U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake decided Tuesday against plaintiffs in Kolbe v O’Malley, a challenge to Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, ruling “assault weapons” and their standard-capacity magazines “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.”
The Clinton-appointed judge went through double-jointed judicial contortions, revealing politically-motivated hostilities to be dissected by no shortage of legal scholars and pundits. They, and readers following their work, will be examining case details and disconnects, including prejudicial weapon descriptions, agenda-driven “expert” testimony, and myriad questionable assertions presumed by the court to be indisputable facts. Those include allegations of enhanced danger posed by the affected firearms, challenges to the effectiveness of the weapons in home-defense situations, dismissal of the relative distribution of such guns among the population, abuses of the demonized weaponry by criminals, and offensive police training comparison arguments used to undermine equal protection and disparage gun-owner competency. Those can then all be balanced against fraudulent “compelling state interest” and judicial scrutiny-level arguments, as if the security of a free State isn’t the most compelling interest, and as if unalienable rights don’t merit the strictest scrutiny.
In poring over the details, the core purpose behind the right — one the court showed deliberate indifference and more to — must not be overlooked. But Judge Blake did her best to make certain that it was.
“[T]he court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual,” she declared authoritatively, as if she actually knows what she’s talking about.
Not to diminish its importance, but does that amendment specify “the security of a free Home”? Such misdirection is a major factor in why Judge Blake’s ruling bodes ill for contemporary gun owners and brings us closer to the planned obsolescence of the Second Amendment. At least that’s the goal.
Her misrepresentations did not stop there. She went on to use wording from a case gun owners regard as a victory against them. She did that through the “in common use at the time” qualifier cited in DC v Heller, in which the Supreme Court opined the right to keep and bear arms, while individual, came with limitations. Heller in turn relied on U.S. v Miller, a case from 1939 that found a short-barrel shotgun could not be determined protected under the Second Amendment because the court had no evidence its possession had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” That’s the key point being ducked. The function of the militia, defined as “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,” was — and is — to field citizen soldiers. And these citizens bore arms that were suitable for that purpose, “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles. The militia did not assemble on the green bearing clubs and spears. They came with the intent to match and best a professional military threat.
The same still holds true, even if the government is intent on neglecting its Constitutional duties. If a weapon is in common use by soldiers, it’s part of that “terrible implement” clause Tench Coxe claimed as “the birthright of an American.” But by limiting arguments to “self-defense in the home,” Judge Blake was able to bypass all that.
That’s where John Cutonilli came in, with a motion to file a brief. He’s a Maryland resident who correctly identified himself as “a member of the unorganized militia.” His understanding came directly from 10 U.S. Code § 311 – “Militia: composition and classes,” defining “the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.” Unsurprisingly, the judge denied Cutonilli’s motion.
With mundane considerations like that out of the way, the Brady Center had a clear field, to not only stump for denying 19th Century firearm technology to modern gun owners, but to put future developments forever out of our reach, which is the ultimate danger being posed. Arguing in its brief that the “common use” phrase “is of little help when evaluating the constitutionality of a statute far removed from Colonial-era military norms,” the Center failed to explain why they think so, no doubt because they have no intention of backing up their claims, particularly when “friend of the court” has a reciprocal meaning in their case.
“Suppose, for example, that a new, unregulated and highly lethal weapon were developed before a statute was enacted,” the Center speculated, arguing “the weapon would not be protected because it would not be in common use.” In other words, every new development in personal weapons technology will, by default, be denied to We the People by the very body charged with facilitating a citizen militia and expressly forbidden from infringing with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That the authorities have it in common use won’t matter. So much for Founding intent. So much for freedom.
Obviously this ruling represents a real danger, and not just to the people of Maryland. If it’s not overturned on appeal, all the Supreme Court has to do to let the law stand and be emulated is … nothing.
Related article: Federal Judge Says AR-15- and AK-style Rifles Not Protected by 2A 
[dcodrea] [disclaimer]
That is similar to having food in prison, on the off chance that they don’t get it, they will take it from elsewhere. However, you are for the most part right.
I’d hate to see such a rebellion in this Country, but those of us that have lived so long and seen so much and suffered to keep this Nation as it was when we were young men, have watched in HORROR as the misinformed (such as Alex Hamilton) , and the sheep that believe the government is protecting them, allow matters such as this to happen, and allow it to snow ball until it will engulf this ONCE great Nation and it becomes nothing more than a pile a ruble, and as they die, and they will die at the very hands of the government they believe is protecting them, I wonder, what then will be their last thought ?
I’ve taken bullets for this Nation, broken bones, and never once did I shed a tear, for I grew up in an age where a man did not show the emotion of tears. But friends, I weep each and every day now, for my children, my family, my Country and my Constitution! For I know now, that all I had suffered at the age of 17 was in vain ! As this Country and our way of life is in fact dying, and this Nation will soon no longer exist.
BE AFRAID , BE VERY AFRAID , of what is called Government, to Include any and all POLICE Agency’s , they are NOT your friends, they are your enemy ! As much as it pains me to say that , it is true , as they take ORDERS from Government ! I’ve seen two (2) Pasco County Deputys open fire and execute a 90 lb. nude unarmed woman, here in Florida, and they were given a citation for bravery! Now imagine when the SHTF, just what they and every other law enforcement agency in this Country will do to the rest of us !!!!
My words won’t save us, the word REBELLION won’t save us! Only a direct action by the entire armed population and the execution and/or removal of the entire super-structure of this Nation’s Government and the striking down of any and all alledged law that infringes in any way with the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND (The United States Constitution) will save us and this Nation. And then to try and Convict and sentence to DEATH any person that so acted to infringe, change or harm the United States Constitution, as a WAR CRIME. THAT is the only way to truly save the United States Constitution and this once Great Nation.
Warren well said..”When Tyranny becomes the Law, Rebellion is Your Duty”.. wait and see what Hillary does if she gets in..
Warren, I had s similar dream only the judges were burning the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and chanting with Hillary “We Are The Rulers, Now They Have No Rights”..
“When Tyranny Becomes the Law, Rebellion Becomes Your Duty”
I would just like to point out . Not that it makes any difference now. That AR originally stands for Automatic Rifle. Even Pro-Gunners use the term assault weapon. My point being. Semi automatic rifles, no matter what they look like are legal. The AR-weapon is all ready unlawful to poses with out the proper license. All that was taken care of in the year of our lord. Aw, It slips my mind at the moment. Comes with old age. You all have a happy new year!
Now your just feeding the histeria. I thought the AR- designation stands for Armalite Rifle, based on designs by Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont, and L. James Sullivan of the Fairchild Armalite corporation. As for the above reference of AR Style weapons to be dangerous and unusual….Anything above rocks and pointy sticks can fit that catagory.
@ Alex Hamilton: Not trying to be insulting, I just have to ensure history is corrected when I see it passed on incorrectly.
The AR stands for neither “assault rifle” nor “automatic rifle.” The AR stands for ArmaLite, which is the company (Fairchild Armalite Corporation) that developed this unique style of rifle for the United States armed forces back in the 50s.
Due to financial problems Armalite sold its rights for its designs to Colt in 1959.
There are two significant “a-ha’s” right out of the gate. 1. This case was tried in Maryland. 2. Catherine C. Blake was nominated to be a United States Federal District Judge in 1995 by (you guessed it) Bill Clinton.
The author of this article, Mr. Dolbee, acknowledged that he is not an attorney; but then, when Judges legislate from the bench, one does not have to be a licensed attorney specializing in Constitutional Law to spot the glaring departure from reality and objectivity that was demonstrated in this woefully misguided Judge’s “logic.” One must ask, “What part of ‘shall not be infringed.’ does she not understand?”
Although Mr. Dolbee is not an attorney, his logic is irrefutable and his “legal reasoning” is spot-on. I know because I have been an attorney since 1978. I have also taught Constitutional Law. It’s really unfortunate that Judge Blake did not have the benefit of one of my classes. But then over-the-top liberal Federal Judges have never been accused of being overly objective or having unbiased integrity; and they certainly don’t want to be bothered with the unequivocal language of the Amendments to the United States Constitution.
By the way, AR-15’s and similar weapons are very commonplace among law-abiding Americans, MANY of whom use them for home defense. By falsely labeling these guns “Assault Weapons,” the anti-gunners think they have created a stigma associated with that weapon. The “stigma” resides only in the minds of the anti-gunners.
Another irrefutable fact is that the citizens of virtually EVERY country on the planet that has implemented gun bans and gun confiscation have been the victims of non-stop violent criminal activity, and unspeakable mass genocide at the hands of the governments that banned and confiscated the guns. The reason the Second Amendment is second only to the First Amendment is to enable the citizens to protect the Rights provided by the First Amendment.
The Second Amendment was not created so that people could hunt squirrels or engage in target practice. It was included in that precious document to protect us from an oppressive and tyrannical government, such as the one we are currently enduring.
Make no mistake: Banning AR’s and similar LEGAL weapons is merely the “thin end of the wedge.” We the People must not allow our right to keep and bear arms to be disturbed even in the slightest, by a tyrannical government.
If we do not stand firm, America will just be another statistic of how gun bans and confiscation resulted in either a giant spike in violent crime (the felons ALWAYS get guns because they don’t believe that laws apply to them), or the government’s slaughter of millions of law-abiding citizens who would dare to question the government’s authority in accordance with their absolute rights provided in the FIRST AMENDMENT. Without the Second Amendment to protect the First, there will be no free speech; nor will there be any liberty. We would all be subjects of an all-powerful Imperial Government. And ladies and gentlemen, it’s getting dangerously close to that scenario.
Returning to the issue or “shall not be infringed,” this phrase is a command, not a “suggestion.” The words, “shall not” do not invite further interpretation by a liberal judge whose decisions are frequently governed by her politics; and the mandatory and prohibitive words of the Constitution and its Amendments should preclude judges from adding inferences when none exist.
This reminds me of a one-liner by a stand-up comic who was describing Moses and the Hebrews during the Exodus. “Look, it’s Moses coming down from the mountain with two tablets which contain the Ten Suggestions.”
Rather than continuing to appeal this deplorable and clearly erroneous decision, I would recommend that responsible, law-abiding, American, patriotic gun owners get the hell out of Maryland. And for God’s sake DON’T move to New York, Illinois, or California.
Time to prepare for war..
The problem here is the same thing over and over again! All we do is talk and then listen to fools that don’t have any idea what the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment is! Or listen to feds that pretend to truly care about the Supreme Law of the land, but they don’t. I’m an old man now, I’ve seen a lot, at 17 I was ass deep in the shit hole of Nam fighting to keep the Supreme Law Of This Land and our people safe, just as my grandson is in the desert fighting now, because he believes like I did and my father did during WWII , that it was all worth it. Now we have worthless individuals that NEVER shed a drop of blood to protect what we “HAD”! NEVER held a Brother in their arms as his last breath was drawn on a battle field , destoring what we fought for, simply because they can. And we have our sons,daughters, grand children bleeding and dying today for the same ideals, and it don’t mean a thing. Because all we are gonna do is talk, because “WE” have mostly raised a generation of degenerates and perverts, and it seems that their existence means more than this Nation as a whole, not to mention yet again The Supreme Law Of The Land.
“I HAD A DREAM”, a terrible war is coming! Not in a far away land, it is coming here to our home, God has abandoned mankind, as most of mankind has abandoned God! I saw children being devoured by the degenerates and perverts and the Judges ruled that it was good! I saw children turning on parents and killing them, and the Judges said this too was good ! Then I seen men rise up and try to take back what the Judges gave to the degenerates and perverts, good men and good women, but they were ordered slain by the Judges! And the degenerates and perverts danced with the Judges and they all proclaimed that it was good ! Then I seen a RED Flag of an invading Army, and I woke in a cold sweat, because I know in the very near future, there will be NO America!
You can call me crazy, I don’t care. I’m Old and I’m white. Martin Luther King had a dream, they called him crazy, and killed him to silence him. But his DREAM came to pass. AS WILL MINE!!!
This Country has sat back and bounced it’s gums to the point of NO RETURN, and we are all damned for it, and we have condemned our children, grand children and great grandchildren because of our holier then thou attitudes. And make no mistake about it, even God has condemned us! Anyone that believes different has their head up their backside. All of our personnel weapons won’t matter, because the Federal mandate is to disarm ALL U.S. citizens within the next seven (7) years. That is a fact from a very reliable source that is very high up in the Federal Government today. It is amazing how some booze will make a person’s tongue loose during the holidays. Resist , oops!
This is the real world, this is what WE THE PEOPLE allowed the government to do when you all voted Obama in for a second term!
The Second Amendment guarantees the rest.
Treason, tyrannical government, ignoring the Constitution, Hilary did this, Oblahblah did that, Technological advancements, Liberal Judges, Bill of Rights, Hang Together. All valid and important points.
I am the world’s leading authority on absolutely nothing, however you can take this to the bank. When the 2nd amendment is altered and if it eventually falls IT IS OUR FAULT FOR LETTING IT HAPPEN and that is fact.
The Bill-Of-Rights bestowed absolutely “nothing” upon the people; its purpose was to REMIND government, Federal, State and Local, that they have “limitations” to THEIR “powers”!
Then people, individually and collectively as the People, retain ALL their “natural” rights and those are SUPERIOR in all ways to the Constitution. This is why these judges have NO STANDING and therefore NO POWER to make such inane rulings against the “rights” of the people. Even the Supreme Court of the United States hasn’t the STANDING to make such a ruling as to Constitutionality of a thing. The Constitution was created by the people and only they may make such a ruling. The SCOTUS was created by the Constitution and has NEVER possessed such standing …the “created” cannot usurp the “powers” of the “creator”! Thus only the people and our “Creator” stand above the Constitution which stand above the government and its edifices.
The people RULE!
What is unique about the Bill of Rights is that is bestowed upon each, individual citizen. Each one carries not only a vital component of the core of our American freedom, but also a check against a government that might tread upon these rights or attempt to grab more authority than it is allowed. In this case, it is apparent that the 2nd Amendment not only ensured that each citizen had the right (and responsibility) to protect them, but also to act as a “corrective measure” if government should ever become unconstitutional, acts illegally, or become overly oppressive.
There are public, NGO groups, coalitions, and projects, who act as watchdogs, advocates, and supporters on behalf of the tenets of certain amendments of the Bill of Rights, openly working and acting out for the exercise of rights such as the freedom of speech, assembly, and proper due process. It is strange—but not surprising—that the Second Amendment only has activism as a primarily lobbying effort for legal disposition of the issue. If it were any other amendment, there would also be groups publicly banning together in exercise of it. (The militia movement that was politically destroyed during the 90’s was the right idea with the wrong execution. I would like to see the rebirth of this movement, but on a scale as a proper NGO would be, with appropriate oversight by the citizenry, a national strategy and purpose.)
@ Erick: Very well written. Your use of intellectual composition and composure to break the issue down to its most simplistic and fundamental core is simply brilliant.
I have heard and read examples similar to yours, but there is just something different and more effective in the way you chose to express it as a comparison to similarities with advancements in other technologies used in other Amendments.
It truly leaves the opposition without a fight. If your logic were regularly applied by more astute legal counsel during their arguments it would leave all judges, both the useful idiots as well as intentionally nefarious, stupefied and speechless – because there simply is no argument that could be volleyed against such logic.
