Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Judges Rewrite the 2nd Amendment
Canada Free Press ^ | 02/27/17 | Michael Shannon

Posted on 02/27/2017 9:00:10 AM PST by Sean_Anthony

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

1 posted on 02/27/2017 9:00:10 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

This BS won’t stand. As soon as Gorsuch us confirmed to SCOTUS this will be overturned. Might take a while, but it will go.


2 posted on 02/27/2017 9:07:23 AM PST by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

This won’t stand and Trump will get this guy off the bench. He is on the enemies list.


3 posted on 02/27/2017 9:25:38 AM PST by DarthVader ("These lying tyrants are about to get hit with a tsunami of destruction on their evil reign." Gaffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

These words have always bothered me, “regulated Militia”. Militia to me is a uniformed group, regulated means some form of control. When does the militia drill? Where do they drill? Are they a cohesive group well disciplined and ready to follow orders? Who are their Commanders? Are they a separate branch of the military or are they a paramilitary group lead by former members of the military or a bunch of yahoos? I’m playing the devils advocate over the wording. I see no problem with a “regulated” militia, i.e. the Concord County Volunteer Militia, sort of a unit lower than the National Guard and self funded. Nothing new there, there were many during the 1860s and before that. It seems the wording is such, it depends on how you interpret the actual meaning, in that it can be suited to fit your intent.


4 posted on 02/27/2017 9:29:50 AM PST by Bringbackthedraft (Again it disapeared? Damn cursor is in cahoots with the tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

The scourge of judicial overreach is now clearly visible and bound to draw some righteous lightning. Bad time to be a judge with too much imagination and not enough common sense restraint.


5 posted on 02/27/2017 9:32:38 AM PST by DNME (The only solution to a BAD guy with a gun is a GOOD guy with a gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

This decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court.


6 posted on 02/27/2017 9:33:11 AM PST by maxwellsmart_agent (EEe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Step 1 - Deligitimize
Step 2 - Dehumanize
Step 3 - Scapegoat
Step 4 - Disarm
Step 5 - Genocide


7 posted on 02/27/2017 9:38:03 AM PST by dsrtsage (One half of all people have below average IQ. In the US the number is 54%fe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GoldenPup

I am not so sure. Heller was 5-4 with Scalia. Kennedy is a very shaky vote. I think he would be inclined to water down the 2nd if he can. Gorsuch may be a Trojan Horse. I think many if not most judges hate the 2nd A.


8 posted on 02/27/2017 9:38:45 AM PST by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft

These words have always bothered me, “regulated Militia”

There’s a comma after that part of the sentence. The comma is very important. By putting the comma there it separates the individual right to own gives it its own standing.


9 posted on 02/27/2017 9:42:53 AM PST by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony
"...being necessary to the security of a FREE State..." (emphasis mine)

This is the clause which explains why the Second Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights. It has nothing to do with duck hunting or target shooting.

10 posted on 02/27/2017 9:43:33 AM PST by sima_yi ( Reporting live from the far North)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft

You are spot on.

A person needs to go back to the “original intent” and look at “standing army” compared to “militia.”

There was to be no “standing army” - an army always ready, armed and well regulated, to do the bidding of the federal government.

Instead, there were to be state militias, that could be mustered up by the federal government during times of national war. The states were in control of their militia, not the federal government. This gave the states more power and authority.

Recently (last 100 years or so), we now have a “standing army” in the power and authority of the federal government, which has obviously abused their power, over and over.

We clearly see this example during the civil war. Each “unit” was a state militia. They identified by the state where they had come from. There was no federal standing army.

Anyway, a lot has been written in the last 30 years or so on this topic regarding “original intent” of states militia, national guard, standing army, etc.


11 posted on 02/27/2017 9:46:11 AM PST by ForYourChildren (Christian Education [ RomanRoadsMedia.com - Classical Christian Approach to Homeschool ])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

Who cares what these judges do? I don’t care what they, SCOTUS or anyone in Washington or the UN rules on guns. I’m not giving mine up, and no, I’m not “losing” them in a boating accident either. They’re going to be right along my side.


12 posted on 02/27/2017 9:48:44 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (STOP THE TAPE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft
These words have always bothered me, “regulated Militia”...

The 2nd Amendment says "well regulated Militia...". "well regulated" means properly functioning, as in a "well regulated" clock, a usage from this same period.

It is a semantic fallacy to impose current usage on this late 18th century term. We must go back to that period to understand the force of its meaning.

Further, the 2nd amendment is a contraint on Federal power, not an authorization to "regulate" the Militia. COTUS Article I, Section 8, Para 16 dictates what powers the Federal government has over the Militia.

13 posted on 02/27/2017 9:50:23 AM PST by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

When it was written, “well regulated” meant adequately armed. The “militia” was every able-bodied white male between 16 and 45.

Legislate all you want. You will disarm us at your own peril.


14 posted on 02/27/2017 9:53:54 AM PST by bk1000 (A clear conscience is a sure sign of a poor memory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren
We clearly see this example during the civil war. Each “unit” was a state militia. They identified by the state where they had come from. There was no federal standing army

That is exactly right.

And it went beyond that. The militias - state chartered units - could be raised by anyone in the State.

My g-g uncle raised a North Carolina regiment on his own by recruiting locals he knew. Because he did that, they were assigned a company name and number and put under a State militia commander, but with G-G-Uncle as the Captain - a title he earned for having raised the company.

Federal control of the of the State militias - now called National Guard - starts with the Dick Act and was the slippery slope to an all Federal standing army which we now have, with the NG units as junior member subsidiaries.

They are the State militias and should be untouchable by the Federal commands until formally ordered into service for a conflict of declared war - by the Congress.

15 posted on 02/27/2017 9:55:40 AM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony
From the article:

The Constitution doesn’t give us the right to own a BB gun or participate in paintball conflicts. The Constitution gives us the right to own and bear light infantry weapons.

Wrong and wrong.

The Constitution doesn’t give us ANY rights whatsoever. It clearly defines and delineates what God given rights our elected Government officials my not violate or infringe on. How I wish the document had a definition of the word 'infringe' included in the Preamble.

16 posted on 02/27/2017 10:02:14 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Good judgement comes from experience. And experience? Well, that comes from poor judgement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

Every time I think about what these tyrants in black burkas did, the Concord minuteman statue pops into my mind. A farmer standing next to his plow with a “weapon of war” in his hand that would have been banned had these bastards been around at that time. As an American, all of those “judicial” tyrants can KMA.


17 posted on 02/27/2017 10:06:34 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it. - Clint Eastwood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft

The constitution was written from the perspective of what the founders had just experienced; a civil war against a well regulated militia, the British army. What were their feelings about an army at that time? The answer is fear. The second amendment means that because a well regulated militia (an army) is a necessary evil for the security of a free country, but also inherently dangerous to the freedom of said country, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The second amendment exists to protect the people from the government. Read some of the state versions of the right to keep and Bear arms.


18 posted on 02/27/2017 10:12:49 AM PST by suthener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

The militia bit is legally meaningless.

Some of the Founding Fathers didn’t like ordinary people having the right to guns, but they lost out.

A few words about militias was their meaningless consolation prize.

Without well-armed ordinary people, the nation wouldn’t have gotten over the Appalachian Mountains.

The Indians would have shot up every home on the frontier using British guns.


19 posted on 02/27/2017 10:12:59 AM PST by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft

“Regulated” means EQUIPPED.

The amendment means that the people must have guns so that they will be WELL-EQUIPPED to defend themselves.


20 posted on 02/27/2017 10:13:05 AM PST by Arthur McGowan (https://youtu.be/IYUYya6bPGw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson