How would you have written the 2nd Amendment?

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

With that in mind, here is my rendition of the Second Amendment:

Each person has theright and responsibility to protect himself and to aid in the protection of his community, Stateand Nation; therefore, Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to own, carry and use weapons of any kind. However, no person who objects to violence on moral or religious groundsmay be compelled by the Government to own or use weapons.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think government should have the ability to restrict the use of weapons. Probably not at the federal level, but I have no issue with cities restricting the discharge of firearms, for example.

That's why I did not include "use" in my rendition.

imported post

swillden wrote:

Liko81 wrote:

With that in mind, here is my rendition of the Second Amendment:

Each person has theright and responsibility to protect himself and to aid in the protection of his community, Stateand Nation; therefore, Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to own, carry and use weapons of any kind. However, no person who objects to violence on moral or religious groundsmay be compelled by the Government to own or use weapons.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think government should have the ability to restrict the use of weapons. Probably not at the federal level, but I have no issue with cities restricting the discharge of firearms, for example.

That's why I did not include "use" in my rendition.

Click to expand...

The problem is, without the right to use weapons, the other rights are pointless.

If DC or Chicago can imprison me for using my gun to shoot someone killing my family; the right to keep and bear it is meaningless.

Now, I am not unsure how to handle the case of not wanting your neighbor shooting targets in their backyard at 3 AM.. :celebrate

imported post

thorkyl wrote:

The right of a citizen in good standing, to own, posses, carry either openly or concealed, and use a weapon, including but not limited to firearms, knives, and other weapons commonly available, for legal purposes, including but not limited to, challenge of the tyranny of the government, hunting, and self defense, shall not be challenged by, or regulated by the government.

Click to expand...

My issue with your version is that when you say a "citizen in good standing", exactly what does that mean and who gets to determine what that is? It is an open door to infringement and prohibition of certain classes of citizens by a governmental entity.

Secondly, I wouldn't change the wording at all simply because I don't think we should have to dumb down the constitution so that those thatchoose to be uneducated about our rights andliberties can have a better understanding of basic intent by the founders.It means what is says and it says what it means. Period.

However, for the sake of hypotheticals and for fun, this would be my version if I was forced to write it...

A well-equiped and well-trained citizenmilitia, composed of all able-bodied Americans of any age, is the proper, natural, and best defense against tyranny, standing armies, foreign invaders, insurrections, rebellions, criminal acts, and terrorism. Therefore, the individual guaranteed right to own, keep, possess, purchase, transport, andcarry both openly and concealed, small arms and ammunitionof both military and police grade, and sporting and relic arms in common use and in collections, and all other weapons a person may wear including blunt objects and stabbing weapons, usedfor his/her protection of themselves, others, their communities, homes, property,businesses, towns or cities, states, and country may not be infringed or abridged in any manner. This right may not be misconstrued by a governmental entity to limit it's useage in allowing licensing andregistration schemes, fingerprinting, nor any record keeping of any firearms purchases.The taking of wild game whilefollowing state and federal laws in pursuing such conservation efforts,and other sporting, training, target, or lawful purposes for armsis soencouraged to maintain readiness.

imported post

iamfreeru2 wrote:

Skeptic wrote:

iamfreeru2 wrote:

I guess you guys just don't get it. Citizen = slave and slaves have no protection other than what the master wants to give them.

Click to expand...

That is NOT the etymology nor the meaning of the word citizen, except of course perhaps to Socliasts and Communists.

Citizen is an antonym to both alien and to subject. A subject is closer to slave; but a citizen is not a slave by a long shot.

Click to expand...

Like I said you don't get it. Maybe one day you will. I hope it is not too late. Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

Miriam Webster:

1:an inhabitant of a city or town; especially :one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman

2 a:a member of a state b:a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it

3:a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state

Basically, by equating a citizen with a slave, "iamfreeru2" is challenging the notion of social contract. 99% of the people on this planet belong to a society, however formal. Societies, by their very nature, require rules, codified or informal, by which people must act in order for the society to continue to function. Thisset of rules for interpersonal relations is known as a social contract. A member of a society must agree to the contract; in exchange, that person is allowed to participate in the society, to their long-term net benefit. Breaking the rules invalidates the contract; in more primitive times, the penalty was expulsion from the society. In more modern times, a punishment is ascribed to a violation of the rules and once the punishment is taken, the individual is allowed to continue participating in society. Only the most heinous crimes result in expulsion, either by exile or execution.