And were said judges to continue writing opinions in opposition to such logic, it would most certainly expose their corruption thereby making it more obvious to even the most simple of citizens as to what their real agenda is.
Readers passionate about this issue need to study, adopt, and memorize your philosophy and then use it at every opportunity against anyone that opposes the Second Amendment. Only those that are too illiterate to comprehend such a genius rational would continue their argument. But those that get it would turn tail and run because they know full well there is simply no defense.
At least we’d begin to figure who was who. Well done.
One amendment at a time our rights are being dismantled by the liberal Judges and Politicians who interpret the Constitution as they see fit, in their eyes to further weaken America the way the Regime in the White House has taken us from a Super Power to a Laughing Stock in the eyes of China, Russia, No. Korea and any other Country who has a military Damn We’re in trouble.
When Tyranny becomes Law, Rebellion becomes the Rule
This argument that modern firearms are not protected under the 2nd Amendment is pure stupidity. Flawed logic at best.
Do we lose our 1st Amendment rights if we use an iPhone, write a blog, send email or call someone on a land line?? That technology wasn’t “in common use” either during the late 1700’s b/c it didn’t exist….so by this twisted perspective, we don’t have freedom of speech, religion or association anytime we use technology either.
Also, courts use modern technology to expedite due process….are the courts violating our 5th Amendment rights b/c of such use?? I’m sure they’ll say “No” b/c it makes their work easier. (Note: I support modern technology to be used in due process…I’m just pointing out their hypocrisy.)
The Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to adjust WITH the progress of time and advances in technology. The Founders and Framers were not stupid to think we’d continue our lives with late 1700-era technology forever. They knew technology would progress.
Technological advancements do not interfere with our rights!!! Only idiots and tyrants do!
We have all of our rights when we get on our cell phone, drive a car and carry a modern AR-15, just like a 1777 farmer had if he were speaking on the public square, carrying a flintlock and going home on a horse and buggy.
What a bunch of idiotic twits in black robes sitting behind a bench….shame on the equally traitorous lawyers and their organizations defending this attack on our freedom.
They are absolutely advocating for taking away our liberties and rights; therefore, they are traitors and enemy of the people. Period.
How can the Supreme Court decision [from 1939] be ignored? I guess that’s a stupid question, when that ‘invalidated’ the NFA, which has been accepted since 1934 as gospel so that the HRA and everyone else, including all of the groups claiming to support the 2d Amendment. It was another case where misuse of firearms by criminals was too difficult to handle, so they passed a law to punish the law-abiding,
“We Must Hang Together, Gentlemen. Else We Shall Assuredly Hang Separately” (Ben Franklin) our rights will be gone
Hillary did go before the UN for an international weapons ban, when asked who would be in charge the reply was UN soldiers. I’m old and pray I’m dead when the smoke settles, until I’ll continue to get the word out and inform my kids and grand-kids and anyone interested about what history has shown us.
I’m buying AMMO as much as I can find!!
Chas, yep you can bet your bottom dollar that we are headed down the path of the feds kicking our doors in trying to take our guns! Of this there can be no doubt. Right now Hillary is leading the democrat’s in the polls as the leading candidate for the next presidential campaign, and that scares that crap out of me! And we have millions of people who will sit on their ass and do nothing! And you know Hillary will follow Obama’s lead and she will strike the 2nd Amendment from the United States Constitution all together, and any FOOL that dosen’t believe that, take a .45 load it and stick it in your mouth and pull the trigger, it won’t hurt you!
People have to remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people! Just like a bomb dosen’t kill people, people have to detonate it in order for it to kill people! Any person that believes otherwise is just plain stupid, and that is not just an opinion that is a FACT!
No matter what the government tells the people, no matter what the judicial tells the people, the PEOPLE MUST UNDERSTAND, that the government and the judicial are programed to LIE to us in order to try and CONTROL us! They are the most CORRUPT of all sources of information out there. My wife , did not believe this when I first met her a great many years ago, but when I sat her down and showed her the depth of the governmental and judicial corruption with solid and undisputable proof she was appalled and sickened by it! She simply did not know and took the word of the government and judicial as fact.
This will surely end bloody, that is a sad fact! The sheep will be slaughter by their own government until the military and the federal officers sicken of killing their own people for no reason and turn on the government and the judicial. Because I was once a soldier and I know our military and our Federal officers are full of good men and women that will sicken quickly of the slaughter of their own people, and they will join those that chose to defend the 2nd Amendment and the United States Constitution.
In my opinion we are behind the curve tremendously and need to start keeping a few fighter jets fully armed as well as other high tech equipment in the garage since our biggest adversaries have these items.
Please everyone, stop calling semi auto rifles “Assault Rifles” which they are not! Even some ads in magazines and Shotgun News call them that. Anti gun people love it when we use the term to bolster their position. Heck, the best thing you can do is take a anti gun liberal out to shoot an Ak style rifle, an Ar15, or Mini 14! You may not change their mind, but I have seen more gee whiz wow looks on their face than frowns. One has even asked if we can go again! We need to do our part to change hearts and minds.
Anyone who supports gun-grabbing politicians is a LIB nanny- stater and a SUCKER! Don ‘t you realize that tyranny loves a disarmed populace? If you want FREEDOM, there MUST be a balance of power between the government and the people.
This government is also NOT protecting you. ISIS is entering through our WIDE OPEN BORDERS and you MUST be armed to help fight them off when they come marauding through your town. You think that ‘s crazy ? Take a look at how easily they sliced through the disarmed Iraqi citizens.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Warren well said, as Weapons owners we have to realize the direction of our country is in is to disarm us! one Bill at a time and the Tree Hugging, Granola Munchers believe the Regime will protect us and make USA a safer place. we need to protect us against the power hungry, the the lies they tell, no sane person can buy into. The Hillary (Queen) the Obama (King) won’t knock on our doors, they’ll send troops with “no knock” warrants, with registration they know where to go, just like Hitler in WWII
Tom, finally someone that has the same Constitution and Declaration that I have? That is simply amazing to me. And your willing to stand tall and defend it, not just talk the talk! Or like a great many, that don’t know what they are talking about being bad enough, but they want someone else to fight the battle!
I’ve come to the foregoing conclusion that most that talk, either are cowards or don’t know what the hell they are talking about. Take the nut a few days ago that said animals are proven homosexuals! Well brother, I grew up on a farm and I’ve hunted since I was five, and I have never witnessed a bull mating with a bull, or a cow mating with a cow, or a buck mating with a buck etc., it ain’t a natural act and it don’t happen in the animal kingdom!
Just the same as the 2nd Amendment states the right to bear arms, and that means full auto, 100 round mags if you so wish, it does not say a government may regulate or even a government may force a buyer to register, just so they know who has weapons so they can knock on your door and take them, my ass! The Government wraps it in a package called a bill and pass it into a law and state “This is what the people want”, but it’s not, it is what the government wants, and the masses are so stupid and blind they follow it like sheep to the slaughter!
One day the sheep are going to wake up, and they are not going to have any rights at all! But before that, Obama and his nut crew will collapse our economy and throw this Nation into a mass depression where there will be no welfare, no social security, no soup lines, people will be starving in the streets! There will be no jobs, and a hundred dollar bill will buy you a gallon of gas! There will be no police force because there will be no money to pay them, and there may not be a military, because there will be no money to pay them! If you don’t have a weapon to protect and feed your family when this day comes, and it’s comming, then you will die and so will your family.
Tom, thanks for reading the same correct documents that I read!
A tire iron, ten inch skillet, ball peen hammer, two foot stick of wood, chain, or anything else you use to attack another person is an assault weapon, you just don’t have to pause to change magazines. Maybe someday these people who are in authority will take a look at towns like Kennesaw, Ga. and see the attitude toward guns and crime and have their eyes opened. I admit there is a very slight chance of this happening, short of their being in a situation that they wish they had more than a set of keys for protection. Have they no understanding that there is evil in this world and all that needs to happen for evil to win is for good men to sit on their behinds and do nothing??? (Don’t get upset, that is my paraphrase.)
My copy of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, makes No mention of magazine capacity, or assault rifles, or cannons, or automatics. A well armed Militia is not bows and arrows, or single shot muskets. It is Required to Control a DHS, IRS, TSA, Obama’s Gestapo, so it must have Equal fire power.. My Bible also says I am to Own a sword to protect myself, family, and Neighbors.. That means from a Corrupt Govt. or even Police Force, if necessary.. Remember Katrina? Not my weapon, No way.. From Any evil that threatens us.. God hates a coward, so I must stand firm to the death against Evil..
some courts are commiting treason
Where the major DUMB comes to play in these rulings is the REVOLUTIONARY WAR began over confiscation of ASSAULT RIFLES. Therefore. the war was partially to restrict the authorities from regulating and confiscating assault rifles.
Here you go, from the headlines.
“Gun Ban Results In Dozens of Tragic Deaths
BOSTON — National guard units seeking to confiscate
a cache of recently banned assault rifles were ambushed on
April 19th by elements of a paramilitary extremist faction.
Military and law enforcement officials estimate that 72
were killed and more than 200 injured before government
forces were compelled to withdraw.
Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor
Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was
made up of local citizens, has links to the radical
right-wing tax protest movement.”
Let’s not forget: the second amendment was to protect the people from tyrannical government, to ensure the people stand a fighting chance. Once that right is taken away, there is no more fighting chance – and should something happen we as a nation will be forced to comply or die. I’m a law abiding citizen and I hope I will never have to use my weapons for anything other than targets but it is good to know that should something happen, I would have a decent chance at keeping my family safe (since the bad guys sure don’t follow any firearms laws)
I’m glad I”m not the only one that noticed that! Oh by the way Ian McClure, that 1000 dollar bill with your name on it is still laying on I-95 right outside of Baltimore MD. go pick it up! Thanks Rick!
It’s no wonder we have an illegal for a president and this nation is going to crap! Just re-read what you wrote! You don’t need to answer, I’m gonna go puke!
@Anthony: I thank you for understanding and better vocalizing the exact point I was attempting to make. Those inalienable rights are granted to us not only by the US Constitution but as merely being human. That was the concept our fore fathers were trying to instill that as Americans we are all free to live however we want without interference from the government into our personal lives via telling us who we can/cant marry or whether or not we can own an ak47 or an ar15. The core of the Republican platform is personal freedom and responsibility with limited government interference. That is what the party needs to go back to. Not the extremists who value Christian principles above all else. I’ve known plenty of good ppl who aren’t Christian and they believe relatively the same as I with some differences but we respect the differences even if we disagree. We certainly don’t name call or degrade ourselves. Anyway I digress and just wanted to say thank u for better making and understanding my point.
@Ian – Your point was very well stated just as you wrote it. I only elaborated a bit with my own perspective. I’m glad to read this note you posted. Right after hitting “submit” I realized that it probably wasn’t too cool to jump into your conversation; glad you’re ok with my poor manners.
G-Man, I know you don’t believe that the U.S. will fall any time soon, yet your words state otherwise! In Nam we had ways to obtain information from the V.C. and the N.V.A.R. just as the military has ways to extract
information from the enemy even today, as I am sure you are aware!
Whether Obama is a puppet or not, and regardless of what position he illegally holds, for the sake of the Nation and the Constitution isn’t it time to have good men step up and extract the information from Obama and punish those behind him? You know as a Federal Agent that the only way evil men can prevail is for good men to do nothing!
Last evening my quick temper flared at the village idiots running their mouths without any idea of what they were saying! I can’t shoot them no matter how badly I want too because we do have freedom of speech and I will NOT EVER violate that Constitution! As I see another spoke up in this mention of messages, he knows who he is!
But regardless, by your own words you seem to be out of Washington! You know more about what is going on than just the average citizen that watches cnn. And I believe that you know much more than your telling us, like even whom some of the people that are pulling Obama’s strings, you have the ways and the means and the evidence to bring the “HOUSE OF CARDS DOWN” ! If you don’t want to put it out there because of past experiences, I’m an old man , I don’t have that many more years, let me have the honor!
@ Warren: No, I honestly do not have a sense that Obama himself is that intelligent. I simply cannot bring myself to give him recognition as the mastermind behind the worst turmoil this country and world has known in 70 years. I do however believe his puppeteers, the ones that invented him and propped him up, are the true architects of this peril.
Obama is merely the town idiot, the clown, a tool that believed his masters when they told him it is a good thing to bow lower to a Saudi Prince or go on a world apology tour. Sure some of his ideas the masters allowed him to come up with on his own – such as Hilary’s “Russian Reset Button”. Oh how I cringe with embarrassment at that one – just look at the respect Putin shows him now. It’s pathetic.
Obama honestly believed, as most liberal idiots, that he could show the world we can make peace with Muslim extremists despite their lifelong goal that all infidels must die. His ignorance will never afford him the presidential leadership skills needed to anticipate extending them a hand, would forever draw back a stump.
Obama’s goal was to play Mr. Nice-guy in hopes that it would somehow garner appeal by the world and set an example for everyone to just fall in line. He is an amateur, like most liberals that haven’t a clue as to how truly evil and nasty the world really is; where if you show the slightest sign of weakness, it most assuredly will bite you viciously in the ass.
The “somebodies” that are really in control and whom truly want such things to happen knew full well Obama’s earnest Marxist-socialistic beliefs would allow him to be more easily manipulated into assisting them with the execution of their much larger plans.
I seriously doubt Obama knowingly spearheaded the pursuit of such pacifistic policies with the singular intent of weakening our world status in hopes that it emboldened so many of our enemies for the premeditated demise of our country. While it’s true Obama’s socio-Marxist beliefs led him to feel we are a cocky nation and deserved to be knocked down a few pegs, but he did not personally anticipate the extent to which his inept actions would lead to such severe and unintended consequences. But someone else did.
I cannot give Obama credit for orchestrating a list of such things as: – the creation of the ISIS caliphate sweeping the Middle-East, more terroristic acts than at any other time, reducing our military and demoralizing our troops with generals replaced by those that share Obama’s Marxist views, the resurgence of cold war with Russia and Putin’s aggression into Ukraine, drawing lines in the Syrian sand without any repercussion once crossed, turning tail on Israel as Hamas revives their daily missile bombardments from Gaza, the massive Arab Spring causing the death of thousands of Christians, Iran’s nuclear up-rise, North Korea’s belligerence and continued missile tests to reach U.S. soil, hordes of thousands upon thousands of illegal aliens, mafia, and gangs flooding across our borders to benefit from Obama’s promise of amnesty, more Americans drawing some form of welfare than those actually working, and a national debt owned by China grown twice that of any previous president… and that is just the news of the day as the list goes on and on.
As I said, there is no possible way Obama possesses the intellect to be the mastermind of such a plan. He is quite simply the fool gullible enough to allow himself to be manipulated into putting it into play by masters far more devious than he. So with that, I submit there is a far more deadly enemy that must be rooted out and destroyed. Obama is just the unwitting puppet and spokesperson.
@ G-Man.
Well, Not it is then! I thank you for your time.
Respectfully Yours,
Secundius
WARREN.
“Plausible Deniability”, first made the lexicon circuit in June 18, 1948.
G-Man, walked into a trap of his own making, and he can’t get out. Without exposing himself, his “true’ self. And he’s playing you and McRuger as the “idiot suckers”, that you both are. Brilliantly played. My hat’s off to you my old friend. G-man, was “Slow Played in a Short-Hand”. Again, brilliantly played.
