Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: My version of how the second amendment.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Globe, AZ
    Posts
    57

    My version of how the second amendment.

    I wrote this several years ago when I working one Sunday at the lab (it was a slow day).

    Congress, nor any state, nor any political sub division within a state shall make no law that in any way, abridges, restricts, infringes or denies the absolute right of the individual who is not lawfully incarcerated, who is of 18 years or older in age, to acquire lawfully, keep and carry either openly or concealed about their person, arms or components of arms and ammunition, in any all and all areas of the nation, for the defense of the individual, property and the defense of the state.

    No Individual who is not lawfully incarcerated, who is of 18 years or older in age, shall never be required to seek any permission, permit or license, from any authority, to acquire lawfully, keep and carry either openly or concealed, arms or components of arms and ammunition in any all and all areas of the nation, for the defense of the individual, property and the defense of the state.

    Congress, nor any state or any political sub division of a state shall make no law that requires arms or components of arms and ammunition, or record of any lawful sale thereof, to be registered or recorded with any agency.

    Congress, nor any state nor any political sub division of a state shall make no law that imposes any special or selective, tax or regulation on any individual, corporation or other entity engaged in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of arms or components of arms and ammunition.

    No individual, corporation or other entity engaged in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of arms or components of arms and ammunition shall not be liable for the misuse of arms or components of arms and ammunition, used by another individual in any act.
    There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. — AYN RAND

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northglenn, Colorado
    Posts
    243
    There is a simpler way to say that:

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    If there was any honesty in government that would be all that is needed. Violators (as in legislators or officials that violate that right) should be incarcerated. That would serve to deter tampering with our rights.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Globe, AZ
    Posts
    57
    I understand what you are saying, but being a scientist, I wanted to get it as clear as possible and not leave the anti gun folks any wiggle room at all. You know those kind of people, you give them a nanometer and they will take a kilometer!
    There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. — AYN RAND

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by gunslinger493 View Post
    I wanted to get it as clear as possible and not leave the anti gun folks any wiggle room at all.
    The second amendment is completely clear as written. The problem and misunderstanding lies in the fact that many today are uneducated in history, and anti-gun hoplophobes use that to their advantage.

    The "militia" was, and still is, the general population.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Globe, AZ
    Posts
    57
    True, when second amendment was written, everybody knew what the militia was and did. What the founders could not have foreseen was the passage of time and dumming down of the population. My version, I believe would stand the test of time by making it perfectly clear to anyone of any education and political leaning.
    There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. — AYN RAND

  6. #6
    Regular Member Frantic84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by gunslinger493 View Post
    True, when second amendment was written, everybody knew what the militia was and did. What the founders could not have foreseen was the passage of time and dumming down of the population. My version, I believe would stand the test of time by making it perfectly clear to anyone of any education and political leaning.
    actually they had seen this possibility coming through the central bank and the like, they fought hard too keep a system in place that would prevent such problems but overtime the system was gradually flipped. This country was designed to be a republic an was corrupted into a democracy (the word democracy isn't even in the constitution). i'll leave the research to you because there is a lot to learn.
    Last edited by Frantic84; 08-16-2012 at 11:51 AM. Reason: grammer
    remove handgun registration in Clark County,NV

    2nd amendment in modern English: The people have the right to own and carry firearms, and it may not be violated because a well-equipped Militia is necessary for a State to remain secure and free.

  7. #7
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Constructive criticism, not insulting: There are some grammatical issues with wording of your text. There are several double negatives that would essentially negate the intent of some of the passages. Example:

    "No Individual who..., shall never be required..." No individual shall never be required means that all individual SHALL be required to at least at some point in the future.

    The "nor" qualifiers is also incorrect. Essentially you are excluding from the list when you say nor. The lines should read "Congres, any state, or any further subdivision of government within a state shall not..."

    Using the term "political" is less accurate than using the term government. Politics is not always and exclusively associated with governments.

    Also keep in mind as you think about this. Laws do not grant rights. They remove rights. So any law written either expressly takes rights away or it prevents the taking away of rights. IT would be useful to express that in the statement. IE, "As it is the natural right of all US citizens to keep...."

    Minor critiques. Not intended to offend, just trying to be constructive. I tend to do similar things when I get bored.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Globe, AZ
    Posts
    57
    That is a much better statement: "Congress, any state, or any further subdivision of government within a state shall not..."

    I chose the the term political subdivision because it was used in the assault weapons ban back in 1994.

    I will play with it some more this weekend, thanks for critic!
    There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. — AYN RAND

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Globe, AZ
    Posts
    57
    That is what I was trying to do when I wrote this. I wanted to put it in the clearest terms possible so that there would be no misunderstanding now or in the future. I do admit that I was wrong on laws granting rights and I will rewrite it to reflect this.
    There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. — AYN RAND

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    "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 militia..." 'militia' is/was able bodied white males 16-45 years of age.
    "well regulated" is/was taking the time to be a good marksman and maintain your firearm in good working order. Thus, in order to maintain a free state all able bodied white males must be prepared to use their firearms on a moments notice.


    "the right of the people..." as referring back to the precise definition of the term militia, the people is referred to specifically. In times of peace the militia is just that...the people.

    "to keep and bear arms...." to own at home and to bear at times of need.

    "shall not be infringed." no law, no government interference, no restriction for any and all arms.

    If you want to change words I would suggest.

    "A well armed citizenry is necessary for a free and independent people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
    Live Free or Die!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    6
    Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson that said; "No Free Man shall be denied the use of firearms?"
    -Bruce

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Shoobee View Post
    If it really was "completely clear" as you imagine then there would not be hundreds of years of controversy about it...
    Of course there would still be controversy.
    If the general populace keeping and bearing arms is truly necessary to the security of a free state, it stands to reason that those who wish to control the state and wrest the just powers from the hands of the citizens need to remove this barrier to their plans.
    The desire to create a state of dependent and servile subjects is thwarted when the citizenry possess and maintain the means to ensure their own shared security and freedom.
    I doubt that the history of attempted misconstruction and misdirection regarding the clear meaning and supporting historical evidence of the purpose and scope of the 2A can be attributed in very large scale to any simple or innocent misunderstanding.
    The surrounding controversy is not attributable to any lack of clarity – it was quite clear when it was written and is no less so 230+ years later. The controversy is only generated by those who wish to control others.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by ATM View Post
    it was quite clear when it was written and is no less so 230+ years later. The controversy is only generated by those who wish to control others.
    Allow me to elaborate by adding a video from Penn & Teller. The end is chopped for whatever reason, but I'm sure you will get the gist of it.
    http://youtu.be/_YY5Rj4cQ50
    -Bruce

  14. #14
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    "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."
    Nice shot tex, better luck next time: "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."

    If you're going to quote, particularly the U.S. Constitution, please make sure your CAPS, and commas are all in the right place.

    "A well regulated militia..." 'militia' is/was able bodied white males 16-45 years of age.
    "well regulated" is/was taking the time to be a good marksman and maintain your firearm in good working order. Thus, in order to maintain a free state all able bodied white males must be prepared to use their firearms on a moments notice.


    "the right of the people..." as referring back to the precise definition of the term militia, the people is referred to specifically. In times of peace the militia is just that...the people.

    "to keep and bear arms...." to own at home and to bear at times of need.


    Wrong. The Militia is under the control of the Federal Government. Please, read the Federalist, it is all there, black-and-white.

    "shall not be infringed." no law, no government interference, no restriction for any and all arms.
    Infringed, is a matter of degrees, not absolute; that is, unless you're an Absolutist, then run with it.

    If you want to change words I would suggest.

    "A well armed citizenry is necessary for a free and independent people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
    Please, don't change it any more, the U.S. Constitution is already a linguistic train-wreck out the gate, it doesn't need anyone's help.

    Is someone prepared to offer me the Etymology of Keep and Bear Arms? The first question that comes to mind is: Is the so-called Right, to Keep and Bear, a Private, or Public matter? If it is Private, then your Right does not extend outside of your home. If it is Public, then it extends out into the Public realm.

    Personally, Bear Arms is a matter of self-defense.--it does reach out into the Public realm; then again, does it?
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    365
    Interesting 2A reading written in 8 parts: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin16.htm

  16. #16
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Wrong. The Militia is under the control of the Federal Government. Please, read the Federalist, it is all there, black-and-white.
    "10 USC 311"

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    This is CURRENT U.S. federal law, it's right here, black-and-white
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  17. #17
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    "10 USC 311"

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    This is CURRENT U.S. federal law, it's right here, black-and-white
    I was sweating-it for a moment there, until I reade Males. Good thing I'm excluded. Good luck fellas.

    Unorganized Militia are not the Militia referenced in the Second Amendment. They would be the militia, not the Militia.--as lettered within the Second Amendment.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  18. #18
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I was sweating-it for a moment there, until I reade Males. Good thing I'm excluded. Good luck fellas.

    Unorganized Militia are not the Militia referenced in the Second Amendment. They would be the militia, not the Militia.--as lettered within the Second Amendment.
    And considering that the organized militia is lettered the same way in the context of the USC cite, then that means the second amendment can't apply anywhere. OR the case of the letter is really irrelevant
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  19. #19
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by gunslinger493 View Post
    I wrote this several years ago when I working one Sunday at the lab (it was a slow day).

    Congress, nor any state, nor any political sub division within a state shall make no law that in any way, abridges, restricts, infringes or denies the absolute
    kinda like a double negative... should be: "Congress, OR any state, OR any political.....shall make no law..."


    unless you want to put "Neither" before "Congress".

  20. #20
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    Constructive criticism, not insulting: There are some grammatical issues with wording of your text. There are several double negatives that would essentially negate the intent of some of the passages. Example:

    "No Individual who..., shall never be required..." No individual shall never be required means that all individual SHALL be required to at least at some point in the future.

    The "nor" qualifiers is also incorrect. Essentially you are excluding from the list when you say nor. The lines should read "Congres, any state, or any further subdivision of government within a state shall not..."

    Using the term "political" is less accurate than using the term government. Politics is not always and exclusively associated with governments.

    Also keep in mind as you think about this. Laws do not grant rights. They remove rights. So any law written either expressly takes rights away or it prevents the taking away of rights. IT would be useful to express that in the statement. IE, "As it is the natural right of all US citizens to keep...."

    Minor critiques. Not intended to offend, just trying to be constructive. I tend to do similar things when I get bored.

    oh...i didn't read this first...but you and i apparently are grammar scholars. lol or is that me and you? lol

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Globe, AZ
    Posts
    57

    Lightbulb This is my second attempt:

    The opening declares it to be a natural right
    As it is the natural right of the individual to keep and bear arms, Congress or any State or any political sub division with a State shall make no law:

    This paragraph recognizes the right of the individual to keep an bear arms and spells it out.
    -- That in any way, abridges, restricts, infringes or denies the absolute right of the individual who is not lawfully incarcerated, who is of 18 years or older in age, to acquire lawfully, keep and carry either openly or concealed about their person, arms or components of arms and ammunition, in any all and all areas of the nation.

    This paragraph eliminates any possible permitting schemes and says permission to exercise that right can not be required
    -- That requires any Individual who is not lawfully incarcerated, who is of 18 years or older in age to seek permission, permit or license, from any authority, to acquire lawfully, keep and carry either openly or concealed, arms or components of arms and ammunition in any all and all areas of the nation, for the defense of the individual, property and the defense of the state.

    This paragraph eliminates any registration schemes
    -- That requires arms or components of arms and ammunition, or record of any lawful sale or the possession thereof, to be registered or recorded with any authority.

    This paragraph prevents guns and ammunition from being taxed so that they prohibitively expensive.

    -- That imposes any special or selective, tax or regulation on any individual, corporation or other entity engaged in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of arms or components of arms and ammunition.

    This paragraph prevents gun manufacturers from being sued by the misuse of their products by criminals
    -- That places liability on any individual, corporation or other entity engaged in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of arms or components of arms and ammunition for the misuse of arms or components of arms and ammunition, used by another individual in any act.

