Michigan - Pro Gun VEAR BILL SIGNED BY ENGLER!!! YES!! We did it!!!!

--the first ten were added on purpose to clarify matters, using normal english of the period. Webster wrote his first dictionary in part so that the original meanings could not be misconstrued, well, like they are now misconstrued. Any attempt to abolish any of the first ten is illegal, as they are born-with rights that exist irregardless of government or document.

You'd have to go back and research all the writings back then, sorry, zip linkages handy right now. #1 see note 1 This is the main *thing* that is never really understood, the difference betwen born-with and government-granted. If it's not a government granted privelege, they can't take it away on their say-so, and those first are not government granted. They can FORCE the issue, they do all day long now, they can SAY they have the right to do what they want to do, it still don't make it legal. The constitution is a document that delineates individual persons-(human persons, not artifical persons called corporations) soverigns inalienable 'rights" and mostly consists of written restrictions on the government itself. I'd say 99.99% of the people at random think it's the other way around, that government has all the rights and occassionaly "grants" you something. I'd say an even higher percentage of cops, judges and politicians think it's the other way around, that or they don't give a squat about it. That's how they do it, just ignore the real "law of the land", no argument from me on that, but it don't make it constitutionally legal, even if they have a political hack appointee in a black robe who inisists on it.

For example, the miller 'decision" the bane of the second amendment, was based on this theory that short barreled shotguns have no legit military/militia "use", despite the fact that trench guns were used extensively not only in world war one but in various other conflicts, ie, that had and have a military use, qualify as 'arms" under the second, which means you can "keep and bear" them without governmental restrictions. The so called 'supreme' court 'ruled' that an arm-wasn't an arm! That a weapon wasn't a weapon, but it was a weapon, but not a "lawful" weapon. Huh? come back again on that?

Any restrictions are contrary to the spirit and actual words of the second. They force the issue now, they have any number of statutory commerce code's they can refer to, it's still bogus.

Keep and bear means exactly what it says, it doesn't translate into the wording of 14,000 gun laws on the books, they just get away from it via inertia, and the entire population is too buffaloed to say "no ya don't", starting with grampaw's generation and continuing to this day.

I'll repeat my challenge again, to anyone "you", would "you" stand in line and go through a background check and submit to "licensing" and fingerprinting in order to publish a paper or speak to your friend in public, to utter an opinion, to post something on the internet? You wouldn't? Why not? Is it an absured notion? Anyone "you"'ll stand in line and do that with another born-with right, the second, so what's the difference? Why complain then? Would 14,000 speech "laws" on the books be acceptable, would it be OK if cops enforced "project speech exile" and give minimum federal guideline sentencing standards in prison for any "illegal" speechifying? Can I say something "legal" here in georgia, but it's "illegal" in NYC? That's absurd? Well, ya it is, and IMO all these other efforts are as well, because they never address the fundamental issue that's behind all of them, it's fighting "their game" all the time, and it doesn't matter if "they" win or lose on this or that of the picayune14,000 "speech" err gun laws as long as they retain the power to make those laws in the first place, which they aren't supposed to have, they just seized them, which means they broke the law, and it's actually treasonus if ya want to get technical about it.

It's simply state sponsored terrorism, 180 degrees bass-ackwards from the entire original intent of the constitution, I can't honestly see where any sort of "debate" even is.

Well waitaminit zog, we got fer instance 'libel" laws that 'restrict" speech, is that legal?

Sort of, but you have to always keep clear what the crime really is. Like in this instance of 'libel", the speech part isn't restricted or illegal, the crime of probale bonafide hurt is. The speech part is still legal, The HARM that has occurred from the speech is the actual crime. It's the harm, not the speech itself, that's illegal.

There is no pre-judgemental or pre-"harm" enforcement of "libel". An actual "harm" has to be shown to have occurred.

It's against the law to malicioulsy harm another with a firearm when it's not in self defense. this is clearly understood. But 'they" insist you are harmful if you merely own the tool that might be used in this crime, and make ya jump through all sorts of hoops in advance, ie, you are pre-judged as having committed the crime, so you must needs get a review and restrictions and licenses and whatnot to "prove" that you haven't harmed anyone. and even if you haven't, you may still be restricted because "you might". You are guilty at all times, licensed or not according to 'them".

If it was firearms, what we have now is you are pre-judged as "harmful" in advance, so you must "prove" you haven't harmed in order to exercise your right to "keep and bear". This would be exactly like telling someone they are breaking the law before they uttered a word, as the assumption is you would immediately harm another through libel before you even did it.

It's bassackwards, with speech we don't put up with it (not too much), with arms we do to the tune of 14,000 laws all over the place, with cheering on these little victories. Ya, they are victories of a sort, OK, I accept that, but really, do the math, one or two a year victories versus 14,000. Anyone, do the math yourself.. Even call it ten victories, call it one hundred-which it ain't, 100 victories a year is still 1,400 years before it's cleared up.

This is because because arms are "scary", "Arms" are the difference between the speech tool of complaining about being screwed over and the actual for-real tool to actually for-real "do" something about your predicament. You can complain about getting robbed or despoted-upon all de doo dah day long, but the complaining by word-spoken or written-ain't gonna stop mr. badguy.

note#1 -ok, here ya go

http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm

short preamble to the page:

"[Bill of Rights] The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added."

perhaps some of the more intense scholars here can link to the appropriate passages, the actual debates that occurred in the federalist and anti federalist papers. Websters dictionary and it's history is available with any google search to see the 'why's" of how it came about. It's the one you are supposed to use with the constitution and the words contained therein, not black's law dictionary.

There ya go, merely reinforcing the 'rights" concepts, and who has them, by default, you as a natural person have them, the government has no rights per se, they have some duties they are allowed to attempt, inside these restrictive clauses, it's not the other way around like they promote now and is 'commonly believed". These clauses or 'amendments" known collectively as the 'bill of rights" are emphasizing for all time where the government cannot and should not go. The bill of rights delineates the individual soverigns rights, god-given and born-with, automatic no matter what, and further clarifies GOVERNMENTAL RESTRICTIONS. It really should be called 'the bill of governmental restrictions". They guy who wrote the pen is mightier than the sword I think was hitting the absinthe just a tad too much. The pen is only useful for trying to get the word out that the sword is really better as a "tool" to avoid getting robbed or beatup or mugged or put in some camp, etc, as a lot of people never got this message in the first place, or if they did just can't deal with the reality of it.., IMO.

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.