Posted on 01/15/2013 9:57:01 AM PST by Perseverando
Snip:
If we are deprived of our Second Amendment rights, can the rights provided us under the First Amendment be far behind? And I point out for those prepared to disagree with me that it is freedom of speech provided under the First Amendment that allows a dissident to burn the American flag on the ground. It also allows so-called artwork that is the most vulgar representations of biblical personages to be protected as freedom of expression provided under the First Amendment. Even though said artwork is government-sponsored and taxpayer-funded under constraint of law, there are no outcries about the separation of church and state in those instances.
But somehow that same freedom of speech and freedom of expression get lost and are forgotten for the person standing in front of abortion mills offering alternatives to pregnant women that do not include murdering their unborn child.
I was right in 2001. In the past nearly 12 years since I wrote the above-referenced column, families have been sent to jail for holding a Bible study in their private homes on their private property. Pastors have been threatened and/or charged with violations under hate-speech laws for preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.
We are already deprived true freedom of speech when a white person is criminally charged if they call a black person a nigger, but blacks calling themselves the same is viewed as somehow being a term of endearment. Homosexuals publicly call members of the tea party “tea baggers,” which is a reprobate and debaucherous form of sexual activity performed by homosexual men. But woe be the heterosexual who uses a pejorative against them.
As commentator Jonathan Alter pointed out, Obama himself referred to the tea party as “tea baggers” in November 2009. But the least disagreement with his policies
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
They’ll set their sights on the entire Constitution and will declare it null and void.
Hopefully those silent congresscritters will realize that, if it happens, they will be out of a job.
On a more personal level:
Three gang members breaking down your door - daughter&wife screaming- Dems took your gun.Son dead...
When dems the only people with weapons they can take away the rest of our rights too.
Democrats will be hated someday - by almost everyone...
What a short term memory. Our First Amendment Rights were abridged by Bush, 43, when he signed the flawed Campaign Finance Reform Law into effect as a political favor to Juan McVain!
Since then (even though most of the CFR law has been struck down), leftists have been chewing on different ways to eviscerate the Constitution.
At least zero is more direct! He either outright ignores the Constitution and the rule of law, or he just dances around it. After all, who's going to tell him that he can't? The Republicans!??
Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
First they will make it against the law to utter politically incorrect speech, then they will make it against the law the speak out against the government, then your right against unreasonable search and seizure will go, along with your right to an attorney and a speedy trial. By then they are all gone for all practical purposes.
Free speech has been under attack for as long as anything. How many decades since hate crimes/speech has been an issue. Every day we hear how voicing disagreement with the Left is racist, misogynist, bigotted, etc. Freedom of speech is only an illusion they allow until they can disarm us, then the curtain will be pulled back and it will be clear that attacks on free speech has been the bulwark of how they run their war against Freedom.
Not Obama nor anyone else can take our God-given rights. They can only falsely claim to do so, while hoping we go along with their con.
No Sir - Each and every executive order that limits my rights is a meaningless waste of ink.
“...shall not be infringed”!”
“ANY infringement upon that right is a direct and undeniable violation of the Constitution and warrants impeachment of any office holder who violates their oath to uphold the Constitution.”
You both have stated it well, as has the 2nd Amendment. It is an unalienable right...given to us by the Creator.
My understanding of the reading/wording of the 2nd Amendment is that ALL gun control legislation is an infringment. This includes the laws regarding fully automatic weapons and sound suppressors. This includes all limitations on ‘carry’...open or concealed. Even Supreme Court rulings in support of ANY kind of gun control legislation are a violation of the 2nd Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.
We must not fail this time to take any stand necessary and using any and all means to protect all aspects of the 2nd Amendment. We must not fail...failure makes us SLAVES, or puts us in mass graves. Stalin, Hitler, Mao have shown the Muzzie Usurper how it can be done. But we control this now, it is not up to the politicians...it us up to us!
Rant over...
Even already they are calling such thinking "hate speech" so they can put you in prison during the next phase of their takeover.
More specifically, the Founding States made the Constitution mainly to limit the powers of the federal government. And regarding our 1st and 2nd Amendment "rights," many patriots evidently don't understand that, since the states have never delegated to Congress or the Oval Office via the Constitution the specific powers to regulate our 1st and 2nd Amendment "rights," that Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate those rights, with or without those amendments.
In fact, note that James Madison, regarded as the father of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, had regarded the Bill of Rights as unnecessary since the states had never delegated to Congress the specific powers to regulate such issues.
Fortunately, a recent FR thread had referenced what I personally regard as the bible of our 2nd Amedment "rights," the Court's opinion in the 2A-related Cruikshank case. In a nutshell, the Court clarified in Cruikshank that 2A was intended only to clarify that Congress has no constitutionally delegated power to regulate the natural (my word) right to self-defence, particularly when citizens are defending themselves from the federal government.
"6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." --United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.
So as I've ranted in other threads, one of the reasons that Constitution-ignoring Obama has patriots under his thumb at this time is because patriots themselves evidently don't know important nuances about the Constitution, particularly the idea of constitutionally limited federal government powers.
If I understand your contention Kalifornia is precluded from tough gun laws ... but it is what it is
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 410.10
410.10. A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the
United States.
You forgot Wyatt Earp. :)
Just wondering out loud, what part of my previous post are you referring to as a contention since I substantiated my "assertion" about gun rights with the Supreme Court's official clarification of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?
Regarding your statement about Kalifornia, note that the BoR didn't originally apply to the states. And as evidenced by 2A's reference to militias, the states could regulate guns, although I don't know to what extent. But I think that in earlier days of the country that state lawmakers understood the necessity of guns for self defense.
On the other hand, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, had ofificially clarified that 14A applies 2A to the states. See 2A in Bingham's official discussion of 14A.
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session
2A is mentioned in the middle column of the referenced page.
Interestingly, the way I read Sec. 5 of 14A is that it forces Congress to make laws which, in 2A-related issues, protect gun rights from being abridged by the states.
Yes, I believe he did that in Tombstone...
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.