The Supreme Court supports you ... Defense against Political Leaders

[Liveliner]

<span style="background-color: #edeff4; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11.199999809265137px; line-height: 11.199999809265137px">tyrannical government; <<< (THAT ONE)</span></p>

</p>

</p>

 

[Liveliner]

Re: The Supreme Court supports you ... Shoot a Political Leader

<div>
</div><div>Do you remember the Branch Davidian Church?</div>

Here is a copy/paste article that is brief . >>></p>

A little more than a month before the ATF raid, the sheriff had determined there were no illegal weapons in the Branch Davidian church. The sheriff, pursuant to a search warrant, had taken in all the arms and then returned them after determining they were all legal weapons. The BATF had stated that the presence of illegal weapons was the reason for the massive assault on the church.</p>

</p>

 

[outcaster]

Re: The Supreme Court supports you ... Shoot a Political Leader

You, and the NRA gun nuts have no comprehension of the second amendment. Why was it added? Who wrote it? Who asked for it? The 2nd amendment was drafted by James Madison upon the request of Sec. of State Thomas Jefferson. It was asked for by the "slave" states to form state militia's for the enforcement of slavery. These militia's were known as "slave patrols" and date back to the early 1700's. The 2nd amendment has nothing at all to do with US citizens having the "right" to form militia's to take on the Federal gov't in a military fashion. If that were the case we would have the right to "resist arrest" under the 2nd amendment. If the AFT, U.S. Marshals, FBI, State Police or County Sheriff, show up at your house to serve a warrant.... you DO NOT have the "right" to engage them in a gun battle. Just the same, if your application for disability gets denied, you don't have the right to "shoot up" the local SS office. Timothy McVeigh was pissed at the Govt and blew up a Federal bldg., the 2nd amendment didn't keep him from the death penalty. The real purpose of the 2nd amendment was eliminated by the 13th amendment (eliminating slavery). From that point the 2nd amendment guarantees citizens the right to own weapons for the purposes of hunting, sporting and personal and property protection, and has been interpreted that way by the courts ever since then.

 

[Liveliner]

Re: The Supreme Court supports you ... Shoot a Political Leader

My kids are as important to me as his are to him.

 

[outcaster]

Re: The Supreme Court supports you ... Shoot a Political Leader

Read a book or two before you try to argue the Constitution. lol

 

[Dropshot]

Re: The Supreme Court supports you ... Shoot a Political Leader

I will simply include an edited excerpt or two from a college Constitutional History thesis I wrote seveal years ago. Think it should qualify for "read a book or two"... That theory that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to put down slave rebellions was recently resurrected by bestselling liberal author and radio host Thom Hartmann, who said Virginia wouldn’t ratify the Constitution without a guarantee that it would have some way to keep slaves in check. Now the libs are running with it as their usual racist type tagline with Chavez-loving Danny Glover leading the idiot charge.</p>

Interesting theory that has only grown legs in the time of gun-control advocation. Noah Webster stated it best it in a published pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the “motherland’s” goal had been "to disarm the people; that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the government's standing army. As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power towards citizens, the people are confirmed in their right to keep and bear their private arms. </p>

With this, the well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the founding fathers did not disclose "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State." When the Constitution was ratified, the framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms. </p>

 

[Liveliner]

Re: The Supreme Court supports you ... Shoot a Political Leader

Well stated and educational Dropshot. Thanks for taking your time to post your remarks.