"iamfreeru2" says that by agreeing to the social contract of the United States or of any society, a person becomes a slave. A slave, by definition, is property and totally incapable of accepting or rejecting the contract; they are forced into it, usually at the lowest level. "iamfreeru2" might be able to argue quite eloquently from a metaphorical standpoint that U.S. society does not offer a choice, and that U.S. citizens get the raw end of the deal; he is quite wrong. Any person can choose to totally reject the contract. However, "totally rejecting the contract" requires leaving the country and renouncing citizenship. Even if a person decides to cut off all human contact and go live in the woods, he still has the protection of the U.S. government, and its military and police force, and for that reason is expected to abide by U.S. law, such as it still applies to someone living in the middle of nowhere; he cannot trespass on another's land, cannot kill another person, cannot rape anyone he happens to meet, cannot take something that is not his, etc. In order to be totally exempt from social contract, a person must go live in an area ungoverned by any sovereign nation and devoid of human existence. Good luck; this planet has 6 billion people on it, in every corner capable of sustaining human life, including places the average American would think impossible to survive.

In addition,"iamfreeru2" does not seem to be considering the other available social contracts he could choose from. Even in the civilized world, many of the liberties and protections we take for granted do not exist. For example, take Japan. Very well-organized, powerful nation. NO rights of the accused. If the police think you did something, you did it, and they will beat, interrogate, isolate, and even starve you for as long as it takes for you to admit it. Coercion is not banned; you quite simply could die if you do not confess to whatever they think you did. Spain, very similar. France, no 8th Amendment; if you commit a crime they throw you in a 1.5m square concrete cell with no bed, no chair, no desk, and no running water; you get a bucket for sanitation. Some prisons do not even allow clothes, as clothes allow prisoners to conceal contraband. Britain, we all know what a mess that is; it's an aristocracy, pure and simple. Rich men get in office, there's about a snowflake's chance in hell of voting them out because THEY decide when to hold elections and so have to be unpopular for a very long time to get voted out, and what they say goes.

I am a citizen of the United States. I am entitled to the rights and protections guaranteed me by the Constitution, in addition to the privileges that a free society that generates wealthaffords in terms of standard of living,and in return I am obligated to follow the laws laid down by society. I've seen the way it could be, and I'm happy to be here and not in any other country, problems and all. "iamfreeru2" does not seem to notice the hypocrisy of using an Internet forum to criticise the way the nation that built the damn thing works. If he trulyis not a member of any society, then he is a leech, plain and simple; he is using the fruits of society's labor while thumbing his nose at the rules that make those fruits possible.

imported post

swillden wrote:

Liko81 wrote:

With that in mind, here is my rendition of the Second Amendment:

Each person has theright and responsibility to protect himself and to aid in the protection of his community, Stateand Nation; therefore, Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to own, carry and use weapons of any kind. However, no person who objects to violence on moral or religious groundsmay be compelled by the Government to own or use weapons.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think government should have the ability to restrict the use of weapons. Probably not at the federal level, but I have no issue with cities restricting the discharge of firearms, for example.

That's why I did not include "use" in my rendition.

Click to expand...

Well, I might agree, but for the argument that Skeptic made. "bearing arms"equates, in modern parlance, to"using weapons". It's not just carry.

Now, if my interpretation were the way things were, you could still argue that the consequences of the act of using a weapon were illegal.Discharge of a firearm at night is a loud noise; that's disturbing the peace. Discharge of a firearm in a reckless manner is reckless endangerment; if it results in an injury it's assault, if it results in a death it's manslaughter/murder.

