Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

:thumbup:
Thanks, y'all. When you are member of a "well regulated m*****a" with an arsenal in your house, you don't go to places like CNN, MSNBC, VPC, or The Brady Campaign to get the straight scoop about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Does anybody find it interesting the question was answered and the interrogator on the topic has gone quiet? :?: :shock:

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

This comprehensive documentation of Gun Myths and Facts is a real kick in the arse to those lost in their Utopian fantasies and sing "Kumbaya".

UnionSparky Loc: left coast

I'm only responding to your being a Ravens fan. Being a Ram fan my whole life, I h**e the niners. Other than the Rams SB win, watching Ravens pick at the niners skeleton last year was so much fun.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

The stress of going through the last quarter of their games is ASTROMINAL! :hunf:

UnionSparky Loc: left coast

Just remember to fill the paper bag up each time you exhale. ASTROMINAL???

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

:oops: :cry: :oops: on "ASTROMINAL". It is 4:15. Astronomical :!:

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Now you know that private m*****as are not what is covered. The National Guard are the "well regulated m*****as". Everyone else is self regulated. There are many, so called, m*****as out there but they are not what the Founding dudes were referring to. The right to bear arms is separate from the m*****a issue. That amendment is there to stop totalitarian rule. Should the Government go too far, well, the Founding Fathers lived through that scenario and came up with a solution.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Rumitoid, I HAVE responded to your "well regulated." I have done so on numerous occasions, on several posts. I have explained the different connotation that the phrase owned during the 18th Century. I have pointed out the definitions of m*****a in the US Code. I have quoted the comments of the people who actually wrote the damn Amendment. Nothing penetrates. You will continue to think that "Government knows best," in spite of all your protestations to the contrary. Gun Control is not the problem, gun controllers are.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Here are some of the incidents that your "enforcers" of your gun control have perpetrated. You asked for documentation. I gots lots more.
http://www.mega.nu/batf/croaker/individ.html

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

My oh my, it did not take you too long to go back on your words "Again, I state unequivocally that I will never state another bad word about you ...." Now, you are using me as a tool to set upon a very nice woman who pointed out that you are indeed a supporter of gun control. Be offended with me all you care to be, but do not attempt to berate someone else because of your hatred, contempt, or wh**ever you liberals use as the term! My attitude is mine, I have that responsibility and it is in no way a contagion nor a weapon for you to attack others. Now you have succeeded in making me truly angry. I do hope that this makes your holiday much brighter!

Confused

Fear and paranoia huh ? The gun grabbers have said that the efforts are not for gun registration and confiscation . They said . Tell that to the law abiding citizens of New York that have passed laws to alter guns to limit magazine size . They are now threatening to confiscate all guns not turned in or properly altered . How would they know WHERE the guns are ? You guessed it , gun registration where the background check info WAS SAVED which is a violation of the law . I stand against crime , even when the criminals are the government and the l*****ts who think they are above the law . I for one am s**k of politicians like jackass Diane Feinstein telling us fewer guns make us safer while surrounded by armed guards . Fewer criminals make us safer . We spend resources enforcing asinine marijuana laws because it profits the for profit prisons and only solve 1 in 3 murders .

Papabear

I am going to try and shed some light on this ongoing conversation in regards to the 2nd Amendment, I am a retired SF Operative, with 25 years of service to my Country, we the Quiet Professionals have been watching with vigil on what is going on across this Nation. We delivered a petition to Capitol Hill February 2012 signed by 1,100 Active, Reserve, and Retired SF Operators the petition stated that we will not support or condone any changes to the Constitution or it's Amendments and specially in regards to the 2nd Amendment. The Second Amendment was written for a purpose, our founding Forefathers had the forth sight to see that there may come a time when our Government tries to impose on us their will without our consent and that there may come a time when we the Citizens of the Republic must take a stand to protect and defend these sacred documents as written by our founding forefathers and that they may not be infringed upon. I am going to enter several statements from our founding forefathers that make this very clear.

Samuel Adams If ever the Time should come, when vain & aspiring Men shall possess the highest Seats in Government, our Country will stand in Need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its Ruin.
The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

Thomas Jefferson When the representative body has lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the state, and calls for an exercise of the power of dissolution. I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

The Purpose of the Constitution
The founding fathers established the Constitution to do just two things:
1. Establish a federal government for the United States of America
2. Delegate to the federal government certain, limited (and enumerated) powers.
The Constitution was written by the thirteen original states. The federal government created by the states, via the Constitution, exists to serve the states. Until the states delegated some powers to the new federal government, those powers belonged to the states. The states, of course, delegated only some of their powers to the federal government while retaining most of their powers for themselves.
It is important to recognize that the states are the "boss" of the federal government! The states "hired" the federal government and set forth the rules as to how it should operate. The Constitution is a list of those rules. Just as a manager is expected to enforce company rules to manage employees, it is the responsibility of the states to enforce the Constitution to manage the federal government. The Supreme Court, being itself part of the federal government, has an obvious conflict of interest.
Yes, it pretends to enforce the Constitution against the Executive and Legislative branches, but who will "manage" the Supreme Court?
Who will watch the watchers?
The states are the rightful and logical enforcers of the Constitution. It helps to keep this in mind in the discussion which follows.
What the Constitution Does Not Do
The Constitution does not give you rights. The founders considered your rights to be "God-given" or "natural rights" — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:
Limiting the powers of government by granting to it only those specific powers that are listed in the Constitution; (This has not proven to be effective of late.)
Enumerating certain, specific rights which you retain. These are listed in the Bill of Rights.
The rights deemed most important by the founders are specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights also says that, even though a particular right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, you still retain that right. Any powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are retained by the states and the people (you).
So, without the Constitution, the states and the people have all the rights and there is no federal government. With the Constitution, the states and the people keep any rights not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The Constitution states this very clearly.
Unfortunately, the government today seems to recognize only those rights specifically listed in the Bill of Rights and even these often receive little more than lip service, when your rights interfere with some government objective.
Sam Steiger is a former Congressman from Arizona. At a talk given July 31, 1982, at The Nevada Libertarian Party "CANDIDATE'S CONVENTION" in Las Vegas, Nevada, he suggested what he called "Steiger's Law": "People involved in a structure spend more time and energy maintaining that structure than in working toward its goals."
How is Steiger's Law applicable to the Constitutionality Crisis? The federal government, having been created to serve the states and the people, has degraded to the point that it is more concerned with perpetuating itself than with carrying out its constitutionally delegated duties. Rather than serving you by protecting your rights, as charged by the Constitution.
The government has goals and objectives of its own, often in conflict with your rights. While you may have all the rights (the Constitution specifically says so), the government has all the power. When your rights and the government's goals are in conflict, you lose.
We the People created the government of the United States to serve us, not the other way around. Today it would be difficult for an outsider to determine that We the People don't exist to serve the government.
In order to carry out its grandiose plans and achieve its goals, government has to exercise powers well outside those limited powers granted it by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has been a willing accomplice, permitting gradual but continuous expansion of government power. As soon as We the People become accustomed to living with the latest power grab, powers are expanded yet again.
The government sees no practical limits on its power. In the rare event that some law or part of a law, is found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, Congress just reworks the text a little and then passes essentially the same (unconstitutional) law again.
In its practice of Judicial Review, too often the Supreme Court is not asking: "Are this citizen's rights being violated by this law?" Instead the question is: "Is the violation of this citizen's rights justified because of overriding government goals and objectives?" Too often the answer the court delivers is "yes."
When your rights get in the way of a government objective, you lose.
Government created to protect your rights should have no goal higher than the protection of those rights. When government's own goals override your rights, government is acting unconstitutionally.
Government often states that these violations of citizens' rights are necessary "for the good of society.
" Society is ill served by laws which violate the rights of the citizens making up that society.

Question: How many of you are aware of the Dick Act of 1902?

The Dick Act of 1902

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of M*****a Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the m*****a into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized m*****a, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized m*****a and the regular army. The m*****a encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized m*****a have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard M*****a can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress i**********n and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized M*****a (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized M*****a (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the m*****a as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the m*****a to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The m*****a, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the m*****a is the m*****a of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the m*****a of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the m*****a imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917

Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way

Now that's some darn good research !

BALDEAGLE

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment

From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:


1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."


1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."


1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."


1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."


1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."


1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.