Ian McClure, Once again I am trying not to attack you personnelly but you seem to want to make it that way! My first statement can be made much simpler to you, “IF IT AIN”T BROKE DON”T FIX IT!” And believe this, you and I and everyone else don’t vote to make any changes to the Constitution, if you think you do, then there is a thousand dollar bill laying on the interstate with your name on it, but you have to walk down the middle of it at the most busy time of the day to retrieve it! The damn government officials change it, no you, no me, not anyone that votes! get real, and know what your talking about before you open that fly trap!
Come on G-Man, you know the Truth about Obama, he is opening this Country up for a major attack from the damn rag heads! Speak plain, it’s time we all do! I’m tired of having to run around morally crippled because it’s wrong to say gay marriages are agaisnt every damn thing that is wholesome and what God gave us to believe in! I’m tired of not being able to say it’s time to declare WAR on this screwed up government because tomorow the secret service may kick down my door and take my old ass away! I’m tired of not being able to come right out and say that Obama is working hand in hand with the damn rag heads to undermind this Country! I’m just tired of all the talk, and all the cry babys, and all the in action, knowing I’m but one man, with the guts to go if you grand talkers are done and ready! Talk is cheap and this Country is dying from the inside.
It makes me die a little inside reading your post where you use blatantly racist remarks towards an entire group of people and somehow manage to drag gay marriage into the mix as well. It’s sad and quite frankly pathetic that you think this way and I really feel sorry for you. It must be a pretty sad little box of a life you have living with your unjustified hatred for others that are of a different race or sexual orientation than you. Did you know that your argument against gay marriage on a religious basis is also incorrect and contrary to the very scriptures within the good book? The apostle Paul taught that we are no longer under the Laws of Leviticus. Period.
The verses are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. First, Thou shalt not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination. Second, If a man lie with a man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
There is, however, a big problem with quoting Leviticus. The problem is that Christians are no longer under the Law. We do not live our Christian life by following the Old Testament Law. The Apostle Paul makes this abundantly clear. It is not something fabricated to win an argument, or made up in the twentieth century, or manufactured to get around something somebody doesn’t like. It is clearly stated in the Greek scriptures.
Truly, the only defense you have for your hatred is one of ignorance and bigotry.
Iran McClure, What are you smoking? I did not say one word about taking any voting rights away from anyone! You really show just how stupid you truly are and how one sided your stupid thought process really is! Re-read what I wrote again after you sober up! Once again stupid is as stupid does!
@Warren: Argumentum ad hominem. By attacking me personally u are not only digressing from the response of the ur point being made but u are degrading the intelligence of our conversation by lowering urself to such standards. My interpretation of ur words are thus: U believe that our govt is changing the US Constitution and by doing so they are going against what this country was built on/for and only by keeping the Constitution as it was originally written will our country be great. My retort to ur argument was perfectly logical and not in anyway slurred by any inebriation of myself as I am sober. Unless u did not mean what u wrote but instead have a ulterior reasoning for ur words?
You speak of intelligence as you write using “u” for you and “ur” for you’re and your. Aren’t you smart enough to separate your writing from your texting?
@Warren: By saying that u would be willing to take voting rights away from everyone who wasn’t a man. U would promote slavery and involuntary servitude. U would take away the rights of anyone who wasn’t white. U would be allowing someone to serve as President for more than two terms. U would be okay with congress increasing their pay whenever they wanted to without so much as a single vote from the ppl. The founding fathers knew and agreed upon the fact that the US Constitution was a living document that could change as the will of the ppl saw fit. To go against that is to go against what America stands for. Freedom. Liberty. Equality for all Americans. Justice. Going against those would be more immoral than anything else. U would stand against what the United States of America represents in all of her glory because of some religious immorality.
You probably not going to hear for G-Man, before Tuesday. This being a long Labor Day Weekend.
@ Ian McClure: That’s precisely where you are wrong and obviously fall prey to the corruption mind-set being pushed by the liberals. For every additional right imposed somewhere, someone else has to give up a right of their own.
These so-called extremist don’t want to impose a damned thing on anyone. They simply wished to be left alone to raise their families in the manner they please. They don’t want their hard earned tax dollars subsidizing sex education that teaches oral sex, homosexuality and masturbation to 12-year olds or condoms passed out in schools by liberal freak teachers.
These are parents that don’t want their family run business which includes the part-time help of their minor children to be forced by some liberally imposed lawsuit or law to have to work side-by-side with creatures of a vile lifestyle that goes against every aspect of nature and religion.
You don’t have to support gay marriage for their expression to exist. They’re going to be gay with or without my support. We’re just so sick and tired of it being crammed down our throats is all.
I don’t need to march in straight parades to profess my straight orientation, and shouldn’t anyway, because it’s a private thing. I quietly celebrate my love on my anniversary every year at a fancy restaurant.
I certainly have no desire to wear a thong and paste oversized glitter-lashes on as I parade down a street half naked in front of children. If that is what it means to be gay, I don’t think it is a respectable image and should not be forced to subject myself nor my children to see such disgusting indecency in public.
I have many homosexual friends that hate that as well. They want to remain private and strive to feel the normalcy that hetero-couples do.
As I said, for every right the liberals think they’ve created for someone, it really had to be taken away from someone else. So who is really imposing what on whom? We truly just want to be left alone in peace. If you consider that extreme, then so be it.
G-Man – Rights are not a zero-sum game. If they were, then we would be sunk with respect to our 2A rights. The gun grabbers argue that your right to keep and bear infringes their rights by creating a public safety hazard. That is the core of their argument. You’re flavor of zero sum validates theirs. Both are wrong.
Liberals are not attempting to “confer” the right to marry on gays. In the first place, it is not a liberal v. conservative issue. Many true conservatives believe in personal liberty and support gay marriage. In the second place, the issue is not “conferring” the right. The right, like so many others including gun rights, exists intrinsically. The issue is about limiting government’s authority to deny the right to marry to a class of persons based on sexual orientation. This does not require any other group to give up any of their rights, any more than having an AR-15 forces anyone else to give up any of their rights. We should in general support expansion of Citizens’ rights and strongly oppose any law that restricts Citizens’ rights.
Gay marriage as mentioned by Ian McClure has nothing to do with school agendas, gay parades or any of the other things you mentioned. They are all separate issues and they all have to be addressed separately. Masturbation, condoms and oral sex are not even exclusively homosexual topics. If you have issues with what is taught in schools, you should take it up with your local school board; but it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
Business owners have no right to discriminate based on their view that homosexuals are “creatures of a vile lifestyle.” Vileness is a purely subjective judgment that has no meaning in the context of employment rights. Your statements are essentially analogous to the widely held views of many years ago that blacks were inferior or even sub-human. Being a business owner does not, in the United States, confer any right to discriminate. You don’t have to like homosexuals (or Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Italians, Asians or any other group for that matter) but you don’t have the right to discriminate. They are Citizens and their rights are protected. If one doesn’t like the law, one can attempt to change it (good luck with that). However, you do not have the right to ignore the law, irrespective of your personal view of the vile nature of one group of people. I own a business. I am only concerned with one thing – can my employees do their jobs well and make me money. In the United States, you *do * have the right (and, I suggest, the obligation) to keep your children away from those people that you believe are “vile” or a bad influence. You don’t have the right to do so by violating employment discrimination law. It has been that way for a long time.
Many people, including you, refer to homosexuality as “unnatural”. Homosexuals are a product of nature (hey didn’t come from an alternate dimension), so it can’t possibly be unnatural. Homosexuality is different that the norm, to be sure. However, deviant sexual behavior (homosexuality and bisexuality) is well-documented among many (hundreds) of animal species. This fact was used in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas SCOTUS case, which overturned Texas laws as well as laws of several other states. The notion that homosexuality is unnatural is a red herring.
Whether you elect to “…march in straight parades” or not is irrelevant. The right to assemble and so forth is protected for all Citizens. It seems that your comments are really not based in constitutional issues but rather, just a bit of a rant about your personal prejudice.
No one is forcing you to see gays in thongs and glitter lashes parading around. I doubt that most homosexuals believe that such behavior is reflective of “…what it means to be gay…” as you put it. If you don’t like it, don’t watch, and don’t let your children watch. I certainly don’t. But understand that as long as they comply with public decency statutes, which will seem prudish to some and far too risqué to others, they are protected. If you don’t like the statutes, lobby your local government to change them. But as long as the gays, or the blacks or the Swedish Bikini Team (I would go to that parade) are compliant with the statutes, then these people are *within their rights*. And no, offending you is not a violation of your rights.
If you really have many homosexual friends, which I tend to think is a literary excess based on your characterization of them as vile and unnatural creatures, I would bet that ALL of them support the right to marry anyone of any sex that they want to marry…. which is the extent of Ian McClures comment.
What’s sad is that you’ve characterized this issue as liberal corruption. The fact is that your view is liberal corruption. It is the liberals that typically want to use the force of law to impose their agenda on society, and that almost always means a loss of rights. They want you to lose your 2A rights. They want you to lose you right to say a prayer. They want you to lose you right to choose if you want health insurance. They want you to lose your right to get into a school or get a job by pushing Affirmative Action. They also want to make you pay for welfare programs and other entitlements. In short, liberals want to use the force of government to impose their will on you. By supporting use of the force of law to prohibit marriage between any two persons irrespective of sexual orientation, you have unwittingly gone down the very same road as the liberals – forcing values and sensibilities onto society. True conservatives fight this, **irrespective of the issue**. We realize that the notion of personal liberty only has merit and longevity if it is applied blindly and equally across all. We realize that any law that causes loss of rights for one class opens the door for more and more loss of rights. The swords of liberty and of tyranny are both double-edged.
Ian McClure, If it was a matter of keeping the government out of our personal lives, then the government would NOT be trying to change the Constitution every chance it gets. As the Constitution is the most personnel of all written words ever put down in the English language! It is not to be changed as each and every Right within that Constitution since the day it was written, has been defended with the blood of many a good man and woman, and it can get no more personnel than that!
Hell, I don’t even go to church, nor do I read the Bible, but I do know what is right and what is wrong, and what is moral and what is not, and what is a sin and what is not! And I remember from childhood what God said in the Bible that the Government would do, and condoning the marriages of homosexuals is one of them, and that will lead us to the end of times!
So if your stupid enough to think it’s about personnel freedom, then you”d better tell Obama and the rest of the Government and the Judicial to put the Constitution back the way it was first written, and have the guts to die to see it that way!
Question:
With a large part of the world in war or threat of war. With Isis telling us they will see us in New York and see their flag on the whitehouse.With Ebola taking over Africa, and as of today the spread is speeding up and morphing. With Mexicans pouring into the US unchecked wouldn’t you think we would at least temporarily close the borders. Seriously, I’m not talking about becoming an isolated nation just a period of 6 months/year to get a handle on security. If nothing else restrict who’s coming in. We have hundreds of people with American passport fighting with Isis that can come and go at will. Close the borders.
Hey Mc Ruger, get with the program… we are talk’n about gays right now. Sheesh man where ya been?
No but seriously you are 100% correct. What is going on right now has stemmed from an insane loss of leadership. I don’t know how anyone that ever supported Obama could dare show their face in public.
It’s not even a subjective topic anymore. Even the hardest-core in the liberal media has conceded Obama is asleep at the wheel.
Seriously, the man has a press conference to announce he has no plan to control ISIS? Even the most daft of idiots know not to reveal when they have no clue to their enemy.
Oh, so back on point… with all I’ve stated above do you honestly believe this man could conceptualize the need to shut down our borders? I swear I think Obama is either the most incompetent individual to ever sit in the White House, or an exceptionally masterful mind behind the most modern Trojan horse intent on bringing this country to its knees.
@Warren: What I believe is between me and god. U think being gay is wrong while I think being an overly religious bigot is wrong. Morality is a matter of opinion. What is right for one is wrong for the other. Besides we may have the right to practice our religion guaranteed by the first amendment of the US Constitution but we do not have the right to restrict others, especially Americans any of their rights. Period. And we cannot hide behind our religious right so that we can infringe on others rights. I’m for keeping the government out if our personal lives.
Ian McClure, you aren’t a christian or believe in a God do you? Gay marriage! Look what God did to Sodom and Gommorah because gay (sic) love is un-natural! Some corrupt Non-American gets in the White House illegally and to hell with the Constitution and morallity! Just like you said, their are others to fight your battles because you are a COWARD!
@Anthony: Thank you for trying to make the most honest and truthful point yet. Like you I am a registered Republican with libertarian views. What the extremists within our group don’t realize is that by acting the way they do without clear rationalization or logic to guide them that they are essentially coming off as authoritarians who would rule this country as a military dictator so long as everyone believed in what they believe and nothing else. The reasons to support things like gay marriage is because it is their right to express themselves to the those they love by marrying them even if we disagree with it. That is the definition of freedom. And yeah I completely agree with u in terms of the firearms statements u made. It us highly unlikely that any large government takeover if ppls 2a rights would happen anytime soon. And if it did there would be more than enough ppl who would revolt against the government in some way whether its by voting or by protesting.
@Ian, McClure – Thank you for commenting on my post. I am sure there are many that are cursing me for making those comments, but they were offered in the spirit of being constructive. At least I know that one person agrees.
There will alway be a few extremists. There will always be those that believe that th”their” way is the one and only true way, and that their beliefs are so clearly correct that any disagreement must indicate that dissenters are traitors or morons or godless animals. All we can do is hope that one day the light comes on for them….. and that we don’t see them on the 11 o’clock news before that happens.
McRuger, I was wondering the same thing! But for safety sake my shall we say safe place is not at my home, so they can monitor their selfs stupid on my end! Haven’t heard from G-Man lately? Well you take care and let us hope that our nightmare are just that!
Guys, we have to come down to earth.
Look, I am a huge 2A supporter, registered as a republican but more like a libertarian, a *true* conservative, strict Constitutionalist…. own lots of firearms, and been walking this dirtball for quite a while.
But all this talk about imminent armed insurrection is nuts. It’s not helping, and the vast, vast majority of people in the country would conclude that such comments are coming from lunatics.
Another thing that is not helping, honestly, are the “if you don’t agree with me then you’re corrupt/a traitor/an idiot/a know-nothing” posts. And I say this as a person that *strongly* believes in liberty and not just the strictest possible interpretation of 2A but of all personal rights. If you take a step back, supporting individual rights means that every American Citizen – even liberals, for cryin’ out loud – have the very same rights as anyone else to their views – no matter how strongly you think they are wrong. You don’t have to agree with them. I would hope you wouldn’t agree with them. But the very notion of “rights” is rooted in respect. We come off as a bunch of hotheads when we fail to show respect, or resort to argumentum ad hominem (e.g., “that guy is an idiot who has no idea about anything” rather than objectively discussing the points and counterpoints. The tyranny we are so upset about is really just an extreme form of bullying. It can come from both sides. Better to stay away from bullying rather to come off as a bully, and therefore pretty darn close to a tyrant, in the eyes of others. And make no mistake about it, the most significant court we have to address is the court of public opinion, because whether we like it or not, politicians and judges *do* respond to prevailing public sentiment. The liberals are painting gun rights proponents as a bunch of crazies that are looking for excuses to shoot the place up. They use every shooting in the news to stir up public opinion against gun rights, against gun owners, and against the NRA. Why are we helping them with that argument by acting like very scary, unreasonable extremists?
