A question of trust of fellow citizens

Blink - blink ...

Hello ... ?

You do realize anyone can read that you have AK's in your position ... forever ... from anywhere ...

Whatever.

 

the ATF should still do random stings to make sure private sellers are performing background checks.

and if not? $1000 fine.

 

Apparently you did not read the Heller decision. Pay attention:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796

The FIRST time a gun control law was overturned on Second Amendment grounds, a court ruled:

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of the free State." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

And yet again the courts ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

This point was affirmed by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:

"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." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The government never granted a Right to keep and bear Arms as the Right is unalienable and existed BEFORE the Constitution was ever dreamed of. But, the courts dismissed the words of George Washington and the Supreme Court tried to legislate from the bench. In Heller, they wrote:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200

The RIGHT to keep and bear Arms is unlike most Rights. That RIGHT is an unalienable Right. It is not within the jurisdiction of the courts since the Right predates the Constitution. We can criminalize the behavior of people that misuse the Right to infringe upon the Rights of others, but it is not within the authority of the government to infringe on the Right to keep and bear Arms by turning it into a mere privilege (aka government "right.")

If you forfeit the Right by submitting to background checks, licensing schemes, permits, etc. then you cannot claim the Right. It's none of your business nor the government's what I own provided that I don't endanger others with it.

Furthermore, if the government were so concerned about guns falling into the wrong hands, they would be concerned that the bodies of wrong hands are running amok in a free society. If people cannot be trusted, identify them and put them in a place where they cannot be a danger to us. Don't punish society for the wrongs of a few.

We simply cannot allow the courts to legislate from the bench and rewrite the intent of the Second Amendment and our cultural history.

 

the govt. has the authority to do whatever we allow it to do, through laws.

 

We won't be allowing it.

 

if my idea for UBC was brought before the House and Senate, it would most likely pass.

 

All this boils down to is a common law right to self defense/protection based on customs since the founding of what is now the US.

 

So under your system he's assumed guilty and has to prove his innocence.

See anything wrong with that?

 

Call your congressman and tell him you have a better idea than all the legislators that have worked on this issue before you.

 

"In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson

"Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind."
- James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

- Albert Gallatin, letter to Alexander Addison, October 7, 1789

There is no historical, legal or rational basis for Ronstar's statement.

 

We, The People, decide what powers our govt. have.

this is the essence of a Republic.

 

None of that refutes what I posted.

Macbeth | Act 5, Scene 5
William Shakespeare

The double negative in Heller affirms that We the People do have the right to regulate the 2nd Amendment per the SCOTUS ruling as long as no law abiding citizen is denied the right to own firearms.

 

Our Second Amendment is a States' right.

 

The problem is, the left uses that word "regulate" to mean deny to people... the Second Amendment is a limitation on the government, not the people NOR the firearms.

Did you know that of all the arms given to the early militiamen, NONE of them had serial numbers? The "regulation" process was one of keeping track of who was signed up for militia service in the event of an emergency.

You absolutely cannot use that word regulation to impose tyranny in a just / de jure (lawful) Republic. Also, I don't think Shakespeare is helpful in an understanding of American jurisprudence (but, I've been wrong before.)

 

Nothing but straw men and red herrings?

Our Second Amendment is clear as is Article 1, Section 8.

 

The term regulate does not mean "deny".

We the People have the constitutional right to regulate legal rights at the federal level so where in the wording of 2A is it excluded from federal regulation?

- - - Updated - - -

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

assumes reading comprehension not hearsay or soothsay;

what is necessary to the security of a free State is clearly a State's sovereign right to execute.

 

You make an excellent argument for why "strict constructionism" is redundant.

Yes, We the People not only had the same firepower as the government because We the People were, and in some respects still are, the government.

Those who take the oath in the military (or any office for that matter) always swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. That Constitution was written for We the People so that we can form a "more perfect union" and ensure the "welfare of the people".

With that in mind everyone in the military and law enforcement who takes that oath are doing so on behalf of We the People. So We the People do have battle tanks and F22's and nuclear submarines. We just don't have them in our own homes because the Constitution explicitly provides for Congress to make regulations about the military and how it is equipped.

The 2nd Amendment is an assurance that every law abiding has the right to a personal firearm if they so desire and that We the People cannot deny them such without due process of the law. Nowhere does 2A stipulate that We the People cannot regulate those firearms. If anything it says the opposite.

Given the above, We the People do have the benefit of the finest weapons in the world to assure our mutual defense. From an individual perspective we all have the right to own firearms but none of us is exempt from being held accountable for what happens with those firearms. Owning a firearm does not give anyone the right to endanger the safety of the general public.

We the People have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. No one has the right to endanger the lives of others by being in possession of lethal firearms without the proper training and knowledge to ensure that no one else's pursuit of happiness is cut short because they were showing off their latest toy to their friends.

Yes, I was being facetious but it happens. Just like we had the road rage incident this past week. No one wants to answer the door to see a police officer there telling them that a loved one won't be coming home ever again. We the People have a right to ensure that individuals who own firearms are stable, responsible and accountable. Yes, I know that describes the vast majority of them, myself included, but it is the exceptions that we need to address through regulations.

One imbecile walked onto a plane with a bomb in his shoe and now every day millions of people have to take off their shoes before they can board a plane. Yes, that is inconvenient but we place safety over convenience.

Why should owning firearms be the exception to this rule?

 

Anyone who can afford an F-22 or a submarine is most certainly not going to be using it to attack anyone, because a) arms manufacturers aren't required to sell if they don't want to b) 2 or 3 fighter jets running around causing havok would be shut down real quick c) that billionaire would lose everything they own

We have plenty of automatic weapons, ACTUAL assault rifles, in civilian hands all over the country. Not one has been used in a crime. We have plenty of suppressors in civilian hands, yet no one is running around assassinating people like in some Tom Clancy novel.

The 2A says "A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state" Notice it says "A" militia, it is specifically non-specific. A "well-regulated" militia is one that is functioning properly per 1776 parlance. For a militia to function properly, they must be armed and able to train and use their weapons. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" A militia is composed of people, and in order for those people to form a militia they must always be able to keep and bear arms.

If a tyrannical government would attempt to impose itself, the first thing they would do is ban guns. At that point it would be impossible to arm yourselves, which is why the current government is not allowed to prevent its citizens from owning arms.

 

I think that the 2nd amendment is a diversion. I base this on the nature and structure of the constitution. When the states formed their union, they didn't give it plenary power to make any law it wished. Rather, they limited it to a small, specific set of powers. These are listed in article I, section 8. Also, the original constitution had no bill of rights, and many argued against the addition of a bill of rights. Their reasoning was that if a BOR was included, it might imply that people ONLY the rights listed there.

However, as a form of "belts and suspenders", the bill of rights was added to assuage the fears of some of the more recalcitrant states. But it's important to note that the the bill of rights is simply a small list of "may nots". It is a list of things that the federal government may not do. It says nothing about what laws the federal government may enact. For that list we need to refer to article I, section 8.

So all this arguing about the 2nd amendment to determine if we have a right to keep and bear arms is a diversion. The question isn't whether the BOR grants us the right to keep and bear arms. The question is, does congress have the power to enact legislation that prevents the people of the several states from keeping and bearing arms. And if anyone can point to the language in article I, section 8 that empowers them do do so, I'd be much appreciative.