 

[outcaster]

Re: The Supreme Court supports you ... Shoot a Political Leader

Who decides when the "National Govt" is tyrannical? you? me? If we don't like what the National Gov't does we vote them out and vote in the ones we think will do what we want. Do you really believe the 2nd amendment affords you as a citizen the "right" to own any kind of weapon you choose to take on the feds? Nukes? Grenade launchers? Land mines? Surface to air missiles? Those are "ARMS" too. I chuckle reading falsely attributed "quotes" of our founding fathers on the 2nd amendment. In 1794 George Washington as President, personally led forces to western PA to put down a rebellion of folks who thought they could fight the tyranny of the govt. Does that sound like the man who said....."A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government"??? Of course not. News flash!!! Washington didn't say that. Some of you guys will believe anything the NRA tells you to. lol And yes, the primary purpose of the "Well regulated Militia's" was slavery patrols. Not an independent "state" army prepared fight the Federal govt' if it got out of line. Why do you guys think the 1994 assault weapons ban (Brady Bill) was never challenged to the Supreme Court??? So go ahead liveliner, shoot a Federal employee and see how far you get with your 2nd amendment argument. I've seen some crazy right wing ,"gun nut" stuff posted here before, but this takes the cake.

 

[Buoy-Master]

Re: The Supreme Court supports you ... Shoot a Political Leader

So where exactly do you stand Danny? You've managed to call many of us gun toting crazies but id like to know what you really think about what's going on. As a free American that is.

 

[outcaster]

Re: The Supreme Court supports you ... Shoot a Political Leader

I thought I made views pretty clear. Its real simple Billy, the 2nd amendment affords citizens the right to bear arms. However it does not guarantee citizens the right to own any and every kind of weapon you choose (nukes, bombs, drones, military assault rifles). A well regulated militia is not a "posse" to keep the gov't in check, That's not what "Checks and Balances" mean. Congress does have the power make laws restricting the sale of weapons whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. And the President does have the authority to "executive order" when Congress won't act in these matters. Weapons designed for hunting, sporting, personal and property protection are certainly Constitutional. The 2nd amendment has been interpreted that way since the 1860's when State Militia's were no longer needed due the 13th amendment abolishing slavery. I call people "gun nuts" who believe the NRA Bullshit and get all stirred up by saying "that if they outlaw AR-15's, then they will be coming after my grandpa's 12 gauge next". I own a rifle, shotgun and a revolver (all legally). I do not need a military assault rifle, and neither do you. And certainly not liveliner who started this thread entitled "The Supreme Court Supports You..... Shoot a Political Leader" He's probably the very Last person who needs and AR-15

 

[Buoy-Master]

Re: The Supreme Court supports you ... Shoot a Political Leader

Ok maybe I need to start a new thread. Minus all the education of the 2nd Ammendment...I want to know what you think about limiting a honest citizen. My 9mm holds 17 not 5 or 6. Should I be limited to shells if a few criminals enter my house or try to seriously harm me? That's the sorta thing I'm looking for. I don't believe everything the NRA post either as I also think Uncle Ted makes some valid points yet sometimes he gets a bit too hot or extreme.

 

[Buoy-Master]

Re: The Supreme Court supports you ... Shoot a Political Leader

And liveliner....the thread topic is a bit extreme.

 

[Liveliner]

<div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>

Same argument ... Why have weapons that shoot multiple rounds or any weapon more than what is necessary for your "Normal" activities? </p>

Compare that to being allowed to own and operate any Vehicle capable to exceed the National speed limits? There are cars running on our public streets right now that are capable to run in excess of 150 MPH. And just think. My kids are on a school bus with all those fast cars out there. "There should be a Law"... Wait... There are laws.. </p>

So, people can be trusted to own these fast cars because we have Laws placing restrictions on their use. Then again. Isn't there Laws telling us what we can do with our guns? Just enforce the friggin' laws we already have and put harsher consequences on those who have proven they are a violator... Get a couple Reckless driving tickets and several Drunk driving arrests and see how you like Driving. </p>

I remember well a violator who had a fast Camero who ran from the Police in the East Lake area endangering the lives of many including me and My children until the Police chased him into his Mamma's yard.... If you know who I am speaking of , ask him how it feels to go beyond what the Law allows.</p>

Use some common sense... I do not need the Government telling me how fast my car can be capable of going and I do not need them telling me how many times I may shoot my guns if I choose to do so.. "It is the same thing"</p>

 

[spnplgr]

If the politicians wanted to stop the shooters, they would prevent mentally ill people from getting their hands on guns, not block the law abiding citizens from arming themselves. Face it folks, it's all about people, not guns.