Getting back to the issue of armed insurrection….. ok, time for a reality check. We are nowhere near that. I repeat, nowhere. An armed insurrection today would be an utter disaster. For everyone ready to take up arms, there are 10,000 that, while not happy about the direction of the country, are not within 100 miles of thinking about overthrowing the government. They’re going to go to work and have meat loaf for dinner and pay their mortgage and go to their kid’s little league game . A few guys trying to attack a federal building or some such are going to accomplish little more than perhaps gain a spot on the 11 o’clock news. A few guys, or a few thousand, no matter how noble their intentions, are not going to overthrow diddley. They are just going to look to the rest of the public like some nuts, and end up in jail – or the morgue.
The bottom line is, an armed response has to be supported by a strong majority of the population, and there needs to be a LOT of people willing to participate. That isn’t the case today – not even close. It will take a dramatically worse situation for that sort of support to form. Martial law… Economic collapse… Hunger…. Some draconian actions of government . A few court cases we don’t like are not anything close to enough, and should not be enough. Unless the majority of the Country clearly supports extreme action… it should not even be on the table. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have your firearms cleaned and ready at all times. I do. But recognize that for many people, being prepared often makes them a little itchy to jump. That would be a disaster, talking about it costs us public support for gun rights….and more importantly, is not appropriate.
What we should all do is support change from within the process. Vote. Campaign for candidates that support your views (make sure you ferret out what they really support). Unfortunately the process runs on money, so donate (it’s less costly that waging war) or try to organize your friends to donate. Write to your representatives and let them know that you will VOTE THEM OUT if they don’t support the Constitution. Urge them to legislate and to impeach if all else fails! But most importantly, do everything calmly and reasonably.
If we as a group come off as extremist crazies, we can kiss our 2A rights goodbye. So don’t do that!
AMEN Dave
The legislatures may pass what they want, the judges may pervert the Constitution as they wish. My weapons will stay with me so long as I live, and unless I die in a home invasion effort to confiscate, they will belong to my family when I do die. I will register nothing, will surrender nothing, and will return gunfire against illegal invasions or assaults.
This judge is a traitor, and deserves to be treated as such.
Warren
Yes I do realize these things are going on. I have spent the last few years preparing for the fall and am very well supplied. Ammo, guns, food, water, power, communications, silver, trading stock and a great deal more are all in place. With everything going on in the world today, I don’t think it will be long before something happens to touch it all off. In fact I am a bit surprised we have held off this long. Ido wonder how many agencies monitor this site?
i
McRuger, I don’t know if it will be 4 to 8 more years, it may very well be sooner than that! You must look much deeper than just the 2nd Amendment now a days, into the crazy borrowing and spending of our government. Do you realize that right now this very moment our government is borrowing billions of dollars from other countries that it cannot legally pay back? So instead of paying it back legally, Obama and all the other government officials have the treasury dept. just print enought U.S. currency to cover what it has borrowed plus intrest to pay it back. Our President and government officials O.K. this daily, and the United States does NOT have enough GOLD to cover all the currency out there now. China knows this so China is devaluing the U.S. dollar on the open market daily! This isn’t just words comming out of my mouth, they are words comming from the same man that predicted the fall of Fannie Mae and G.M. a couple years before it happened. And he has predicted the fall of not only the U.S. economy but the entire constitution as well! And in the next couple of years.
I’m ready to lock and load and rock and roll, I’m stock piling foreign currency, gold and silver, MRE’s, and ammo. You’d be a fool in this day and age not to, considering if everything that the financial guru’s
predictions come to pass AGAIN, a loaf of bread will cost you twenty U.S. dollars, a gallon of gas one hundred U.S. Dollars, there will be no jobs, no money to pay police or the military, the entire government structure will collapse! Only the wealthy , and those in government power will be living large. And the United States Constitution will no longer exist.
Yes Mc Ruger, it’s comming at us like a run away freight train, and it is unstoppable the way it is running! And it’s about to crash very very soon.
Warren
I TEND TO AGREE WITH G-MAN ON THIS. However I do think that if the big O declares amnesty and if the liberals control the upcoming mid-term and presidential elections it will be time. There is no question that the Progressives hate this country as it exists and 4 /8 more years of progressive rule will mean sweeping and destructive change to the Constitution and our system of Government. Liberty will be gone, the House will be gone and the Presidency will become a socialist dictatorship. I for one will fight to save this nation to my last breath.
Remember Reagan’s words: Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction.
G-man, now that you’ve explained your position a bit more, I do understand. I have been in your shoes too before, where men fled like cowards at the time I needed them most and left me standing alone. And as you found, there are very few men true to what a man really is! They can talk the talk, but they can’t walk the walk!
I’m a firm believer that the only thing any man has in life that means anything is his WORD! I believe that is the essence of his entire being, that which actually binds a man’s soul to his person! And if he breaks it, no matter for what reason, he is no longer a man, just a shell of a worthless piece of dog crap!
I am hereby giving cheaper than dirt the go ahead to give you my web site, so you can contact me directly. Any way I can help you defend the 2nd Amendment and the U.S. Constitution, if it’s within my power, you let me know! I give you my word, I got your back.
@ G-Man.
To. Mr. Liddy, I’m sorry to have caused your distress and/or discomfort, with my statements with you. But, you struck a nerve, and it’s a nerve I’d like somebody, other then you too answer. Namely Congress. My discussion with Mr. Mc Ruger, really had nothing to do with you. And I was extremely perplexed why you decided to enter the discussion. I was discussing with Mr. Mc Ruger, about the six Commissioners of the Federal Election Commission about elegibility of the Presidency of the United States, under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. If the Commissioners were satisfied with Senator Obama’s Certificate of Birth Status, If you have a problem with his birth status take It up with them. The current Six Commissioners, were either appointed by Now President Obama, or carried-over from the last Presidential Administration. Of the six, four Commissioners are Democrats and two are Republican. They have the last word in eligibility for the job of President. Each Commissioner, serve a six-year term. So, the last President to appoint the Commissioners too approve Senator Obama for President, was the President George W. Bush, Jr. Take it up with him. I offer no malice too you, and wish we could correspond in the future. Were not go to agree no many issue, but, then again who does. I welcome you as a friend, and I hope you’ll return the favor. But, if not, not???
Thus the problem with electronic communication.
G-man! You speak great words but are you willing to lead us agaisnt the corrupt government in such a way as to over throw it? And can you be trusted, since your agency has a very bad track record of misleading citizens and then arresting them! It is a corrupt and criminal government of which you are a part, I can’t say that you are corrupt as I don’t know you! But I fear that which you are a part of!
Your words will call men to rally agaisnt the very government you serve for their destruction of the 2nd Amendment. What is your motive? You must realize your words , if the intent is true and pure, will cause good men to shed their blood and give up their lives to defend the United States Constitution. It will cause brother to take up arms agaisnt brother! I believe that the United States Constitution as written by our forefathers and as the Supreme law of the land is worth that type of struggle. But it shames me to be called an American, a father, a grandfather and a great grand father, that such a struggle will have to happen in this Nation today, because our Judicial and Government is so corrupt!
@ Warren: All very good questions. But the most important one is – are we there yet? Have we really reached the point where it is time to take up arms? Have we truly exhausted every single effort to work within the system first? These are tough questions since there is no user manual for justified insurrection.
I can tell you this: Every single day of my adult life has been spent fighting internal government corruption. I know more about the evil men can do than most. I don’t know if you’ve read some of my other posts, but years ago I single handedly took down an entire corrupt department, but was made to pay a heavy price for my efforts. It delayed my career by almost 5 years and even then I was forced to sue my way back.
And please don’t talk to me about leading men with my words. While you have no way of knowing me, that is a painful subject for me. Why? – Because I’ve seen firsthand the cowardice in even the most inspired men by my words. Each and every one made a solemn commitment to join me in a just cause. Each showed they knew in their hearts it was the right choice, and yet when the time was upon us to make our final move, I was left standing alone.
That was an extremely painful moment for me in my life to watch otherwise good men lose their courage at the most critical point in our investigation. I can tell you with the utmost certainty that if you could see things from the inside, you would be devastated to learn how massive this machine is to take down, but with diligence it can be done – and without bloodshed. All it takes is courage and fortitude, but unfortunately as I’ve discovered most men severely lack such qualities.
So my answer to you is no, we are not there yet. I haven’t seen people with the courage necessary to even begun to fully exercise our right to peacefully redress the issues or show up to vote in appropriate numbers. People talk a big talk, but what are they really doing to help the cause in peaceful and lawful ways? Are they donating money to support their favorite causes? Do they show up and speak their mind at city council meetings?
Honestly there are times I don’t feel men have earned the right to honorably take up arms for this cause. With such devastating failure to exercise their existing peaceful right to a resolve, why should they be entitled to take up arms in such a noble cause?
So again, the answer is no. Peaceful means are not even close to having been exhausted. Besides, things will have to degrade to a far worse state than this before we’ll see men find the courage necessary to take action anyway. Unfortunately you can trust me on this.
In order to fully immerse oneself into a proper Constitutional comprehension towards the true purpose for the creation of this document, each person must first be capable of knowing, without the slightest doubt or hesitation, what it means to be a truly separate and free individual.
And along with that, one must understand with the utmost certainty which basic human rights are automatically entitled to each and every individual, equally and without question, which begins at their most infinitesimal inception of human creation until the day of their death on earth.
One must also possess the intellectual awareness to understand that these rights have always existed since the dawn of time; that no earthly being has the power to bestow such rights, nor may they be taken away; as they are inherent and inalienable ties to our very existence.
Reasonable men, good men, men free from corruption can sense these intrinsically natural rights instinctively and early in their development because they already exist in our spirit, hearts and conscience as an integral part of our humanity.
But sadly there are those that become corrupt and lose their natural ability to discern right from wrong. So as a precaution our Founding Fathers felt it necessary to manifest these rights into written word in order that it may serve as a reminder for those that lose their way and become corrupt.
Corruption is not something in far off lands; it is upon each of us throughout our entire lives. Every one of us is tempted daily and must fight to stay on a proper course. However, over the years the masters of corruption have honed their skills and cunningly learned to manipulate our laws to their deceptive advantage; making them so convoluted with complexity that citizens lose the will to fight such bureaucratic treachery perpetrated upon our once great system as spelled out in our Constitution.
So what are some common examples of such treachery? Keeping in mind our inherent right to self-preservation, whether individually or collectively, the Founding Fathers scribed reminders to serve as a warning to those that may become corrupt, which clearly states that every single citizen has an individual right and obligation to defend themselves, their property, and their Nation from all enemies both foreign and domestic.
They spoke of maintaining the ability to repel and replace a government that may become tyrannical towards its citizens and so they reminded us all of this inherent right and the tools available to do so in the form of the Second Amendment.
So with that, how can anyone in their sober mind not see the corruption in allowing the very government we may one day be forced to rise up against, yet still presume it should ever have the authority to dictate the limits to the very arms which may be necessary to free us from their tyranny?
And for that very reason I submit that it should be obvious to anyone that any limits placed upon the Second Amendment, even to the slightest degree, should be considered an act of corruption with no other intent than one of tyranny.
Anyone that believes otherwise has been unwittingly manipulated and corrupted themselves.
I guess that we can say that Federal law is a joke and it dosen’t have to be recognized any more! Because the Pledge of Allegiance has these words “…and liberty and justice for all.” Not just for the masses but for ALL to include the piece of Trash President and the corrupt Government Officials and Federal Judges! I’d like to say more, but I doubt if I’d be around tomorrow if I did, as their is no true freedom of speech in this country any more either! And G-man knows that as well!
@ G-Man.
If you and Sheriff Joe Arpaio have all the evidence too impeach Obama on all the claims of miss doing’s, corruption, fraud, etc. Please, give it to Rep. Darrel Issa, so he can waste another $20-Million USD. Of taxpayers money, and put Obama in prison. PLEASE SUBMIT YOU PROOF OF WRONG DOING. Or, is simpler and more profitable to make a Publisher’s Book Deal and go around on the Lecture Circuit, racking in the BIG BUCKS!!!
Well G-Man this is not a revelation to some of us as we have dug into it as much as our limited resources will allow. I personally do not have any question that Obama was not born a US citizen. Obama is a young man and if he was born in the US documented proof would be easy. it’s not like were asking for a birth record for 1840. ANY president that was questioned about his birth place would have produced every document he could find without hesitation unless there is something to hide. It is the same as when he was asked about his college records.
it is just so painful that we do not have the legislators with balls enough to do something about it nor the media that care enough to dig into it like they did with Nixon.
I’m going to take everyone’s silence at this point to mean –
A) Most of us are still at work and don’t have time to respond at the moment, or
B) Most of you are all busy Googling the crap out of everything I’ve said.
For those that went with option “B”, or still plan to, I can’t wait to see how amazed you all are as you peel back each layer of all I’ve said and find it is all true. At the very least, you will find big holes you can’t fill… without lying to yourself.
And once you are convinced, you will then be compelled to ask yourselves how the heck all this went on right under your noses. With everything from real investigations by official law enforcement, fraudulent documents posted by White House staff, Adobe forensics busting the actual documents, the obvious absence of not even one single authentic paper copy, a hospital administrator that has only stated she can validate she’s seen it but cannot produce it for inspection, lawsuit after lawsuit filed and thrown out by federal judges on the payroll, the list goes on and on.
So how can all this happen in the greatest country in the world? – Because people don’t care anymore. They’d rather watch Miley Cyrus twerk off on a man twice her age and wait around for their ObamaChecks, ObamaPhones, and ObamaCare he promised them in order to get elected.
End of story… end of a once great Nation.
G-Man, Then how in good conscious can you or other Federal and state law enforcement prosecute a citizen that has never committed a crime yet decides that they want a fully automatic rifle without a license?
Or an ex-con that made one (1) mistake, paid for it and never got into trouble again, and decided to purchase a shotgun and rifle to go hunting? could go on on but won’t for space and time reasons.
When you know for a FACT, that the Leader of this Nation, his Second in Command and every damn worthless underling and other Federal Government Official are GUILTY of Federal Crimes to include FEDERAL CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY to commit FRAUD etc..?
All the excuses don’t add up to give ANYONE the right to break the law and get away with it! If you do it for one (1) you have to do it for EVERYONE! I don’t care what McCain said, he’s a criminal just like the rest, you need to kick that coward of a United States Attorney in the ass and make him charge them, shut the government and Federal judicial down and start over! That would be following the letter of the law! Looking the other way is the COWARDS way!
@ Mc Ruger.
NO POINT.
Every Presidential application filing, must be delivered to the:
Federal Election Commission Building
999 “E” Street, NW.
Washington, DC. 20463
1-800-424-9530
1-202-694-1000
With the Following:
> Application for the President of the United States.
> Birth Certificate Proof of United States Citizenship.
> $5000.00 USD. Application Fee.
@ Secundius: So the next logical question is what then did Obama provide if he had no birth certificate. Great question! And the answer?
Because at the time his staff submitted his Presidential Application he was already a sitting Senator. As such, he had already been vetted into the formal government system which therefore allowed him to possess the appropriate Congressional credentials.
It really came down to no one wanting to insult him or his position as an active Senator. Very simply, they allowed him to slip through the cracks because of his status in Congress.
