Skip to comments.Allowing government infringement on gun rights is a slippery slope
Posted on 02/26/2013 4:05:21 PM PST by LiberTEAWatch
President Obama and Congressional Democrats are engaged in an assault on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Predictably, a majority in the media is softening up resistance, highlighting terrible crimes like the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary and the theater in Aurora, Colorado. Politicians and pundits alike assert such mass murders warrant executive orders and Congressional legislation to limit the Constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. If you buy that, you're sliding down a slippery slope with government tyranny at the bottom.
The Constitution of the United States established a government to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It is the framework for a government with the power to guarantee the rights decreed in the Declaration of Independence. Yet government is limited to a republic that reflects the will of the people, not politicians or judges. Our Constitution provides for adequate but limited government authority, implemented through a system of separated powers.
(Excerpt) Read more at postindependent.com ...
No doubt they'll expect everyone to take them seriously the next time they wrap themselves in the first amendment.
Thank God there are still some patriots and defenders of the Constitution in Colorado. Mostly on the Western Slope from what it seems.
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." --United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.
Also, I'm glad that the article referenced in the OP mentions Article V. But beware that Democrats and the corrupt media cannot afford for voters to find out about Article V for the following reason imo. Once Constitution-ignorant voters find out that only the states, not the federal government, have the unique power to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution, then voters will known that the states have absolute control over the federal government, not vice-versa despite PC interpretations of the Supremacy Clause (6.2). And widespread knowledge that the states control the feds via the Constitution would likely throw a monkey wrench into the Democratic agenda to unconstitutonally centralize government power in DC imo.