Liberals are simply trying to use this issue to disarm the people - like Hitler did before taking full control!

 

[Liveliner]

Re: The Supreme Court supports you ... Shoot a Political Leader

<div>
</div>

</p>

"Extreme???</p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11.199999809265137px; line-height: 11.199999809265137px; background-color: #edeff4"><span class="UFICommentBody" /></span>

 

[Buoy-Master]

The fact you titled it "shooting a political leader" is a bit extreme. Proper wording was added. Its called defense. No one is running out to shoot anyone and god I only pray this country never comes to a civil war either!

I fully support our rights to bear arms for my liberty of freedom. However, in the case I have to defend myself against my government, it will be in defense of my life, liberty and to uphold the constitution this country is based on.

Title was simply changed to defense..I think a better word in the fight of what we are going through and about to get see more of.

 

[Liveliner]

We're good Billy...

 

[Liveliner]

Re: The Supreme Court supports you ... Shoot a Political Leader

<div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>

outcaster - 1/17/2013 12:12 PM You, and the NRA gun nuts have no comprehension of the second amendment. Why was it added? Who wrote it? Who asked for it? The 2nd amendment was drafted by James Madison upon the request of Sec. of State Thomas Jefferson. It was asked for by the "slave" states to form state militia's for the enforcement of slavery. These militia's were known as "slave patrols" and date back to the early 1700's. The 2nd amendment has nothing at all to do with US citizens having the "right" to form militia's to take on the Federal gov't in a military fashion. If that were the case we would have the right to "resist arrest" under the 2nd amendment. If the AFT, U.S. Marshals, FBI, State Police or County Sheriff, show up at your house to serve a warrant.... you DO NOT have the "right" to engage them in a gun battle. Just the same, if your application for disability gets denied, you don't have the right to "shoot up" the local SS office. Timothy McVeigh was pissed at the Govt and blew up a Federal bldg., the 2nd amendment didn't keep him from the death penalty. The real purpose of the 2nd amendment was eliminated by the 13th amendment (eliminating slavery). From that point the 2nd amendment guarantees citizens the right to own weapons for the purposes of hunting, sporting and personal and property protection, and has been interpreted that way by the courts ever since then.

</p>

OUTCASTER IS DEAD WRONG .. Someone stated that the right to bear arms was for the purpose to control runaway slavesstartingin the early 1700's... He also stated the right to bear arms was for the purpose ofHunting. I have read and read again. The EX slaves were given the same rights to bear arms to defend themselves after a motion to ban firearms in certain states failed... Also. No where in the constitution does it state that the right to bear arms has any mention of hunting ... So therefore the person's comments were no more than Liberal propaganda todeceive. </p>

The following is a portion of the wording from this site for legal understand. >>></p>

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd1</p>

</p>

<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.59375px; background-color: #ddddcc">The Court, relying on histor</span><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.59375px; background-color: #ddddcc">ical analysis set forth previously in Heller, noted the English common law roots of the right to keep arms for self-defense</span><a name="fnz12ref"></a>12<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.59375px; background-color: #ddddcc">and the importance of the right to the American colonies, the drafters of the Constitution. and the states as a bulwark against over-reaching federal authority.</span><a name="fnz13ref"></a>13<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.59375px; background-color: #ddddcc">Noting that by the 1850s the perceived threat that the National Government would disarm the citizens had largely faded, the Court suggested that the right to keep and bear arms became valued principally for purposes of self-defense, so that the passage of Fourteenth Amendment, in part, was intended to protect the right of ex-slaves to keep and bear arms. While it was argued by the dissent that this protection would most logically be provided by the Equal Protection Clause, not by the Due Process Clause,</span><a name="fnz14ref"></a>14<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.59375px; background-color: #ddddcc">the plurality also found enough evidence of then-existent concerns regarding the treatment of blacks by the state militia to conclude that the right to bear arms was also intended to protect against generally-applicable state regulation.</span></p>

 

[Liveliner]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd1