Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Big Gun Rights Decision      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 LameBear
Joined: 7/11/2009
Msg: 34
Big Gun Rights DecisionPage 3 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

A well regulated (clocks are "well regulated" meaning the they are well functioning) Militia (see USC Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Sections 311 & 312), being necessary to the security of a free State (note uppercase "S" in State - indicates Sovereignty, as in Free, Sovereign, Independent, as well as "willing" member of the Union and free to leave at any time - joined freely, may leave freely), the right (THE Right - pre-existing, God Given, Inherent RIGHT .... cannot be legislated, changed, altered, remove, etc., except by the ORIGINAL AUTHOR OF THAT RIGHT) of the people (WE THE PEOPLE - free, Independent, SOVEREIGN ..... people created government, government created laws, thus, laws must serve government, and government must serve WE THE PEOPLE) to keep and bear (own, carry, use, possess, etc.) Arms (weapons - any and all kinds of weapons), shall not be infringed (this last part means exactly what is says - anything that one does not wish to do, that is forced upon one, IS AN INFRINGEMENT, and is specifically FORBIDDEN by this Amendment).

So! Each and every Free, Sovereign, Citizen, is ENTITLED by God, and God Alone, to carry, in any manner desired, any type of weapon desired, at any time anywhere.

Yes, this means up to and including nuclear weapons and jet aircraft - if one could afford such. It against the LAW, God's and Man's, to commit wanton murder - the weapon used is irrelevant. A baseball bat can be used as a weapon for murder, as easily as a knife or gun. What about the American Automobile? Used to kill more people each year than all other weapons combined - negligently, intentionally, or accidentally - irrelevant once again.

ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS have SWORN to uphold, support, and defend, the Constitution for These United States. Failure to do so automatically removes them from office for breach of oath, contract, and trust. The ONLY Constitution is the one written by our Founding Fathers, and accepted by them, AS WRITTEN.

A LAW is only a law if it complies with said Constitution and is clearly understandable by the common person, otherwise, you are being expected to obey someone's opinion of what the "law" says, not the LAW ITSELF.

Demand that your elected officials obey the Oath they have Sworn, before God and WE THE PEOPLE - or, Demand that they remove themselves from the office they hold UNLAWFULLY.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 35
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 1/24/2011 8:43:21 PM
The Assassination Attempt You Have Not Heard Of
by Erick Erickson
01/24/2011


It happened in September of 2010 in Missouri. A 22 year old named Casey Brezik, wearing a bullet proof vest, charged toward Missouri’s Democratic Governor Jay Nixon with a knife and attempted to slash his throat.

In light of the media’s race to talk about the right’s climate of hateful rhetoric, you have probably guessed by now that Casey Brezik was an anti-Christian, anti-capitalist leftist who participated in a number of leftwing protests. He was also a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic.


Luckily for all involved, Brezik was high on pot at the time and got confused. Instead of slashing the Governor’s throat, he slashed the throat of a community college dean he took for the Governor.

Jack Cashill, writing at the American Thinker, notes

In his “About Me” box on Facebook, Brezik listed as his favorite quotation one from progressive poster boy, Che Guevara. The quote begins “Our every action is a battle cry against imperialism” and gets more belligerent from there.

On his wall postings, Brezik ranted, “How are we the radical(s) (left) to confront the NEW RIGHT, if we avoid confrontation all together?”

As good as his word, Brezik’s marched on Toronto in June 2010 to protest the G20 Summit, where he was arrested, charged, and deported. “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,” he boasted.

Given what we have seen come out of Arizona, we can establish two things as fact. First, had Governor Nixon been harmed in any way, the media would have immediately begun lamenting the tea party movement and “political rhetoric.” Second, had the injuries been as they were, but Brezik had listed himself as a Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh fan on his Facebook wall, the media would have covered this exactly as they covered Arizona.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 1/24/2011 9:04:42 PM

So! Each and every Free, Sovereign, Citizen, is ENTITLED by God, and God Alone, to carry, in any manner desired, any type of weapon desired, at any time anywhere.