Warren
I don’t me to stick my nose in your conversation with G-Man but I guess I’m going to.
My opinion is that Obama is still in office for political reasons not legal ones. 1. All other things aside electing our first black president was a good thing and no one want to be the guy that fired him. 2. I believe that impeachment of O would actually rally the progressives / socialists to pour billions into the DFL. Remember liberalism is not a political party… it is a religion to its followers. Theses people are brainwashed this is why they can’t even listen to any other point of view. It’s why they all sing the same song and are unable to think for themselves.
Not to mention it would put Biden in charge and he’s just plain stupid.
@ Mc Ruger: You’ve hit the nail on the head, and the ball out of the park there. Read my above response to Warren. Your response explains the McCain part and why he wimped out. I’ve worked with Senator personally and can say without a doubt it was ALL politics and the lack of balls.
I whished I could be more respectful than that, but I’ve got to tell it like it is.
G-man, what bothers me most, is why Obama is still the President? You said it yourself, his birth certificate is a fraud, therein he committed a Federal criminal offense! And then pursuant to the Constitution a non-U.S. citizen cannot hold the Office of President, he Committed another Federal crime, as did his entire staff! They all should be arrested and imprisoned, and every thing that Obama has done in his first term as well as this term must be voided! Am I or am I not correct? That includes the Vice President!
The letter of the law is clear, there are no shaded areas here, the law protects all citizens of this Nation, and since you are a Federal Agent sworn to up-hold the Federal laws of this Nation and to protect the citizens, I am requesting that you file the appropriate criminal charges agaisnt Obama, the Vice President and all White House Staff members! They have committed crimes and they are on going crimes and they are crimes that you are aware of, it is your duty! Thank you sir.
@ Warren: I wished it were that simple. Even within law enforcement circles there was a group of us that wanted action taken. However, we knew from our federal training as well as all my military experience that the only entity per the Constitution allowed to arrest or impeach the President is the Congress. When Obama first took office he controlled the House and the Senate so there was no way we could get anything done.
Not too much later the administration, along with enormous help from the liberal media, was very effective at making the issue unpalatable for anyone to pursue. They launched a massive campaign of deception by labeling anyone that believed such nonsense would be called a “Birther” and labeled a cook.
It was quite effective, yet there was still a possibility to push the issue once Obama lost the House of Representatives. But then more senior Republican Senators on the Senate side put out the word they would not pursue the issue… namely Senator McCain. When he went public that he did not believe Obama was ineligible (even though internally he did), with that the whole movement was officially dead.
Sure we still have State and County law enforcement investigations ongoing. Such as – Sherriff Joe Arpaio’s credible press release on his yearlong investigation which details massive amounts of formal evidence proving Obama is a fraud. But if Congress refuses to take up the issue, it’s dead in the water.
Sorry, we tried and failed. But the truth is still out there if people care to look.
Gentlemen we can all enter into a dick swinging contest about The Constitution people want to interpret it as they see it somewhat like the Bible, but lets not forget while we’re swinging dick the politicians are doing their underhanded best take away our rights, remember what Obama said he has a “pen and a cell phone” (Executive Order) the Regime scares the crap out of me…
@ Magilla: You’re kidding me right? I don’t know where you’ve been, but it is a known fact that to date his original birth certificate has never been produced nor authenticated. Please tell me you knew about this.
The official release put up on his site was taken apart forensically by Adobe and proven to be a layered Adobe PDF document with individual moving elements of embedded signatures and stamps. A single scan of an original could never have layers. When we asked the White House about it they refused to comment.
I took apart one copy from a direct download myself in the lab because I couldn’t believe his staff was that stupid. Well, they were.
Obama’s missing birth certificate is so commonly known throughout the federal government that I’ve just gotten used to it. For years the cracked document has been a source for us feds as running joke throughout the floors of our law enforcement centers. We joke about it so casually that I never really stopped to think about civilians that still buy into his fraudulent document.
I think they still have a copy up. Heck, I can walk you through a 30 day free trail of Adobe Acrobat Pro so you can unpeel the layers of his fake birth certificate on your own PC. You know what they say – seeing is believing.
And when you’re done, you’ll have to ask yourself… why? Why on earth during such controversy would his staff have made such a boneheaded move? While everyone I work with in law enforcement already knows why.
It would have been safer to just never have put anything up. Anyway, let me know if you want an Adobe forensics walk-through.
Magilla vs G-Man
Magilla seriously do some research … real research not just watching MSNBC and CNN. At least do a few hours in searching the information available on the net. The chances he was born a US citizen are slim and none. No, I can’t prove he is not a citizen but he has never proven he is neither.
@ Mc Ruger.
Declare Candidacy and File Application with Federal Election Commission.
Article II, of the Constitution of the United States. Section 1.
“….No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President neither shall any person be eligible to the office who shall not have attained the age of 35 years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
United States Constitution, September 17, 1787
Secundius………….
YOUR POINT?
G-Man, Run for President please, I’m dead serious! What you say makes more sense in a few words than cityslicker could ever hope to make in a billion volumes of whatever he attempts to say! Sort of like a House or Senate Bill don’t you think? Too much bull crap just to rob the common man! No wonder cityslicker is the way he is, he has learnt everything he knows from mimicking the same government officials and judges that are doing their best to destory the Constitution and this nation! And he knows no better, but swears he does, isn’t that the same as lying to one’s self as well as others?
@ Warren: Well if I did run for President, at least I’d be legally eligible per the Constitution. Unlike our current president, at least I’d be able to show a certified U.S. birth certificate.
As for cityslicker, I honestly think we should feel sorry for him that he appears to believe in his own rhetoric. I cringe for his embarrassment though, because he actually believes there is another side to some supposed issue he’s concocted when the reality is there was never an issue to begin with.
Most insulting to the real defenders of our Constitution is his self-proclamation to be a Constitutionalist. Only true Constitutionalists like us understand what a parody he’ made of himself. Quite sad really.
G-MAN.
Up until now, I really thought you were a man of INTEGRITY, STERNER stuff. But, your not. Your a real LOW BLOW, DISAPPOINTMENT, hitting the President of the United States. On his Birth Certificate,. You must not have been a very poor FBI agent, at you job. Because if you were, a good FBI agent. You’d be telling the TRUTH, instead of LYING to your Tea Party piers!!!
Whether we agree or disagree on our views here, we can’t loose sight that our country is in trouble, as a long time member of the N.R.A. I’ll continue to support our 2nd. amendment rights in any way possible, at least they all agree if we are not all focused and united our rights as we know them will become history!
In closing Warren I hope you weren’t referring to me as a Sheep, Moaner or Beggar. We need to agree to disagree and never allow the (regime) to divide us. “UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL”
Thank God there are folks like you out there G-Man. My temper flares often to quickly when it comes to dealing with nuts such as cityslicker, simply because people such as cityslicker are indeed causing the downfall of our Constitution and our Nation, just look at what we now have for a President, they are basicly one in the same! Complete an utter trash , destorying everything they touch that this Nation was founded upon and which so many have made the ultimate scarifice for! You can bet your bottom dollar that they never went near a recuriter’s office!
This Nation is in serious trouble, we are about to loose most of our Constitutional Rights, if not all of them! The writing on the wall is clear and anyone that can’t read it is just plain stupid or blind! But you’ll never talk sense into dumb as brick people, no way no how. Like you said they run their mouth but have no idea as to what they are talking about. The old saying Stupid is as stupid does, and brother Cityslicker and Obama fit that to a “T”.
Warren and G-Man,
I am happy to see you were following the discussion Anthony and I were having. You’d do well to study Anthony’s words, because even though I don’t agree with his conclusions (or even some of his premises), he does know his shit. You two, on the other hand, would have trouble scraping half a brain together between the both of you. You don’t understand the Constitution or legal procedure, you have no knowledge of US history, and you have no critical thinking skills. Other than that, you’re both a couple of nice doofuses. I’ll tell you what I learned when I served, you morons. I was duped by a President beholden to the corporations who were and are still calling the shots. It was the biggest sham since, well, Vietnam. Guess what morons? Neither you nor I were protecting the US from ANY real threat. But we sure did help a lot of people make a lot of money.
And for your edification, in the early years of the US govt, pretty all the Senators were rich dudes. Same as today, unfortunately. And back then, you couldn’t even vote for them. But I guess you didn’t know that. Where on earth did you get the idea that there were “common” men in the Senate? And today, there are many common folk in the House. Many. Check into it.
As for the middle class – you’re right, they are the single most important class in this country. In any country, for that matter. Legislation relating to taxation, equality, wages, SS, healthcare, jobs, etc, should ALWAYS be written so as to benefit and expand the middle class. The problem is that morons like you two don’t understand this and vote against your own interests. It’s an amazing phenomenon. And it’s a direct result of poor critical thinking skills.
In any event, just let people like Anthony do your bidding. It’s people like you that will actually help to lose your myopic cause because you come off as rube preppers waiting for Armageddon. Not a good look.
@ cityslicker: In confrontations one can always discern who has the upper hand. This is easily confirmed by the frustrations worn by the weaker party as they are reduced to primordial fits of aggravation. Much like that seen in your case by all the readers here so far.
Topping the list of telltale signs is your feebleminded attempts to weave insults into your grandiloquence speak. But most noticeable is your limited vocabulary that is further wasted on ridiculous idioms and foul language; which I suppose is your equivalence to territorial chest thumping. How cute.
Not one thing in your last response directly addresses that which I’ve called you out on. Sure you’ve managed to hurl a few adolescent insults, but then you proceed to nonsensically meander all over the place wasting words without any meaningful purpose.
You believe you possess oratorical prowess, but in all your lengthy written volumes, you never really convey anything of benefit to anyone. Why don’t you go back and try to comprehend what I actually wrote about you and then come back and try again.
G-man,
That was a bunch of nothing.
I’d love to respond to anything you’ve “called me out on”, but near as I can tell, it was limited to me not knowing what I’m talking about (I try not to discuss things I know nothing about. You should do the same), I’m arguing issues which are resolved (only a fool would actually believe this), and I possess warped philosophical opinions cast as history. (I take that to mean you just don’t have the capacity to consider or understand anything other that your myopic view of the world).
So really, there isn’t anything to discuss with you, and I’m cool with that. There are plenty of people on both sides of any issue with much more interesting things to say. Now back to your bunker!
@ cityslicker: See what I mean? You just overused lots of meaningless words when all you really had to convey was simply that you do not possess the fortitude, wherewithal, and intellect to properly engage me at my level. Instead you string long sentences together in a blurb of ad hominem attacks in lieu of an honest excuse to decline.
G-man,
Skimmed through a few of your posts –
1) God didn’t make this country prosperous. People did. And do. And most of the influential FF’s weren’t even religious (Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Paine, Franklin, etc). At most, they were deists and some of them were atheists. Most of them believed in laws and policy that promoted egalitarianism (especially Jefferson), unlike, say Ronald Reagan, who single handedly ruined this countries finances at the time and for the foreseeable future. You do realize that your philosophies and the philosophies of many FF’s do not jive at all? Do you even get this? How about an answer, instead of your usual?
2) You’re a birther. Geez, that’s so 2009. Let me guess – you’ve been abducted by aliens 3 times?
3) There is nothing settled about 2A. You may notice there are laws being passed, and rulings being made ALL THE TIME. It’s only settled in your mind, and yes, that’s a scary place. There are Constitutional challenges being made everyday. There is legislation being reviewed everyday. There are rulings being made everyday. There are amendments being floated everyday. This, I offer you, is the beauty of the document and the processes established by the FF’s. Embrace the Constitution and it’s positives and negatives or go live in Montana with your sovereign citizen buddies and see how that works out for you. Nothing against Montana, it’s a lovely place.
4) Did I miss a post saying that you served? I know your lap dog Warren did. Don’t you people know you were duped? I know I was. The commies weren’t coming to get you. Or me. Ever been to Vietnam, post war? I have. Very nice people. Tell me what that was all about that 50k Americans needed to die? Iraq? Forget going there anytime soon. We destroyed that place from top to bottom. One of my shining moments. Tell me about the WMD’s. Tell me about Dick Cheney. Tell me about the deals the oil companies made. And you want to talk about Obama’s birth certificate?
You should be ashamed to call yourself a patriot.
You waste time on worrying about how many bullets you can put in your AR and on bogus birther issues while our country is being sold to the highest corporate bidder. I hope you enjoy those wife-beaters you get from Walmart, because when you’re done ruining this country, it’s all everyone will be able to afford.
Cityslicker
OK Cityslicker time to take your head out of your ass and stop making it up to suite you agenda. You have exposed yourself as an Obamite sheep, thus your posts are suspect and contain little if any truth or importance. There is nothing in your last post that could not be proven BS however I will leave you with the following example. Have an Obama Day…..
No one can deny that many of the founding fathers of the United States of America were men of deep religious convictions based in the Bible and their Christian faith in Jesus Christ. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held seminary or Bible school degrees.
These Christian quotes of the founding fathers will give you an overview of their strong moral and spiritual convictions which helped form the foundations of our nation and our government.
George Washington
1st U.S. President
“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”
John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God … What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”
–Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.
“The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
“Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.”
–Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
“The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever.”
–Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
–Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.
“I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
–The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.
John Hancock
1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”
–History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.
Benjamin Franklin
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Unites States Constitution
“Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.
“That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;
“But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.”
–Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790.
In a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson said, “The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.
All is not as it seems in your bubble. And the Constitution is not the bible, thank God!! I know it’s too late for you for the Age of Enlightenment, but let me know when they’re offering the Age of Reason in your neighborhood.
I think it incredibly irresponsible of a person that convinces themselves, with confidence even, they know what they are talking about when it comes to the Constitution. I’ve been following the back and forth between Anthony and cityslicker, and can honestly say I am utterly dumbfounded at all the effort cityslicker has been willing to put into a topic he clearly knows nothing about.
A few scant lines of opinion could have been easily dismissed, but whole dissertations containing volumes of warped philosophical opinions cast as history… well that is downright scary when you think he could be passing his nonsensical twaddle on to his offspring.
Most disconcerting was his lack of awareness that he was actually arguing issues that have already been well resolved; and in stark opposition to his opinions as well. Nevertheless, he continued his charge – pounding away at his ambiguous and ill-conceived understanding of issues that would stand up nowhere other than his own court of personal opinion.
I truly worry for this Country.
WELL SAID MY FRIEND, even thought you didn’t owe the likes of him a darn thing! I salute you and your family and I’ll keep your son in my prayers !
All I can can say about you is that you are one of the sheep waiting in line to be slaughtered! And I’d bet my bottom dollar, that when the day comes, you’ll be one of the biggest moaners and beggers right before the government shuts your eyes for the last time!
Sometimes it’s just good enough being a Patriot and being an advocate of the American Way of Life, you tried and didn’t flee to Canada or Burn your Draft Card, PS: you didn’t miss anything (48 years of nightmares) i’m still not 100% and MOS wasn’t pretty!
NO I SAID I COULDN’T SERVE. NOT THAT I CHOSE NOT TO.
I REGISTERED FOR THE DRAFT THE YEAR THEY STOPPED THE DRAFT AND DID TRY TO ENLIST AT RIGHT OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL. I DON’T OWE ANYONE AN EXPLANATION BUT IF YOU WANT ME TO SPELL IT OUT I WAS BORN WITH A DISABILITY THAT MADE ME INELIGIBLE. I TRYED GETTING IN ANYWAY.
