - my reply, “Good for him.”
but for decades the "Fairness Doctrine" said that free speech meant that the licensed broadcasting industry (individual radio stations) must offer air time for opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.. or else!
The First Amendment remained but conservative opinion was stifled simply by citizens' (liberal shills') complaints about "fairness" thus threatening the station owners' licenses..
a kinda of "Fairness Doctrine" approach would give the illusion that the Second Amendment was respected. Maybe, complaints from gun-grabber shills that it's not fair how Joe Gunowner does this or that so he must store his firearms at a government location or something . . . .
The point is: We never agreed to give up our First Amendment rights but . . . .
Debating the 2nd Amendment’s wording is another diversion when we consider its context: it is part of the Bill of Rights. Does anyone believe that when the Founders compiled their catalogue of inalienable rights (free speech, due process, protection against search and seizure, etc.) that they would, in just the second item, change the subject to conscripts’ military preparedness against foreign invaders? Such an interpretation is a laughable non sequitur.
It is clear that the 2nd Amendment was intended to function exactly as the rest of the Bill of Rights: protect the individual from the government.
Statement From the NRA Regarding Today’s White House Task Force Meeting
Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again. We attended today’s White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.
We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners – honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works – and what does not.
-NRA-
I thought it was Janet Napolitano who said this and just had to see.
Andrew Napolitano for President!
Where did this crazy idea pop up that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect our hunting rights? It unquestionably was put there by the Founders so the citizens of the USA could defend themselves against a tyrannical Government - the situation we are entering now in 2008.
“That I will support and defend the Constitution of The United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
This is written to mean that the military shall not follow a tyrannical governments orders.
Do you think our modern military will read this in the manner in which it was written or will they follow A tyrannical governments orders?
I personally am not sure that they understand what it says
because in some ways they have also been dumbed down.
So when will the NRA start telling its members how best to ACT using the 2A as their badge?
Seriously, we could all just jump in the cattle cars straight to the re-education camps like Beck wants us to do to “overwhelm the courts” or we just act at the count of one while Obama waits for three.
Actually most colonists had better weapons. The redcoats used I think about75 calibre smooth bore Brown Bess with very poor accuracy. While most colonists had rifles that could shoot accuratly out to 200 plus yards.
Right now a major, long term project for gun rights supporters should be to establish the states as a “buffer” between the federal government and the people.
That is, by ourselves, the people will eventually be overwhelmed by federal cunning and persistence, likely because they have what they think is a bottomless purse, and are willing to keep at it 24/7, just wearing the resistance of the people down.
So the people need to enlist the help of the states as a balance against the federal government, something the founding fathers knew all too well.
In practical terms, we need for the states to recognize that the second amendment in not *just* an individual right, but also a states’ right. A tenth amendment issue as well.
The way the people are protected by the states is for the states to assert sovereignty over gun law which was unconstitutionally usurped by the federal government.
Eight states — Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming — have adopted laws in recent years that would exempt guns made in the state from federal regulation as long as they remain in the state.
However, this needs to be enlarged in two ways: both by increasing the number of states asserting this authority; and just as importantly, by creating legal incentives (removing legal obstacles) for gun and ammunition manufacturers to begin production of “state guns”, not for export.
A good, backdoor approach to this would be to create “classic” guns, with ornate “state” engraving. Right now, for example, several companies make reproduction Sharps rifles, and with the addition of a laser engraved “Montana” put on it, for example, it would be clear that it is exempt from federal gun laws as long as it stays in, and is used exclusively in, Montana.
Such guns are highly functional, but would also appear to be decorative, which would help when the federals took the manufacturer to court for not being federally licensed.
But if the state won that case, it would open the door to the production of all sorts of state guns in contravention of federal law.
Newt Gingrich is available, too, last I heard.
The Leftard newsies would absolutely hate being assigned to try to screw him over in a live interview. He'd eat their lunches and wouldn't leave a tip.
Point taken. Our hybristic, amoral, motivated, and therefore tactically superior opponents will do whatever they can imagine to do us out of our rights to live as we wish, and that we must, at this crisis, simply set our faces in stone and refuse their every advance, trick, importunity, and lie.
Dr. Suzanna Hupp Testimony (Better Quality) to Congress on the Second Amendment
The last few seconds are truly priceless!
Dezinformatsiya put out by the other side. The intention being to isolate owners of carbines, AR's, and AK's as some sort of special offenders.
“Where did this crazy idea pop up that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect our hunting rights?”
Any politician who is so ignorant about the constitution that they think the 2A protects hunters is by definition too ignorant to hold office. That especially goes for Commissar Cuomo. Hey Andy, I dont need 10 bullets to kill a deer, I need 30 bullets to defend my liberty from tyrants like you!
I’m afraid too many of our elected officials and members of our military only take their oaths as a formality and not as a serious obligation.
She's a survivor of the cafeteria killings in Killeen, Texas (yes, Fort Hood is very nearby), 20 years ago, when bitter-ender Charles Hennard drove his pickup through the plate-glass front of a Luby's cafeteria, got out, and started killing people with a pair of autopistols.
Liberals immediately went off on the fact that at least one of Hennard's pistols was a double-stacker. But Hupp, who was there, fought back, saying that her parents died right there at her table because she, unwilling to risk an offense, left her personal revolver in her vehicle's glove compartment. Hennard wasn't stopped until the Texas DPS officers who "were only minutes away" finally showed up and killed him.
Concealed carry wasn't legal at that time in Texas, and any kind of carry was a Class B misdemeanor. That law influenced Hupp to give up her parents' lives to the law. Her terrible experience and her subsequent tireless work and testimony overcame the prating and ranked choirs of fallen seraphim on the other side, and Texas got concealed carry.
Independent cities might also 'keep arms' ~ but only nobles had the Right to keep arms ~ whether the king agreed or not, and to bear them ~ against the king, or against other nobles, or against commoners, or against even churchmen or foreigners!
It was an unfettered right created thousands of years ago for the purpose of creating a ruling elite.
We The People are the ruling elite in America, and through the Bill of Rights we enobled every man, woman and child. We have all those ancient rights and privileges.
Sometimes you'll hear about the Founders expressing their 'rights as Englishmen' ~ and there they are. England, at that time was far more advanced than the other and lesser states in Europe ~ even commoners had rights there ~ not all the rights, but enough for them to prize them highly.
How clever of the Founders to hide that phrase in the Bill of Rights. He who has understanding may read those words and say 'I am the king around here ~ and my servants are unfaithful ~ dispose of them'.
That's why we know you can't trust any of the politicians ~ ever!
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.