Before you protest, another long-established doctrine in criminal law is the defense of necessity. This doctrine in English common law predates the Second Amendment, and the Framers, learned men, cannot have done otherwise than to consideritwhen writing the Constitution and the BoR.Say you discharge a firearm. That's disturbing the peace. Your affirmative defense is that it was necessary to do so to protect yourself against an aggressive stray dog, or against a robber, etc, thus preventing a far more heinous result than waking someone up. If you shoot another, the same defense applies, and a tie goes to the survivor; if it's you or him, you have a human right to survive, and thus it isjustifiable to kill another person if the alternative is your death.

Thus, I would argue to keep the prohibition of restrictions on use. There are ways to prohibit andpunish criminal actsgenerally committed with weapons that do not specifically restrict the use of the weapon in and of itself. It is illegal to use a weapon to commit a crime because it is illegal to commit the crime; strongarm robbery has the same result as a robbery at gunpoint, and ifI snap your neck you're just as dead as ifI shot you in the head. However,I make an important distinction between the PROHIBITION of an actinvolving a gun, and the PUNISHMENT of a crime involving a gun. It is unconstitutional to prohibitor restrict the carry of weapons in the belief that you MAY commit amalum in se crime with it.I think however you could defend the constitutionality of a tougher punishment for amalum in se crime involving a gun,because the use of a weapon in a crime is undoubtedly an aggravating factor that increases your chance of successfully committing the crime. That's really a topic for another thread.

Actually, probably the most worrying thing I could think of about this version of the 2A is that if you could convince 9 learned men sitting on a bench that a person no longer has the responsibility for which the 2A was enumerated, that it doesn't apply anymore. However, I take heart in reading Scalia's closing paragraph:

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Click to expand...

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

swillden wrote:

Liko81 wrote:

With that in mind, here is my rendition of the Second Amendment:

Each person has theright and responsibility to protect himself and to aid in the protection of his community, Stateand Nation; therefore, Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to own, carry and use weapons of any kind. However, no person who objects to violence on moral or religious groundsmay be compelled by the Government to own or use weapons.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think government should have the ability to restrict the use of weapons. Probably not at the federal level, but I have no issue with cities restricting the discharge of firearms, for example.

That's why I did not include "use" in my rendition.

Click to expand...

Well, I might agree, but for the argument that Skeptic made. "bearing arms"equates, in modern parlance, to"using weapons". It's not just carry.

Now, if my interpretation were the way it was, you could still argue that the consequences of the act of using a weapon were illegal.Discharge of a firearm at night is a loud noise; that's disturbing the peace. Discharge of a firearm in a reckless manner is reckless endangerment; if it results in an injury it's assault, if it results in a death it's manslaughter/murder.

Before you protest, another long-established doctrine in criminal law is the defense of necessity. This doctrine in English common law predates the Second Amendment, and the Framers, learned men, cannot have done otherwise than to consideritwhen writing the Constitution and the BoR.Say you discharge a firearm. That's disturbing the peace. Your affirmative defense is that it was necessary to do so to protect yourself against an aggressive stray dog, or against a robber, etc, thus preventing a far more heinous result than waking someone up. If you shoot another, the same defense applies, and a tie goes to the survivor; if it's you or him, you have a human right to survive, and thus it isjustifiable to kill another person if the alternative is your death.

Click to expand...

I expected you to go there. I even thought about addressing the point pre-emptively

The doctrine of necessity is the reason I would not be concerned about allowing restrictions on use. In most cases, municipal ordinances restricting discharge of firearms within city limits include exceptions for self-defense, etc., but it really doesn't matter if they don't include them because the law recognizes the defense of necessity.

In a typical urban or sub-urban environment there is almost NO way to shoot safely, and in that context a gunshot is usually a powerful clue that something bad has just happened, and that police response is a good idea. I think it contributes significantly to public safety to allow local governments to restrict discharge. AFAIK, every state pre-emption law in the nation recognizes the same fact.

imported post

swillden wrote:

In a typical urban or sub-urban environment there is almost NO way to shoot safely, and in that context a gunshot is usually a powerful clue that something bad has just happened, and that police response is a good idea. I think it contributes significantly to public safety to allow local governments to restrict discharge. AFAIK, every state pre-emption law in the nation recognizes the same fact.

Click to expand...

This may well be true; however, what a prohibition on firearms discharge does initially is assume that there is NO case in which discharging a firearm can be done safely. Not "almost no way", but "no way". No ambiguity, but it also restricts use of weapons in and of itself, not because of what happens because of it.

Now, you argue for exceptions that say that discharge is not breaking the ordinance. First, you say they're superfluous, while second, you say they mitigate the restriction. While I might agree with the latter,I think you're mistaken on the former; there is a pronounced difference between a defense to prosecution and an exception to the law, at least in theory. A defense is a means of mitigating or eliminating culpability for an act known to be criminal. An exception quite simply says that the act was not a crime.If you carry a concealed weapon, it is not a defense to prosecution for the crime of unlawful carry that you were licensed as a CHL and thus shouldn't be punished; it quite simply is no longer a crime. This may seem a small difference, but when a defense is used at trial, while an exception usually avoids the trial altogether, the difference becomes more apparent.

Now, back to the idea of an ordinance specifically prohibiting discharge of firearms. There are two main consequences; one is that a bullet is launched at high speed likely resulting in damage and possible injury. The other is a loud BANG that is understandably upsetting to those who hear it and know what it is. All of these results are criminal acts in and of themselves, and the gun was only the means; Thus, ordinances specifically targeting firearms are dangerously close to restricting firearms for their own sake, which is by definition unreasonable. Quite simply, it is not needed; if you're disturbing the peace it does not matter if you are using a gun or a boombox, and the same applies to criminal mischief,reckless endangerment, assault, manslaughter and murder. You don't prohibit the use of a gun; you prohibit the criminal actions that can be performed with a gun.

EDIT: I just realized I contradicted myself. A specific law with an exception is desireable because it keeps the actor out of court. But the specific law is bad because it is an unreasonable infringement. How about a compromise; specific exceptions to the more general rule. It's not disturbing the peace, even if the peace was disturbed,if a persondischarges a firearm for purposes of defense.

imported post

This isn't mine, but I like it:

The right of the individual to keep and bear arms, ammunition, transportation, and weapons of war, for the purposes of defense of self, family, household, community, enterprise, State, Commonwealth, and Republic shall be sacrosanct, as shall the right to such defense, and no Government, corporation, artificial entity, or private individual shall infringe upon these rights, nor shall any Government regulate, register, license, tax, impede, prohibit, survey, or in any other manner interfere in the free possession, transport, import, export, sale, or keeping of arms, ammunition, transportation or devices or publications involved in maintaining these rights.

imported post

iamfreeru2 wrote:

I guess you guys just don't get it. Citizen = slave and slaves have no protection other than what the master wants to give them. People does not equal citizen. If you believe you were born a citizen you better think again. The 14th Amendment states: All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are United States citizens. What does subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean? Do you even know what the term person means? Tell me how anyone is born a citizen? I was born a man on the land. Citizenship is a choice and if you chose to be citizen then you chose to be subject. Subjects do not have constitutionally protected rights, only civil rights bestowed upon them by there master. Wake up people!!

If you chose to be citizen you have contracted as slave. It's all about contract.

Click to expand...

Interesting points. Perhaps if enough members are interested we can get a thread going to discuss. I'd be interested in finding out more aboutthe connection between citizens and slaves. Citations of scholarly works would help.

As far asguys not getting it, I suspect you've gotinformation that isn't common knowledge. You might have to explain it a little more before you see people start agreeingwith you. For example, I was exposed to the citizenship issues you mentionbythe book, Hologram of Liberty. If I hadn't already read that, I wouldn't have had much idea what you were talkingabout.

imported post

Wow, great idea for a thread. Where to start?

I have discussed many times the flaws in the constitution with my friends. Some of them got very irate that I even used the word "flaw" or "deficiency" in the same sentence with "Constitution", but it does us absolutely no good to look upon the founders as saints and the constitution as holy writ. Those men were extremely intelligent, couragous, and enlightened, and they were also products of their time and circumstances. But they were just men.

The Declaration of Independence was a beautiful and brilliant writing, but the Constitution was considered by many to be a betrayal of the Articles of Confederation, foisted by a cabal of delegates who were sent to reform the latter and instead replaced it with the former. The states had to be talked into ratifying it and many wouldn't accept it without a Bill of Rights included.

I think that our problems today with regard to the 2nd A. arise not from the ammendment itself, but from the fact that nowhere in the constitution is the definition of what a "right" is, nor is the underlying philosphy behind the founding of the nation spelled out. I think the founders just assumed everyone knows what a right is, since it was well-known and discussed at the time.

There should be in the body of the constitution, or written as the "Zeroeth Ammendment", something that spells out what a right is, that all human individuals and only individuals possess them from birth, and that rights are unalienable. It should also put the language of the 9th and 10th Ammendments up front where it belongs.

My language skills are not good enough to draft such an article up on short notice, but I think it would've gone a long way toward protecting all the rights of individuals, including the RKBA.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

SNIP [Not] look upon the founders as saints and the constitution as holy writ. Those men were extremely intelligent, couragous, and enlightened, and they were also products of their time and circumstances. But they were just men.

Click to expand...

And politicians. And quite a few of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention ended up holding office in the new federal government.

Oh, and don't forget that a bunch of them were also lawyers. Many of them. Meaning that shortcomings in the constitution wouldn't necessarily be accidental. They knew what they were doing when it came to law.

Regarding holy writ, Kenneth Royce, author of Hologram of Liberty calls it parchment idolatry, telling us we need to look pastour parchment idolatryto see the Constitution as itis, including its shortcomings.

Of course,I got towondering where I had aquired my parchment idolatry. From government schools and people who hadn't examined it, either, except in the light of the parchment idolatry they had picked up in government schools.

imported post

BobCav wrote:

iamfreeru2 wrote:

I guess you guys just don't get it. Citizen = slave and slaves have no protection other than what the master wants to give them. People does not equal citizen. If you believe you were born a citizen you better think again. The 14th Amendment states: All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are United States citizens. What does subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean? Do you even know what the term person means? Tell me how anyone is born a citizen? I was born a man on the land. Citizenship is a choice and if you chose to be citizen then you chose to be subject. Subjects do not have constitutionally protected rights, only civil rights bestowed upon them by there master. Wake up people!!

If you chose to be citizen you have contracted as slave. It's all about contract.

Click to expand...

First - Welcome to OCDO.  Do you OC?  Whaddya carry?

Being called a "Man" is supposed to man something other than just male.  You were NOT born a man, you were born a drooling helpless male infant like me and it was someone else's responsibility to raise you, to feed you, provide for you, to teach you HOW to hopefully one day become a man of your own actions.  I've known many adult males that I would not call a "Man" in my 43 years on earth.  Time doesn't make you a man...your words and deeds do!

Being a "Citizen" is supposed to mean something too, other that just having been born here.  And it did mean something before the IRS effectively made us all slaves to the government.  Today the word "citizen" it has two meanings.  The modern usage that has come to mean anyone born in the USA.  IMHO, that only makes you a RESIDENT.  I've also met many people born and riased here in America that I would not call "Citizen".  Accordingly, being born in America shouldn't just make you a citizen...your words and deeds should!

http://bobcav.blogspot.com/2007/04/resident-or-citizen.html

Once upon a time, being a citizen meant so much more than being born and residing here in America and God willing, one day we will return to those values and ideals that made us once great.  It's more than just living on this land under our Stars and Stripes and calling ourselves "American".  It doesn't begin and end at the voting booth.  It's taking PART in the government, voicing your words, both condemning and praising those in government that deserve it either way, standing watch OVER the government ensuring it doesn't go astray.  That's the problem, too many selfish people today curl up in their homes and do NOTHING but whine, whine, whine and the wonder why the country is where it is today.  When was the last time you attended a town hall/town council meeting?  Wrote your representatives on something you felt strongly about?  Met your representatives?

Like it or not, we are a nation of laws that are proposed, discussed, legislated and then adjudicated.  Don't like the laws?  You don't have any right to break them, but here in America we CAN CHANGE THEM.  Let your legislators know.  Tell THEM, not us.  Everyone lives under some form of law, be it the laws of God, the laws of man or the inescapable law of gravity.  The laws of God and gravity we can't do much about, but the laws of man that affect our lives and our freedoms for the short time we're here ARE our responsibility.  Being an American Citizen is a RESPONSIBILITY and it is hard work.  Freedome isn't free by any stretch of the imagination.

I've traveled around the world and seen many things and I can assure you, we have it so much better than anyone else.  Are we perfect?  Hell no!  But we are the best!  We can be so much better and closer to the dream that was envisioned 232 years ago if people - CITIZENS - act responsibly, take a stand and hold government accountable TO THE PEOPLE.

Hope to see you here more often...this is fun!

Have a great weekend and God bless!

 

Click to expand...

You are correct. I was born just as you, a helpless infant that relied on his parents. I grew up a man on the land, not a citizen/Citizen. The word citizen denotes a creation of that which made you a citizen. If you really understood what the 14 Amendment is all about, you would realize that the government created US citizens. When you agree to be one, you agree to be subject to the master UNITED STATES.

Now if we truly had a Republican form of government things might be different. Probably many on this forum believe the United States is a democracy. Maybe DC is, but not these united states of America. I hear the word democracy all the time, but it is nowhere in any of the founding documents. In fact most people think we have constitutional rights as if the Constitution is an entitlement. NOT!!!

I have spent the last 17 years studying and researching the truth. I am almost 62 years old now and cannot understand how so many can be so ignorant. I do not wish to offend, but I also tell it like it is. I hold nothing back.

Fact is the right to carry is not granted by the Constitution, so how can a court make a ruling on whether firearms should be banned? If the people have unalienable rights, then why is it the courts a ruling on those rights? Is it because it involves created citizens?

It is my understanding all men are created equal. Then why do judges wear black robes and state it is their court and tell prospective jurors they must rule only one the facts and not the law. Ever hear of jury nullification?

People have a lot of power, but most do not know it. The people have the power to tell the courts to stick it when it comes to gun rights. The people are the master, not the other way around. Unfortunately, we allow the courts and government (a creation of people) tell us what we can and cannot do. Do they not represent the people, the real sovereign in this country?

It's no wonder this country is in the mess it is in. We have lost our way and there is no one to blame but ourselves. People need to wake up before it is too late, if it is not already.

Just my two cents, take it or leave it, it's up to you.

BTW, no handguns, just two SKS45 rifles. I like rifles better, from my army days.

imported post

I'll see yourtwo cents and raise you two more! I agree with everything you wrote. I recently corrected oneDr. Dobson from "Focus on the Famiy" for calling America a "democracy" and the reply I received was typical rhetoric "today democracy and republic are synonymous". Typical response from the inside andwhat those who would "dumb us down" would have us believe.

Well, all men are created equal, it's the corruptible power that tends to raise some over others. I like your example of judges...that is the perfect example of our failure. As anywhere, there are those who tried to do the right thing and that is commendable, but the system is what it is.

I concur, you cannot grant that which you have no authority to take! Such is gun rights!

The court and judge have merely replaced the king. Inside the courtroom the judge has absolute power, look at "contempt of court"! Outside those walls, failure to follow an order given in the walls is contempt. And judges can declare laws unconstitutional on an as needed basis pertinent to that case! Juries are a whole 'nother mess...

I've written a lot of my ideas right here in this forum. You might find them interesting. Here's an interesting piece also:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2016927/posts

The dream our founding fathers had was genuis. I fear that's all it will ever be.

On topic, the Second Amendment shouldn't even need to exist. It SHOULD be common sense.

imported post

BobCav wrote:

I'll see your two cents and raise you two more!  I agree with everything you wrote.  I recently corrected one Dr. Dobson from "Focus on the Famiy" for calling America a "democracy" and the reply I received was typical rhetoric "today democracy and republic are synonymous".  Typical response from the inside and what those who wound "dumb us down" would have us believe.

Well, all men are created equal, it's the corruptible power that tends to raise some over others.  I like your example of judges...that is the perfect example of our failure.  As anywhere, there are those who tried to do the right thing and that is commendable, but the system is what it is.

I concur, you cannot grant that which you have no authority to take!  Such is gun rights!

The court and judge have merely replaced the king.  Inside the courtroom the judge has absolute power, look at "contempt of court"!  Outside those walls, failure to follow an order given in the walls is comtempt.  And judges can declare laws unconstitutional on an as needed basis pertinent to that case!  Juries are a whole 'nother mess...

I've written a lot of my ideas right here in this forum.  You might find them interesting.  Here's an interesting piece also:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2016927/posts

The dream our founding fathers had was genuis.  I fear that's all it will ever be.

On topic, the Second Amendment shouldn't even need to exist.  It SHOULD be common sense.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. Glad to see that there is at least one other on this forum that knows what is going on. I will check out the links you have provided. TTYL.

imported post

iamfreeru2 wrote:

SNIP Glad to see that there is at least one other on this forum that knows what is going on.

Click to expand...

(cough, cough)

I guess the rest of us are chopped liver.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

iamfreeru2 wrote:

SNIP  Glad to see that there is at least one other on this forum that knows what is going on.

Click to expand...

(cough, cough) 

I guess the rest of us are chopped liver. 

Click to expand...

I hate chopped liver. LOL!!!

imported post

Sorry Citizen, I did not see your post above. I would love to get a few people together to discuss. That's a great idea. Thanks.

imported post

"The right to self-defense is God given and what God has created let no government rent asunder."

imported post

Iamfreeru2,

I'll say this. most of the time, I do not offer my own, personal viewpoint on most subjects regarding citizenship, government and alot of other things. but I will share a few of them here.

on citizenship- while i respectfully disagree with your definition of citizenship, I do agree with many of the points you made regarding the FED, the blackrobed aristocracy, and many more things. personally, I believe that you are confusing "citizen" with "subject", but then again, it seems like most of the time when the FED says something about "citizens", they are equating us with "subjects", so I can understand the confusion.

on the 2A- You are very correct, the Constitution does not grant any right, it merely lists a few of the ones that we have. Even if SCOTUS had ruled that guns were the illegitimate spawn of Satan, it wouldn't change the fact that we have an inalienable, god given right to bear them for our own defense, and in defense of our liberties

on the 14th ammendment- dear GOD , don't get me started. while I won't share my personal views on that subject here, I'll be more than happy to discuss them with you via PM.

on SCOTUS- SCOTUS, just like every other branch of the FED has illegitimately usurped powers that they were never intended to have, and they have gotten away with it scott free- thankfully, for Heller, some of them managed to get some things right, for the most part...

on Heller- while I don't see Heller as the triumphant victory that most do, it was a start. the mere fact that the court could only reach a 5-4 majority on something that is plainly written in simple engllish goes to prove that the FED of today is as far seperated from the U.S. Constitutional republic as Ceaser Romero is from Julius Ceaser... same name, but no similarities involved. at least a few of them have managed to read, if not honestly understand, the constitution.



while we may share similar ideas on some things, and different ideas on others, the fact remains that what we have is what we have. and at least Heller gave us some acknowledgement of our rights...

imported post

unreconstructed1:

"on Heller- while I don't see Heller as the triumphant victory that most do, it was a start. the mere fact that the court could only reach a 5-4 majority on something that is plainly written in simple engllish goes to prove that the FED of today is as far seperated from the U.S. Constitutional republic as Ceaser Romero is from Julius Ceaser... same name, but no similarities involved. at least a few of them have managed to read, if not honestly understand, the constitution."

---------------------

As regards "simple English" . . .

Read Scalia's majority opinion. Parse through all the footnotes and criticisms of Stevens' dissent. Then read Stevens' dissent.

I haven't made it into Breyer's dissent as yet. But Scalia would argue that Stevens' objections are without foundation and specious. Stevens amply refutes that inference.

Both make well founded and compelling arguments. In another court, on another day, the decision could have very well gone the other way.

It's anything but "simple English."