    As with my first attempt, I wanted to spell it out in no uncertain terms that could be twisted or misused. I am a scientist and I deal with absolute facts all the time.
    I wanted no misinterpretation, either deliberate or not. I wanted to go beyond 'shall not be infringed'
    Last edited by gunslinger493; 08-31-2012 at 01:26 AM.
    There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. — AYN RAND

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by gunslinger493 View Post
    ...I wanted to go beyond 'shall not be infringed'
    You could have a lawyer polish it and add 5000 more words to say it in 20 different ways, but IMO none of that would serve to take it "beyond" the simple yet concrete original.

    As an exercise in outlining and defining the vast reach of the simply stated restriction, I do appreciate your approach to the matter.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227
    Here is an example of the type mumbo jumbo speak without thinking of legal eagles. These are the people your forfathers were protecting you from when they added the 2nd! to your constitution.

    > ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
    > WITNESS: He said, “Where am I, Cathy?”
    > ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
    > WITNESS: My name is Susan!
    ____________ _________ _________ _________ _____

    > ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
    > WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
    ____________ _________ _________ _________ _____
    > ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
    > WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
    ____________ _________ _________ _________ _____
    > ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
    > WITNESS: Yes.
    > ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
    > WITNESS: I forget.
    > ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
    ____________ _________ _________ _________
    > ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he
    > doesn’t know about it until the next morning?
    > WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
    ____________ _________ _________ ______

    > ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year- old, how old is he?
    > WITNESS: He’s twenty, much like your IQ.
    ____________ _________ _________ _________

    > ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
    > WITNESS: Are you ******** me?
    ____________ _________ _________ _________ __

    > ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
    > WITNESS: Yes.
    > ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
    > WITNESS: Getting laid
    ____________ _________ _________ _________ _____

    > ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
    > WITNESS: Yes.
    > ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
    > WITNESS: None.
    > ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
    > WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new
    > attorney?
    ____________ _________ _________ _________ _____
    > ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
    > WITNESS: By death.
    > ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
    > WITNESS: Take a guess.
    ____________ _________ _________ _________ ____ _
    > ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
    > WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
    > ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
    > WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I’m going with male.
    ____________ _________ _________ _______
    > ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition
    > notice which I sent to your attorney?
    > WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
    ____________ _________ _________ ________
    > ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead
    > people?
    > WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
    ____________ _________ _________ _________
    > ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
    > WITNESS: Oral.
    ____________ _________ _________ _________ __
    > ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
    > WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
    > ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
    > WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
    ____________ _________ _________ _________ _____
    > ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
    > WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?
    ____________ _________ _________ ________
    > And the best for last:
    >
    > ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a
    > pulse?
    > WITNESS: No.
    > ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
    > WITNESS: No.
    > ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
    > WITNESS: No.
    > ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began
    > the autopsy?
    > WITNESS: No.
    > ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
    > WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
    > ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
    > WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing
    > law.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Haz. View Post
    Here is an example of the type mumbo jumbo speak without thinking of legal eagles. These are the people your forfathers were protecting you from when they added the 2nd! to your constitution.
    That about sums it up. Entertaining too.
    -Bruce

  25. #25
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Ballenxj View Post
    That about sums it up. Entertaining too.
    -Bruce
    Thanks Bruce.

    Mort lawers are hopeless as far as I am conserned. I never said all, just most!

    I was once waiting to be called to appear in court and give evidence, sitting along side my wife who came to support me, when my barrister sent out my solicitor who asked me to move away so I could not hear what he was about to ask my wife. I moved away and so it went.

    It was not until after the case was over that my wife was able to tell me what had transpired between her and my scolicitor and my barrister.

    My solicitor, forgetfully, had left certain crucial documents which totally and compleatly cleared me of any wrong doing at his office and my barrister, giving this evidence in court at that very time needed them right away. My solicitor asked my wife first of all if I had copies of these documents? (naturally she could not ask me as I was not supposed to hear the conversation they were having), and when she answered, she did not know if I had copies, then he asked if anyone was at home who could bring them to court ASAP?

    Like who, if they even were at home could bring documents no one knew If I even had copies of, and where they might be? If I had copies of documents no one knew about and if they were in my safe, no one would have access to them even if they knew what they were?

    And this was one of the top legal companies in Aus. at the time!

    These are the type of people who tinker with, and make laws affecting your's and my rights in this world!
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •