Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A well trained Army, to maintain a police state of justifiable laws, no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution who are 21 years of age and non-felons, shall be eligible to keep and bear arms government allows, and can be altered given unforeseen circumstances.
If it were in fact worded like that, the same as elsewhere in the Constitution for other things we allow government to do. It would be justified to place the rules and regulations on the weapons the people can have and how they obtain them. But as I read it, they have no authority and all they do is an infringement.
It does say people, but our government has us convinced it says citizen. They have us convinced it says there is an age requirement. They have us convinced there are people, who really are no longer people and should not be armed, if they walk freely among us. They have us convinced the militia is the governments national guard. They have us convinced only they can maintain a free state with laws, when every law made takes liberty, if not total freedom.
A well trained Army, to maintain a police state of justifiable laws, no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution who are 21 years of age and non-felons, shall be eligible to keep and bear arms government allows, and can be altered given unforeseen circumstances.
If it were in fact worded like that, the same as elsewhere in the Constitution for other things we allow government to do. It would be justified to place the rules and regulations on the weapons the people can have and how they obtain them. But as I read it, they have no authority and all they do is an infringement.
It does say people, but our government has us convinced it says citizen. They have us convinced it says there is an age requirement. They have us convinced there are people, who really are no longer people and should not be armed, if they walk freely among us. They have us convinced the militia is the governments national guard. They have us convinced only they can maintain a free state with laws, when every law made takes liberty, if not total freedom.
Your rational & reasonable thoughts?
The Supreme Court has ruled already and made this a non-issue except to statists and brain-dead liberals:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
In California we have state legislators who openly brag about defying the constitution. We will be leaving soon and taking our taxes with us. If I'm going to pay tens of thousands in state taxes I'm going to do so in a state that respects the law.
Taxes are a necessary part of a civilized society. Over here on the Left coast we pay more and more and get less and less.
The Supreme Court has ruled already and made this a non-issue except to statists and brain-dead liberals:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
In California we have state legislators who openly brag about defying the constitution. We will be leaving soon and taking our taxes with us. If I'm going to pay tens of thousands in state taxes I'm going to do so in a state that respects the law.
Taxes are a necessary part of a civilized society. Over here on the Left coast we pay more and more and get less and less.
That is reasonable. I commend you for the yearning for liberty, over the demands of the collective.
Liberals are inconsistent. It shows they argue with emotion as opposed to logic.
Common sense and the truth are hard to debate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