That's not what the Supreme Court said in McDonald. It pretty clearly recognized that the states can still restrict the right to keep and bear arms. You're really claiming the Second Amendment makes that right absolute. But not even any of the First Amendment rights is absolute--and neither is any other right in the Bill of Rights.

Neither Heller nor McDonald--the only true 2d Amendment decisions the Court's ever made--even comes close to being authority for what you're claiming. That means there's no legal authority at all for it. Any of us can say the law's anything we please, but that won't cut any ice in court.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 37
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 5/1/2011 9:40:12 AM
Obama: We're working on gun control 'under the radar'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 26, 2011
6:07 pm Eastern

"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Barack Obama reportedly told Sarah Brady regarding gun control. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

This interesting bit of news was reported in an April 11 Washington Post Lifestyle section story about Obama's gun-control and regulatory policy wonk Steve Croley. Toward the end of the article the writer, Jason Horowitz, mentions a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney during which the President "dropped in."

Horowitz quotes Sarah Brady relating how President Obama gave his personal assurance that he and his administration were working hard on a gun-control agenda. Brady reported that Obama then told them about advancing the agenda "under the radar."

Apparently Mrs. Brady either doesn't grasp the concept of "under the radar," or, more likely, she expected the reporter to be discreet and keep the "good news" about Obama's stealth operations to himself. Thankfully this reporter chose to report the news, so we have direct corroboration of Obama's sneak-attack against the Second Amendment.

What is truly startling about this story is the way it has been totally ignored by the rest of the media. Compare the media's current silence with what happened during the 2000 presidential campaign when then NRA Vice-President (and GOP activist) Kayne Robinson told a group of rights supporters in California that electing Bush would mean "we'll have a president where we work out of their office, unbelievably friendly relations."

The media went into a feeding frenzy over this comment to such a degree that Bush distanced himself from the NRA, publicly endorsed reinstatement of the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban and withdrew overt support for the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (a law which shields firearms manufacturers from harassment lawsuits over non-faulty products). The story was carried repeatedly on virtually every major media outlet in the country – and it was not based on anything Bush himself had said.

In Obama's case, the president himself purportedly claimed active support for a highly controversial agenda and admitted that he was violating his own promise of transparency in pursuit of that agenda. Yet the media ignores it.

Even the folks at the Brady bunch are not spreading the news about the stunning reassurances from the president. There is nothing on their website discussing or even mentioning Obama's chat with Jim and Sarah. Just the fact that a group's leaders were cordially welcomed at the White House, much less given a private, informal meeting with the president would generally be something to crow about, but on their web site the big push right now is to "Tell President Obama to Ban Assault Clips!" (whatever the heck an "assault clip" is).

Something else conspicuous in its absence on the Brady site is any mention of ATF's recent "study" on the importability of shotguns. Like the president's "under the radar" comment, the Brady bunch doesn't want to provide fodder for folks like me pointing out the truth.

The president of the United States and his staff are actively engaged in a multi-faceted plot to increase restrictions on firearms ownership, and they are doing their best to keep the American people from knowing about it. The ATF shotgun importability "study" is a core component of that "under the radar" gun-control plot.

As I have previously reported, the ATF "study" examines current laws, regulations and practices regarding the importability of shotguns based on whether they are considered to have a "sporting purpose" in accordance with the provisions of the Gun Control Act. Like a bank robber wearing a brightly colored hat to distract witnesses' attention from more important identifying features, the ATF "study" puts forward a bold list of features that they say generally distinguish non-sporting shotguns from sporting shotguns.

As intended, the media, as well as the gun-rights community, have almost universally focused on this list of features to the exclusion of other critical items in the "study," most importantly the statement that the list is a guide, not a rule. It states that, while these features are strong indicators of a gun being non-sporting, and therefore unsuitable for importation, that the real test they intend to employ is one of application, not features.

What that means is that the list of features is mostly show and the real test is whether the importer can demonstrate that these or similar guns – regardless of what features might be currently attached or how the gun might be currently configured – are commonly used for ATF-recognized sporting purposes such as hunting, trap and skeet shooting.

Up to this point importers have been able to replace "non-sporting" features like higher capacity magazines, folding stocks and pistol-grips with more traditionally sporting style options. They have also simply removed superfluous items such as compensators, barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs.

Under the guidelines set forth in the ATF "study," such cosmetic changes will no longer suffice. Importers will have to prove that these guns are actually, commonly used for sports ATF recognizes. The very popular 3-Gun and tactical shotgun competitions of the U.S. Practical Shooting Association, International Defensive Pistol Association and International Practical Shooting Confederation are specifically mentioned in the ATF study and dismissed as not being recognized sports because previous ATF rifle and handgun importability studies have not recognized these sports as sports. So preferred equipment for these very popular and rapidly growing international sports will be blocked from importation because ATF has not previously recognized them as sports, and they are not going to recognize them now because they have not previously recognized them. It is the logic of a merry-go-round.

Some have suggested that a simple solution to the problem is to just manufacture clones of the non-importable, non-sporting shotguns right here in the good old USA. Unfortunately there is more to the story. The Gun Control Act prohibits importation of any shotgun with the exception of those which the attorney general determines to be "particularly suitable for sporting purposes." But the 1968 Gun Control Act is not the only place in federal law that applies the "sporting purposes" test. The National Firearms Act uses almost identical language when it declares that any firearm with a bore diameter of greater than .5 inches (a 12 gauge shotgun bore is about .73 inches) is a "destructive device," except for those shotguns that the attorney general determines to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes.

Obama's "under the radar" assault on the Second Amendment is underway. One seemingly minor change in enforcement lays the groundwork for bans not just on importation, but also eventually on sale and possession, of several popular shotgun styles. And it is all taking place virtually undetected and unopposed because, as Obama himself has stated, it is "under the radar." The compliant media and even major gun-rights groups apparently have their radar turned off.




Read more: Obama: We're working on gun control 'under the radar' http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=292025#ixzz1L7TqpuGm
 angel.ss
Joined: 6/3/2011
Msg: 38
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 6/12/2011 1:46:02 AM
It is interesting to note that most of these gun-toting, 2nd admendment, NRA members say that it is their God given right to protect themselves, their families, and their property. They believe themselves to be Christians. The often quoted anacronym comes to mind WWJD.
Yes we have the right to bear arms. I believe that my forefathers had in mind that the common man would have his own arms and so when called upon to serve in the militia that he would do so. I do believe that when call upon to serve our country, many of these aforementioned people will hide behind these liberties to say that my government is wrong and that they have to put an end to it.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 39
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 6/12/2011 7:03:04 AM
This is all that needs to be said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCHtw6WbbnM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMoq3t6zVNo
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 40
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 6/12/2011 7:24:30 AM
A gun is an equalizer. I'm always stunned that some can imagine that possessing the ability to defend oneself and their loved ones is some form of negative, a deviation, an outlier to normal human motivations. A gun is a tool like a shovel, saw or wheelbarrow. To project evil unto inanimate objects is certainly a mental illness. The number and depth of unexamined beliefs among lefties is astonishing. They seem to conflate their fairy tale wishes with the harsh realities of humankind.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Big Gun Rights Decision
Posted: 6/12/2011 1:50:50 PM

I believe that my forefathers had in mind that the common man would have his own arms and so when called upon to serve in the militia that he would do so.


I'm sure they did have that in mind. But that doesn't mean that is the only basis of the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court certainly has not held that in either of its Second Amendment decisions. The right exists independent of the need for state militias.

Like just about every constitutional right, the 2d Am. right is not absolute. The Court has not yet made clear how far either Congress or the states can limit it. But it is clear that the right prohibits any measure which would completely prevent ownership or possession of firearms. That must also mean a state cannot prohibit the sale of ammunition--at least not in all its counties--or the right to have a firearm would mean very little.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Big Gun Rights Decision