MC RUGER?
Strange words, and stranger answers. On one hand, you say you regret not serving, And, on the other hand you say, you didn’t serve. Your, saying you chose not to server, because you decided not, too enlist. Indeed, strange words and phrase, coming from a person like you!
I understand Warren.
My 4 uncles served, my 3 sons and my father and sister. I have a son in Afghanistan now. I could not serve and it is the biggest regret of my life. I know of no one that loves this country and the Constitution more than I and I would willingly give my life in it’s defense.
I did not mean to be offensive to everyone, but it seems that those who never served are the ones who stand in the fore-front attacking the 2nd Amendment! And to me it seems that they simply don’t fully grasp the true and complete meaning of the entire United States Constitution! And service, means to serve your Country and defend the Constitution whether your a cook, clerk or in the trenches! And NO Judge or Government Official now a days serves this Country or Defends the Constitution, all they do is lie to the masses and line their pockets with our tax dollars, and the wealthy keep building more wealth off the sweat of the masses!
I am sorry if I offended you, but once you poll those attacking the 2nd Amendment , the U.S. Constitution in it’s entirety and this Country from the inside, you’ll find that the majority have never served in any capacity in the defense of the Constitution or this Nation. And once you tally that poll, maybe you may better come to understand my anger. DO NOT poll government Officials or judges, their corruption voids them from the count!
Once again I am sorry for offending you.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent, it is a force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master” (George Washington), and I don’t know what rainbow people live under but our rights as written under the Constitution have been compromised little by slowly we are becoming servants to an over powered Government (Regime) who has one motive complete control! of what we say and do..
I served (Enlisted) in 1966 in Viet Nam the Republic of, Semper FI
Freedom is not Free as Americans we must work to maintain it whether we served or Not, we are Americans and PROUD!!
Warren
I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.
“If you never served in defense on the Constitution, you’ll never fully understand FREEDOM! I’m sorry but that is the truth whether you accept it or not.”
That is about as misguided a statement as I have ever heard. Millions of Americans who would give their lives for Liberty will never truly understand? Did you have to be in combat or just serve? does it count if you were drafted or did you have to volunteer? What If you were unable due to disability? What about kids that lost a parent but didn’t serve. Is it ok if you served as a cook, in supply or intel ? Does that include all US Presidents that didn’t serve? Does that mean that if you did serve you but criticize everything about what you did like John Kerry you understand. What about a reporter that goes to Syria is captured held as a prisoner and killed.
I understand that you are proud of your service and I will am thankful for your service to this country but your statement is absurd and offensive to millions of Americans.
Once again, the Amendments as written in the Constitution cannot be changed in that they cannot be written out, or overlooked by any government official or judge! The 2nd Amendment gives each INDIVIDUAL the right to own the firearm of their CHOICE! And FREEDOM OF CHOICE is what it is all about! NO ONE has the right to take that CHOICE away from any law abiding person! Once you abridge that FREEDOM then we are headed down a slippery slope indeed, one that will take us into a governmental ruled antiarchy and dictatership! Is that what you want? And don’t say it won’t happen, because through out history it has happened over and over again! FREEDOM, that is what the Constitution is about, that is why I inlisted at the age of 17 during Vietnam and served in that nasty piece of real estate! FREEDOM is why my father inlisted at the age of 17 in WWII and served in the South Pacific! FREEDOM, is what the 2nd Amendment is about. Reasonable people! If you never served in defense on the Constitution, you’ll never fully understand FREEDOM! I’m sorry but that is the truth whether you accept it or not.
A citizen’s Grand Jury huh, that is a new one on me. I don’t believe that it would have any legal standing in today’s world. Do you have any case cite’s that would support such a Grand Jury? If so cite them so I can read them. Otherwise it just sounds like it would be beaten back and the government would claim it to be a civil up rising! Remember that those you want to arrest are immune from any type of prosecution, both civil and criminal when it comes from civilians like us. If a judge sentences a innocent person to death and that person is executed, and a minute after that person’s execution it is found that he or she was innocent, by the letter of the law that judge committed murder, but you cannot prosecute that judge, because that judge is cloaked by immunity ! Do you have a better understanding of the way the wealthy government has set up themselves and the judicial to be protected from us now? The last remaining thing the government and the judicial have to do is take our weapons, then they will have total and absolute control! Then Hitler will live again, and God help us!!!!
Check this out..
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/
My friend if we were to try that we would be either shot and/or arrested for treason and then executed! And that is no joke. Be careful what you say on your computer, Big Brother is indeed listening, and he will show up at your door and you may not be seen or heard from again. It was bad during the cold war, and it is much worse since 911!!! The government officials that are in office now, they want our weapons, they want total and absolute control over the masses, that is reality. So be wise before you hit that key board, and always keep you and your family safe first!
Thanks Warren it was just a happy thought. I should have known it wasn’t being done for a reason.
Article III Section 1
…The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behavior…
This means that they can be removed if not doing their jobs or charged and prosecuted if found guilty of criminal activity.
My friends, oh how I wish it were that simple, to sue the government officials! Private civilians like us can’t, as the government officials and judges have sovereign immunity when we sue. They claim it is so they can do their jobs without harrassment from low life’s like us that disagree with their polices and procedures. Welcome to the judicial as set up by our wealthy politicians! Just goes to show what they think of us. And by the way, I know this to be fact, I tried to sue an Attorney General of a state once for his commission of a crime and a judge in the same state. Needless to say, it was throw out before the type was dry on the pages! Chew on those facts for a while!
@Warren-A lawsuit is not the way to go with these heathens. A Citizens Grand Jury should suffice if there is the evidence to charge, arrest and prosecute. There’s plenty to chew on there…
I was wondering if that was a possibility?
Someone or some group would have to foot the bill. If we had some kind of representative organization like …American Citizens for Constitutional Government or Americans Against Horseshit Legislators or We the People or Americans for 2nd Amendment Rights ( just making up names) to take contributions and hire attorneys we could move forward.
God knows there are enough organizations out there but I see no one challenging constitutional violations. At least what we think are violations. Most seem to do more that take contributions an give lip service. I’m talking a real grass roots, get involved, keep legislators on their toes organization.
Where’s G-Man? He will know if feds are exempt from legal challenge from the public..
I think that one option nobody talks about is to SUE these “officials” for treason to the state based on THEIR OATH TO CONSTITUTION and dereliction of duty to the PEOPLE !
After all, WE THE PEOPLE CAN sue the officials for the wrong they do on the job IN CIVIL COURT !! Here ALL the legal expenses come out of THEIR OWN pocket ! Makes them NOTICE!!
VOTE,VOTE<VOTE, vote for what? another wealthy corrupt individual that wants to line his or her pockets with our hard earned tax dollars? Wake up! Our Constitution was written by the average man that fled from wealthy government oppressors! Our government is full of wealthy people only, but the majority of our country are middle class people! And those same wealthy people appoint the Judges in the Federal Courts, their puppets!
Right now today our Government will borrow about 500 billion dollars, and instead of paying it back like you and I would a loan, they will print enough paper to cover it and the intrest, the government does this every day, we don't have enough gold to cover the paper that is out there right this minute! We are headed for a mass depression that we may never recover from, if we don't stop it very, very soon! The government knows it, so they have their puppet judges step on the 2nd amendment because when it comes, the wealthy government does NOT want well armed citizens!
WAKE UP, the middle class needs to be in Government and the Judicial, not the wealthy! We need to make it happen before it is too late!
I and so many other veterans, active duty, and police officers, along with many of our family members, stand by the oath I took upon entry into the armed forces back in 1967… “to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic”… To us, this is not just words, but a way of life. For the majority of those who took that oath, it carries our word to America, our honor.
To us, the Constitution is the single document which defines America to the entire world.
Sadly, politicians and judges take, essentially, the same oath, but so many of them forget the words before they have ceased to echo in the halls of justice and government.
Sir I do agree with you in part and disagree with you in part! To make what you said complete you have to root out all the corruption in the government and the judicial. Which at this point in this Country’s History, means to begin all over again! Because first of all you have to ask the question, Why is it that only the wealthy hold government office? Since the majority of this country is made up of middle class people, should it not be the middle class that are in government?
Those good people that wrote our Constitution were common people, fleeing from the wealthy oppressors! Now we have come full circle and it has began again, but this time we have no where to flee to start over! The wealthy in office that appoint our Judges DO NOT have the average people’s best intrests in mind, if they did, our Country would not be in debt like it is.
Today this government borrows billions of dollars daily, and instead of working to pay it back the right way, it just prints more paper and pays the debt with that! We don’t have enough gold to cover the paper out there now! So therein the government tells their puppets called Judges , to step on the 2nd Amendment because this Country is headed for a depression in the very near future that we may never recover from! And the wealthy government dosen’t want armed citizens , that is only common sense!
It is time for this Country to wake up, and time for us to go back to our roots and rid ourselves of the wealthy government officials and their puppet judges and put the average person in office!
Well said, but if they don’t teach TRUE history, the youth will become sheep and led to the slaughter and not know what happened, I’ve seen so many changes, so many laws pushed through,Late Night Deals, most of which should have put on a ballot and decided on by the people who the Constitution and The Bill of Rights were written for, to protect from an over powering government and the elected servants forget By The People For The People.. VOTE, VOTE, VOTE! (WE NEED HELP)
When you add it all up, only a small percent of the alledged citizens of the United States want to DEFEND the Constitution and keep it as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND! The rest, the sheep, would rather do nothing and allow the criminals that hold government and judicial offices to lead them down the same path that Hitler lead Germany down, and believe me, that is where this Country is going.
As for myself, I take the words from a now gone leader of the N.R.A. and hold them as words to rally to defend the 2nd Amendment and the United States Constitution, “WHEN THEY PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!” God Bless America!!!!!!!
Hey chief, Warren. If your going to plagiarize. Plagiarize the right source. The quote goes: “I’ll give up gun when they pry my cold dead hands of it.”, North Hills, PA., March 29 1972; author unknown (A no it wasn’t Charlton Heston. Unless the filmed “Planet of the Apes”, there.)
All guns can be dangerous. They’re made to be that way. The only thing unusual is the ignorance some judges show.
As always the blind leading the blind, again we swore to defend The Constitution against any Enemies Foreign or Domestic or founding fathers are rolling in their graves the way the “Regime ” is systematically dismantling The Constitution one Amendment at a time. I worry that ISIS is not our greatest threat… (This is my weapon Sheila is it’s name)
SEMPER FI (1966)
My thanks to you and all who served our great nation. She may have lost a bit of her luster, but she can shine again.
Those who serve are not stupid. Indeed, they are some of the most educated citizens. We have formal educations. Many have multiple degrees within the enlisted ranks. It’s clear that most have more knowledge and understanding of American history than civilians. We have been exposed to many cultures and understand them far more than some lawyer in the political arena who believes all people will give in to words pleading for peace. We understand far better that there are actually monsters in the world which would eat the USA if given the smallest opportunity.
@ MAG13.
Unfortunately you book doesn’t count, and find a traitorous act, the give it to Rep. Darrel Issa. So, he can spend another $20-Million UDS. of Taxpayers money, and find absolutely NOTHING!!!
When people use terms like ‘typical’ ‘jarhead and ‘stupid’ in the same sentence then in general what they are saying is for the most part all Marines are stupid which is really the same caliber of response as Nam. We each have our own way of expression. The trick is to not take everything someone posts as personal.
Not typical, not stupid but a Marine. Semper Fi
Ivan,
Roger that!
SF
Pick anything and eventually if you demonize it enough it will become as truth. Once it becomes as truth it can be controlled becasuse well because it is true.
Firearm Z is just well just terrible so people decide hey this must be so so let’s just do away with firearm Z we still have others. Unfortuanly what happens is that firearm Y can be much easier to demonize and so on until there are no firearms especially for law abiding citizens
@ Don,
Are you the Comment Board Nazi police?
Because I sure wouldn’t want to say anything to upset you or miss spell any words either……..Jack ASS!
Gosh Dang it, I called you a name.
Sorry, I served too and yes I was a Marine.
Semper FI, Nam Marine.
Cityslicker…
Well written response and quite thought provoking. With due respect to your opinion the following paragraph from your post is one of the scariest things I have read here.
Now, there are people who believe that the 2A allows for pretty much anyone to own any weapon. And there are people who believe the 2A is a relic addressing only militias and doesn’t even apply to a modern society with a standing army. And everything in between. Personally, I believe it falls somewhere in between. Where? I have no idea, and it’s not for lack of study. So I say, rewrite the thing and put this to rest. I’d like to thing Jefferson would agree and based on his known sentiments on the adaptability of the Constitution, I think I’m on pretty solid ground in thinking this.
It is frightening at best to think that anyone that supports the Constitution and 2A would trust our legislators to rewrite any part of it. It honestly scares me to think of the document we would end up with. Perhaps Jefferson would agree with you perhaps not. I tend to think Jefferson would look at where we are and our direction and wonder why we abolished the Constitution.
I believe every attempt to change the Constitution must be fought but that’s just me.
McRuger – you’re not alone.
McRuger, I wasn’t suggesting anyone rewrite the Constitution. I was suggesting rewriting 2A. You know, something like “the right of the people to keep and bear any damned arm ever or to be invented shall not be infringed.” Or, “the people can bear these arms…. (and then there is a list like when you get a printer driver upgrade for your computer, updated every 6 months). Or “the right of the people to bear arms shall be determined by each state”. A lot of people are really into the states rights thing and have no use for the federal government (and therefore, one would assume, the Constitution). My point is, it would be pretty easy to put all this BS to rest.
Soon as our military pull their collective heads out of their asses and finally Honor the Oath, Obama will be shot dead by a firing squad & deleted along with the entire democrat party down to the last voter for Treason when they allowed an invading illegal alien non citizen Islamic extremist militant to reside in my Whitehouse, then & only then will America once again Prosper. God Bless America, now pass the bullets around!
next logical step for Politicans will be a 5 second rule or other delay tactic
Very well said!
Typical Liberal tuna POS !
Can you do anything more than call names Nam? You are a typically stupid jarhead. And yes, I served.
I’ve watched our government and our judicial over the years slowly but surely push this nation into a place of shame and utter disregard for the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, our United States Constitution. “WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, in order to form a more perfect union…. we the people, not the elected officials, not the appointed Judges, all they do is destroy under the guise of what? Leadership by lies? I believe that it is time that WE THE PEOPLE, get off our back sides, and call for the IMPEACHMENT of every GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL that has LIED, and VIOLATED our Constitution, Every JUDGE that has LIED and VIOLATED our Constitution! For we have that right as the Honorable Justice Robert Bork once stated ” If the Constitution is law, then presumably its meaning, like that of all other law, is the meaning the lawmakers were understood to have intended. If the Constitution is law , then presumably, like all other law, the meaning the lawmakers intended is as binding upon ALL judges as it is upon legislatures and executives. There is NO other sense in which the Constitution can be what article VI proclaims to be: “Law….” This means of course, that a judge, no matter on what court he sits, may never create new constitutional rights or destroy old ones. Any time he does so, he violates not only the limits of his own authority but, , and for that reason, also violates the rights the rights of the legislature and THE PEOPLE….the philosophy of original understanding is thus a necessary inference from the structure of government apparent on the face of the Constitution.” It is time WE THE PEOPLE take back what has been taken from us, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, our United States Constitution as it was written and met to be!!!!!!!!
@ G-Man.
You have a Grace, an Elegance with “Words” that show no bounds. Sheer Poetry, the Master. I, APPLAUD YOU. I can go no further. My thought are running dry. Until you next Chewing Out Session. I stand, corrected, not chewing out. But, explanation. RAPTURE.
@ Phoenix Michaels.
> Door Number One: Die, while in office.
> Door Number TWO: Retire, while in office.
> Door Number THREE: Quite, while in office.
If it doesn’t fit into one of three calegories, mentioned above. FOR GET IT .
Ummmm “QUIT” is spelled correctly WITHOUT an ‘e’.
If I May…………..
“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
“The opponents of some of these common sense laws have ginned up fears among responsible gun owners that have nothing to do with what’s being proposed, nothing to do with the facts, but feeds into this suspicion about government. You hear some of these quotes:”
“I need a gun to protect myself from the government.”
“We can’t do background checks because the government’s going to come take my guns away.”
“The government’s us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you, I am elected by you. I am constrained as they are constrained by a system that our founders put in place. This is a government of and by and for the people.”
Barack Obama, President USA
April 3, 2013
“If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things.”
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
Adolph Hitler
Chancellor, Germany, 1933
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison
Thanks.
What a surprise………..another product of the great state of Massachusetts and a graduate of Harvard Law. Isn’t that where our esteemed president taught constitutional law? As her ilk flees the mess it has created in MA it spreads out into Maine, NH, and VT slowly turning those states into the same pools of liberal loonyism that Mass is. Forget a border fence between AZ and Mexico…………build an enormous fence around Mass and keep the nuts there!
2a shall not be infringed on can we not understand these words
It seems they ignore and amend the Constitution to what they want. The citizens have no rights and the military rules take over. Our forefathers fought to protect us all but the government control or attempts at control will always be there. The government is afraid that we will stand against them if need be. Many of us served in the military and even so they want to take our rights away. IRS another one taxation without representation which is all so true for our government leaders do not represent what we want only what they want. If that is not being represented I don’t know what isn’t. If someone breaks into your home you can not protect yourself or family even if it means they will harm or kill you you are to do nothing. If I must I would rather shoot first and take my chances later
I don’t want to rile up people’s political emotions… but neither party could be accused of being strong defenders of the Constitution.
There is an political organization called “Campaign for Liberty” that actually has been holding drawings to give away ARs and other guns as a promotion to drum up donations. The organization has strong ties to Ron Paul, who is well known as a strict constitutionalist. I wouldn’t say I support 100% of the things that Ron Paul supports, but overall he resonates with me on the issue of supporting the Constitution a lot better than the current numbskulls on both sides of the aisle. My point is, irrespective of your opinion of Ron Paul or any specific politician, if we want a Constitutionalist government (and I think most here do), we have to elect people that believe the Constitution must be defended …. not people that want to get around it.
From Wikapedia (the 2nd ammendment )As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
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.
How can any justice re-interpret SHALL NOT INFRINGE.?
This judge needs to go back and read “The Federalist Papers” in which the Founders left their words regarding such issues. She also needs to review the SCOTUS ruling in Miller v United States where in the court ruled against the Plaintiff over the legality of a sawed off shotgun, however, the court did say, “Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” In essence, saying that any weapon suitable for the military or whose use could contribute to the common defense is legal. It’s not always what the court rules in a particular case, but what the court does not say, or infers by not saying anything.
So what is their fascination with these specific weapons? High rates of fire? Large capacity mags? Accuracy? None of the above! Just control and this where to start. Out law every thing that makes “them” nervous. OOOOOOOOOOOOO.
The entire gun control strategy is based on incremental restriction. They know that they will never be able to repeal 2A. So the strategy is to attack the hardware with incremental restrictions. First, they went after full automatics, even though the actual amount of crime committed by such weapons is negligible, and they are obviously in use by the military (thus satisfying the 1939 Miller ruling). Now, they want to come after your black rifle, and limit your magazine capacity. Next, they will reduce the 10 round magazines to 7 or even 5 (New York, I believe, has already legislated 7, which are not very common other than in mouse guns like .32ACPs or .380). After that, they will make the point that all semi-automatic rifles, including your kid’s 10/22, fire as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger. So we will be left with bolt action rifles, Biden’s double barrel shotgun, and pistols with 5 round mags. I wonder how they will get those. I’m sure they will come up with some sort of nonsense argument.
Wow she’s a moron, all law abiding citizens of the United States should be able to own various firearms, the fact that we are now being threatened by a whole new bunch of terrorists ie: ISIS we all should be at the ready for anything. The second amendment was put in place so as to give us the ability to do so. Unless that is the lefts plan, to allow these terrorist organizations to infiltrate our country and put us under a rule of tyranny. And I believe that is very possible, you never know.
It’s amazing to me that all the people who wants to destroy the 2nd Amendment and keep firearms from law abiding citizens, have the money and clout to hire someone to protect them. If they want to take my weapons so I can’t protect myself and my family, then they should also forfeit that right! To my way of thinking, the day after a politician leaves office all protection should be stopped for them and their families, think of the monies saved by the government! No amount of protection should be allowed, either bought, donated,volunteered, rented etc. They should be made to try and protect their families with a ball bat , bow and arrow , spear etc., are you picking up what I’m trying to lay down? This definitely includes the president and his family! When the government confiscates law abiding citizens weapons , we will no longer remain a free nation, and specifically a free nation under GOD!! IT IS TIME FOR US TO ACT AS AMERICANS, AND NOT DO DISCREDIT TO THE VETERANS WHO FOUGHT AND DIED TO KEEP US SAFE AND FREE!! MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!
Another obviously biased judge making a leftist ruling in direct opposition to the Constitution…appeal!
Appeal hell! Call the Governor and demand her removal… and start a recall election if action is not immediately taken to defend the Constitution by doing so. Only actions with TEETH have any effect.
@ phoenix michaels: This is at the Federal District level. A governor has no say. Only Congress could move to impeach and with a spit Congress right now that is highly unlikely.
AMEN! Anthony, Jefferson’s 1803 statement while on the campaign trail gets even stronger meaning when applied in the sense of your arguments here. “The purpose of the 2A is to protect the people from a tyrannical government!”
James – Your assertion is unequivocally true. The preamble to the Bill of Rights very plainly states that the purpose of the entire Bill is to prevent “abuse and misconstruction” of the power granted by the Constitution to the central government.
“dangerous and unusual.”….. “particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right”…..
The Second Amendment has 27 words, where do any of the above words appear??
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson.
The POS liberal needs to be taken back to school. I for one am REALLY TIRED of these Liberal ACTIVIST judges “Amending the constitution” from the bench!!
This is what happens when we spend 30 years staying home every November. How many of you will be at the polls this November?
That judge should lose his job and his pension, he is a danger to society and an idiot.
Ignorance fueled by adjectives multiplied by party agenda equals political and intellectual gridlock. My 30 round clips are safe from righties and lefties. My dollars go to organizations who sell ammo and not to organizations who promote fear of change as a way of life. Goodbye…
@ Mike.
They did several times after “The Great War” (i.e. World War One). The last one of that time, I think was in 1934. But, you might have to ask the G-Man, He was in the FBI, he would probably know it better.
@ Bill.
How STUPID are you. I live just outside of Washington, DC. And I see the Crap going on’s in the Federal Government up close and personal. Rep. Darrel Issa, has going on Obama for the last 6-years, he can’t even get Obama, on the charge of spittiing on the sidewalks. Why, Don’t you go after Darrel Issa, for spending $20-Million USD. at a pop. Everytime he see’s a conspiracy. Darrel Issa, is worth over $300-Million himself. Why doesn’t he use his own money and not our money, as if it were loose change stirring around in his pockets.
In Heller, Allen Gura argued that the m16 rifle/ar15 was not protected by the 2A. Gura, the NRA, and the SAF have consistently argued against the open carry of such rifles. Calguns and Alan Gura argued that AK pistols are dangerous and unusual weapons in federal court.
@ Ken.
I’m almost 60, and nobody has taken my guns away, yet. When they do, the’ll have a fight on the hands!!!
why is a “firearm” most of the time, referred to as a “weapon” ???
do people not know the difference?
do people not know when an object becomes a weapon?
I live in New York State, where the SAFE ACT threatens to make legal gun owners into felons. Registration of all firearms is required as well. You can pretty much guess what the next step will be, confiscation. I also agree with jd, the current administration is looking for an event ( or attempting to orchestrate one ) to declare martial law. Control of all Americans is the priority of this government, and many previous administrations. That much is clear. But I disagree with the assertion that Secundius made about President Reagen. He was no wishy washy moderate, but a true conservative. That’s why he scared both the liberal democrats and rhino republicans so much. Too bad there’s no man of his caliber on the horizon.
Barry
I regretfully agree. I do believe that the present administration is trying to orchestrate an event that will justify martial law and subsequent confiscation of firearms. I do not believe it will happen but I do believe it is at minimum being discussed. You may go ahead and call me whatever makes you feel superior however I am just a normal guy that does the research and sees the signs.
As far as fighting back. Based on what I see I believe that if push comes to shove most people will roll over to government demands leaving a handful of people that will fight and will eventually be extinguished.
The bottom line is until they start going door to door to take folks guns they wont get many, until they do, and when they do then civil war will commence. They will have waged war on their own people, for the sake of a twisted law, if they want it that bad, let them come!
No matter how they want to word it it is still against the constitution and every gun owner should be ready to go to court over any issue involved.
Also I can’t believe that any intelligent person, especially a judge, could really believe that an inanimate object such as a gun is causing the problem. It’s the idiot humans that are the problem. If guns are banned it only keeps them out of the hands of the responsible people that may need them to defend themselves. If a major disaster hits and social services fall apart, including law enforcement what will be left with if we have no guns but the criminals do. Anyone in that situation, including a judge will be left at the mercy of the criminal, which by the way most criminals have zero mercy. Wake up you dumb ass idiots. If you want to help with gun crimes then crack down on the gun criminals. It has nothing to do with the gun. Someone has to pick it up and use it!!
This is what happens went politicians nominate the lowest common denominator to the bench, and agenda drive politicians prefer to have a corrupt agenda driven piece of garbage allowed to any position of power or CONTROL over the people.
She IS A TRAITOR to the courts, The People, the Nation, and the Constitution.
Tried for Treason and, if found guilty hung by the neck until dead in the public square.
Get a few of those televised and the corruption will stop and the guilty judges will run from public office in hopes they won’t get caught.
Catch ’em, try ’em…, and IF guilty, hang them in public…
@ CrustyOldGeezer.
You show one RIGHT OF CENTER judge, who hasn’t done the same thing.
It is nice not to live in Maryland where the weapons are dangerous. Maybe wrenches repair cars in Maryland though. It takes a mechanic in my state.
You do realize this is just the next logical step, don’t you?
They restricted citizen ownership of automatic weapons over 100 years ago. When that didn’t work as well as they’d like, they made the manufacture or importation of automatic weapons for civilians illegal almost 30 years ago.
When is someone going to challenge that? An effective ban on automatic weapons by prohibiting anyone from making them.
I’ve read the 2nd Amendment and have been unable, to this very day, to determine where it says the citizens can be armed but cannot use Semi Automatic weapons. Since when does the Constitution give the courts outright permission to wrongfully interpret the founding fathers thoughts on this matter? I know the Democratic side of their brain is the part that is dead and they can only rely on the guidance they get from people like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Holder and the rest of those Constitution killing snobs/idiots.
Remember fellow patriots judges and congress cannot uphold the law it takes citizens (so far) in enforcement positions to uphold the law. Sheriffs and civilian law enforcement must ban together and make the decision not to go against the constitution no matter what these judges with agendas rule.
If you’re a Constitutionalist, as I am, you’d agree that only the SCOTUS makes the final decision on what is Constitutional or not. The founding fathers had the foresight to entrust that decision to a panel of judges nominated by a President and confirmed by the Senate. It works well. It’s unreasonable to expect that a diverse group of Sheriff’s would be able to agree on or even know what is Constitutional or not. And I certainly don’t want some random cop in my city deciding for me. Besides, they’re too busy giving out tickets to jaywalkers.
President violating constitution,Congress violating constitution,Senate,Supreme Court,US District judges ,local judges. When is enough enough and the people of USA stand up? The only way these people are capable of operating is due to special interest groups and uninformed people.. This must stop. Love the non common core authentication required to post this
@ Billy.
You claim Presidential Violation of the Constitution. But, what part of Constitution did he violate?
Have you ever really read the Bill of Rights? Enough said!
@ MODERNMINUTEMAN.
If we use current thought of logic, than we’d have to go after all the other President’s that precede’d this administration, retroactively, too. You can’t have it both ways.
Secundius
Typical Obamite response. “Yeah but what about”. What you people can’t comprehend is that no one is excusing the past but OBAMA IS PRESIDENT NOW…HE IS RESPONSIBLE AND HE IS A CRIMINAL.
@ Jake D.
The problem Jake, is I’m not a Obamanite . I’m a Non-Tea Party Republican with Moderate leanings. Just like Ronald Wilson Reagan, was!!! Sorry to bend you out of shape.
Secundius, I think you have a little twig stuck between your teeth. Oh wait, it’s 0bama’s wang.
@ Boz.
First, your comment is not worth commenting on. Second, this is an open forum where anybody can say their piece, somehow you seen to have forgotten that. And, third I tell it the way I see it. I toke of by Blinders, decades ago. Maybe you should try, too.
Jake D. : You see the problem with people like Secundius is they will never accept addressing the problem that is in front of them. Their position is that you can’t do anything unless you can do everything. Our struggle is that so many Americans have been educated, conditioned and transplanted with opinions, beliefs and views that are in opposition of those that developed this free country, and that even though some of those founding individuals beliefs contradicted what they wrote, they wrote the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights because they saw that a Tyrant whether king or President was to be feared and rejected by free people. And if the free people had the responsibility to reject this Tyrant, they needed the rights that were given by their creator (not the president, not the king, but creator) must be enumerated in the founding script, so that all may know what the founders knew one day would be necessary. We are now part of that generation that will either reinstall these truths or we will continue to watch them die? What will you, we, do.
I have to ask this as not only a Republican but as an American: what is with u Republicans not satisfied with the constitution or laws unless they involve god? U are the ones who promote ur religion so fervently that u make us all look like fools. We will have no hope of bringing our country back to its former glory of Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Those were the men who made our country great. I understand ur belief but don’t smear ur religion over others. One of the founding principles of our great nation is that we all have a right to not be subjected to religious persecution so leave god out of the constitution and laws and where he belongs, in ur home, church or an area of public worship. We need to reform our party to its former glory of freedom liberty and justice for all.
@ Ian McClure: Your proposal would be impossible without God. Since your obviously currently a Godless creature, no forum response could ever help you understand why we need God or that it is God that made this country once prosperous. I pray one day you will find him. Only then will you fully understand that stripping his name and word out of everything built upon his goodness is precisely the reason for our downfall. May God bless you.
It’s not that I’m a godless creature. It’s that I have a belief that while u r entitled to ur religion as protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution written by our founding fathers to mix politics with religion invites corruption and religious persecution which was a core reason people fled from Europe to come to America. Thomas Jefferson knew this and was one of founding fathers of the Constitution and 2nd amendment. Would u consider him godless and deserving to burn in hell just because of his belief of accepting all religion in order to promote freedom? I stand by the constitution and the beliefs our founding fathers have. What I believe is my business and has no basis in politics for it could be used to restrict the freedoms of others. I value personal freedom and responsibility above all else. Let gays be gay. Let women abort. That’s their choice and they have to live with and suffer the consequences of their actions including the costs. That is freedom. Whether I agree with it or not doesn’t matter. If we are the land of the free then we need to stop infringing on peoples rights and using our religion as a shield from backlash.
Precisely, that is what should be done, and to include the other branches that have violated their oath. Does not matter what party affiliation, as far as I am concerned, they are all traitors for not performing to their duty as sworn to.
@ MAG13.
First you need to define the word “Traitor”, as defined in the Constitution. Then you need to find what “Traitorous Act”, they have committed.
@Secundius-You said:”
First you need to define the word “Traitor”, as defined in the Constitution. Then you need to find what “Traitorous Act”, they have committed.
Article III Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
I don’t know about you, but the rat-finks in power have been waging war against the people and the States for some time now. There are many forms of War and clearly those elected to hold up and defend the Constitution have not been doing so. Anything done not in “Pursuant Thereof to” the Constitution is clearly a violation of oath and in my book a traitor to this Nation and her People.
@ MODERNMINUTEMAN.
Yes I have!!! Have you???
I couldn’t agree more Billy!:)
it is a great shame that the fools are in control of this nation who think that after the wicked rulers of the this world will let them live after they help destroy this nation / for the U.N. is nothing but a group of paid off thugs willing to kill any body who gets in the way of the international banks / as the nations played the war games; nation against nation and the bankers covered the cost on both sides just to reep the wealth of the concorded and the interest of the victor on the loans / fools have the games run on / greed is as daddy Rockerfellow’s quote ; when asked how much more money do you need? : just a little more! / money they say talks! but the word of GOD speaks loader and will come to a head when these slime balls are in hell eternally in the pain they have given to this world while on earth’s short time of what we know as life / we were all made in Adam eternal beings / made in the image of God to live forever / but that place of life will be determined by what we did with the gift of the blood of JESUS atonement for our sinful deeds / no works for salvation; but works after salvation shows the conversion if we have been with JESUS as HIS own / the greed of man to control another person is the height of sin by word or deed /
@ H-Boy: You are correct. I will paste your statement so others know what you asked, “Isn’t it also true that congress can defund and/or legislatively eliminate a particular district court?”
The Legislative Branch is the only branch authorized by the Constitution to re-arrange the Judicial Branch – so not only can the Legislative Branch do this, but they have already done so many times over the years. Same applies for funding given the House has the power of the purse.
Keep voting for Democrats/Progressives and we’ll see the end of freedoms in America. Elections matter! Vote the jerks out of office and don’t support the liberal judges for retainage.
One day we are going to wake up to find that representatives from the Government appeared at a home and without just cause confiscated an Americans firearms. Then people will say “How could something like this happen”? Open your eye’s people!! Don’t sit back and think it is not going to happen to you.
I would think that US vs. Miller would over ride this decision. Hopefully someone will appeal on that basis. For those wanting to Google search the named case: US v. Miller (307 U.S. 174), ruling delivered on May 15, 1939
Keep voting Democratic and there won’t be an America period, Wake Up!
Dangerous and unusual are very subjective discriptions. The constitution does NOT even mention those terms as a limiting factor to your rights. Dangerous, the guns they ban are no more dangerous than any other firearm, so that description does not fit. Unusual, what makes it unusual? Nothing on modern military rifles are unusual. They fire standard rounds, gas operated bolts been around for many years, nope, nothing unusual there. This whole dangerous and unusual argument by anti-constitutionalists is rediculous.
I try to understand how a person, who has sworn to support and defend the Constitution, can make such a ruling. I cannot find a way to do that. We are in danger of losing the 2nd amendment. It is the government’s goal to make us helpless against their tyranny. We must cut the snake’s head off to put a stop to these actions. Support all gun rights organizations to have a voice in determining our future. Determine who in government is our enemy and vote against them or support any other good candidate who is running to take their place. Take them down one at a time, until not one is still in a position to do us harm.
It’s because we live in a time when many people have decided that the Constitution is a “living document” that was developed in the 18th century and is therefore not appropriate for “modern times”. This is the rationale that they use for these creative interpretations. The Second Amendment is just one of the casualties of this seriously flawed attitude. There are many more of our rights that have been and are being assaulted.
There are freedoms that most of us have given up that are don’t appear in the Constitution. The disappearing middle class pays, for the most part a total of approximately 50% in total taxes. This includes income tax, social security and medicare taxes (you have to include the employer contribution, which is equal to what you pay), property tax, state and local taxes, sales tax, capital gains tax, and some others such as excise taxes, personal property tax, etc. Think about that for a second… 50%. That means that each one of us works from January 1 to July 1 for FREE. Is this reasonable, or is it just another form of slavery? Now, if you were on the receiving end of all this money, you wouldn’t really want your slaves to have Glocks and AR-15s, would you?
When these politicians and government appointees stop serving the People and start serving themselves they need to start showing up floating down the Potomac or Hudson rivers………revolution is coming, stock up on ammo!
just another lying liberal left wing whack job obama judge.
COME AND TAKE IT
I fought and bled for this country in Iraq and Afghanistan. I lost Marines that were like family. I believe in the right to bear arms whether it being a .22 pistol or a .50 cal machine gun. At least 1 member of my family has fought and died in every war our Country has been in and they fought for our rights that this” so called government is trying to take away”! They have already taken God out of almost everything. It’s time for a change. Please contact your Senators, Congressmen, and Representatives and voice your opinions. God bless America an the troops that still fight and die for her! Our fore fathers are turning over in their graves. SEMPER FI!
I’m 40 years old and a friend was arrested for murder after shooting 2 armed men that were about to enter his daughters bedroom. The argument is that he used an AR-15 and shot each armed intruder 3 times as I trained him to. Should he be set free? Or convicted for using the police trained triple tap. Please respond to each of my messages please!
they did exactly what they should have done and there are organizations out there that will help with attorney fees and I’m pretty sure but the NRA is one of them
Cut him loose , they were intruders in his home!
@ Kevin.
The way I understand it, there are three options available too you. She can either QUIT, RETIRE or DIE in office. And if what you, or anyone else want’s . Doesn’t fall into those three areas, I just mention. Your screwed, and so are they. Just ask G-Man.
God bless you & your family……We appreciate all you’ve done
Thank you for your service. It’s good to know that we have troops as dedicated as you are to preserving freedom the way we did. (3 tours Vietnam)
I took an oath to ‘protect and defend’. I did that for 24 years. When I retired I took off the uniform. I didn’t retract that oath. If called today, I would do the same thing again. A little slower is a given, but a lot wiser.
SEMPER FORTIS,PARATUS, VIGILO ET FIDELIS
Tyrants! They are not to be obeyed and further, they should be treated to a tar and feather party. I DO believe some serious change is coming to this country very soon, and it won’t be to the liking of the commies, queers, and zionazis. Up the irons!
Overly simplistic and naive question that avoids the real issues.
Better send an Army to take my guns! I am a U.S. Army Veteran! I once took an OATH to Protect and Defend the Constitution against ALL Enemies, Foreign and Domestic! BE ADVISED! No one has ever relieved me of my responsibilities under that OATH!
Amen. Brother.
GETTING CLOSER TO GUN CONFISCATION. GETTING CLOSER TO AN ALL OUT CIVAL WAR!13
Follow no Unlawful edict from evil men !
We are a Republic and not a Democracy of a Lying Confederacy !
They will have to literately change Individual hearts and minds and if Islam wont budge under American UN System ? well the Evidence is clear. God’s Judgement is near.
WE The People of Sound Mind and Body Hold our Alienable Rights And Bible and Self Defense Near and dear and no Judge of Insanity Thoughts will ever take away our 10 Bill of Rights EVER, with out a fight !
George Patton was right the Commie has gotten Stronger !
The left wing Homo Sexual Deviants of the LGBT crowd’s who want this are the true Commie enemy’s with in. Their agenda can Suck on the barrel of my Rifles and Shot Guns and Hand guns ,10 4 !
I did not swear an Oath under Gods Heaven for Nothing !
When will people realize that all are sporting arms were once use by our militia or military. It’s just progression.
So in a manner of speaking judge feminazi states that not only we (Maryland residents for now) do not have the right to own/possess military style weaponry ,we can’t defend our own homes. Wow! What’s next feudalism ,serfdom /thiefdom. On top of this we now know the u.s govt . Admits to starting and funding Isis . A people afraid of its govt. is a tyranny. This has gone way past the point of no return. We must stand up now or we will surely lose it all.
So . . . the “judge” wants to limit freedom by 1781 standards? Now she can’t vote. Slavery is reconstituted. No more income tax. Senators are appointed by governors. Dueling is legal again. Forget any amendment past 10. We’ll be at war with Britain. The center of the U.S. belongs to France from Louisiana into Canada (or the Spaniards if the “return agreement still holds). Social Security, Welfare, The Great Society–bye bye. “Back of the Bus” signs reappear on transportation.
Better be careful what you wish for or rule on, judge. Original intent applies universally in THE RULE OF LAW.
You got that right!
Well, I dont think they see the big picture. When the 1.7 billion Muslims come to these Judges’ homes to drag them out on the street, they gonna be like, oh sh** my bros aint go no guns to save me and my family!!!!
I don’ think they are too concerned about that. I believe that the financial industry, the largest bankroll behind both liberal and conservative candidates, is the real force pushing for gun control. And here’s why: the financial industry has engineered a very good scam for transferring wealth from those that create it (workers) to themselves. They have been working on this for a long time – since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. There are massive number of people that are about to flood retirement systems (Social Security and Medicare) that are in a death spiral. Most in this country don’t have significant savings (significant meaning $1M or more needed to retire for 20-30 years with any degree of comfort). And with the massive increase in the money supply over the past decade, we are going to have inflation that will make things even tougher. I believe it is the bankers that are pushing for gun control, because they are afraid of the backlash they will get when their larceny is exposed and massive numbers of people are in a world of hurt. Take look at Bloomberg and Feinstein. It’s not a coincidence.
It will help if all of us gun owners would support the various pro-gun groups that are out there. The NAGR (National Association for Gun Rights), the NRA, just to name a couple, have legal departments that would be handling the Pro-Gun side of any SCOTUS appeals and hearings. Just having a membership in these groups helps provide funding for these types of legal proceedings. Also we can make sure that we elect pro-gun Senators and US Representatives. Find them and campaign for them.
What would the USA do if the military,and everyone in the states said we quit if we can’t have the rifles we want,like just stop working all over,just shut down the USA,because it is we the people that make it happen,an with out us they don’t have enough to do it
If I owned such a rifle I would use it for sport shooting and home invasion defense as there may be multiple people invading. It is not the rifle or pistol that is a danger but the person in possesion of the rifle. Those bent on mayham will always find a way. IF ISIS group broke into your home I think everyone can agree they would want something more than a single shot 22.
@ H-Boy.
No, because it’s automatically factored into to judicial budget.
The denial of the AR-15 being “in common usage” since becoming legal again after the 2004 expiration of the “assault weapons ban” is a self perpetuating argument. Let us examine the statements made by the judge ad seriatim: 1) an assault weapon is defined by the U.S. Army as an “INTERMEDIATE POWER, SELECTIVE FIRE (machine gun).” AR-15s cannot fire fully automatic so, cannot be an assault weapon. 2) not in common usage, says the judge, based on the percentage of firearms ” of this type ” owned by the American people. Consider that ownership of these weapons have only been legal since 2004 it is intentionally disingenuous not to consider that the percentage of these weapons sold since the assault weapons ban in 2004 has been inordinately high compared to other rifles above the .22LR chambered rifles.
We see that the percentage of AR-15s sold, in comparison to ALL LONG GUN RIFLED WEAPONS. Would be the ONLY appropriate comparison. By any such measure, the AR-15 IS “in common usage.” I find that this judge’s language and logic falls FAR outside common usage and common sense. Her decisions were rendered far in advance of even her appointment to the bench by the president who is and was an anti gun zealot. In light of Heller I and II, this decision must not be sustained.
The judge says that the AR-15 and AK style rifles are not covered under the Second Amendment since they are not “in common usage.” Yet, nowhere in the Second Amendment is any such language employed by the founders. Indeed, the founders intended inclusion of the most modern military weapons but not EXCLUSIVELY to modern military arms. The definition of “arms” in the Second Amendment was intentionally kept as broad as possible. Now comes before us this one anti gun zealot to rewrite the language over the language chosen by the entire Continental Congress in conclave assembled. This is extreme arrogance where one person sets herself over the judgements and intentions of the many who established that government in the beginning.
Whilst neither attorney nor judge, I AM capable of the employment of logic. Logically, the founders, in their contemporaneous writings, the Federalist Papers, agreed on their intended language and having a single anti gun judge rewrite the Constitution is not logical. Her singular opinion shall not stand against the vast majority of the American people. Only ignorance and fear of weapons inhibit most negatively inclined folk to side with this intentionally obtuse jurist. ‘Tis the fear of the armed criminal and of the “evil” guns, supposedly capable of inflicting harm in and of themselves which rule the uninformed. The readers of history and of the Federalist Papers know that the Second Amendment is to constitute defense from malefactors within and without the government. The keeping and bearing of arms was to protect from the highwayman and politicians assembled in contravention of just government. The God Given Right to keep and bear arms is NOT given by the Second Amendment but only GUARANTEED by the Second Amendment. Therefore, any decrementation of the Second Amendment by an agency of the government lies far outside the authority of even the whole of the government. The Amendments are God Given Rights and not revokable by government of men. Any such attempts by any government of mankind shall revoke the moral authority of that body to exercise any power over the people. The people have given their consent to be governed and may revoke that consent at any time they in majority so accord. We, the People, are the only source of authority over ourselves and may, at any time revoke that authority should we find the officials to be corrupt or exceeding given authority.
Threre is a very infamous quote from Noah Webster, Editor and namesake of Websters Dictionary of the American Language, from 1788 that says, “Before any standing Army can rule, the whole of the people must be disarmed, a they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme Power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the People are armed, and constitute a force far superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
This is what the left and the anti-gun crowd fear the most.
The correct action by this judge should have been to send it back to the State of Maryland. As Justice Marshall (who was a member of the Va Constitution ratification convention) wrote in Barron v Baltimore “If the original Constitution, in the ninth and tenth sections of the first article, draws this plain and marked line of discrimination between the limitations it imposes on the powers of the General Government and on those of the State; if, in every inhibition intended to act on State power, words are employed which directly express that intent; some strong reason must be assigned for departing from this safe and judicious course in framing the amendments before that departure can be assumed. We search in vain for that reason.
Had the people of the several States, or any of them, required changes in their Constitutions, had they required additional safeguards to liberty from the apprehended encroachments of their particular governments, the remedy was in their own hands, and could have been applied by themselves.” In short, the Bill of Rights were written as and remain prohibitions on the federal government. It is up to the people in the several states to bind the encroachments on liberty within their home countries. This was upheld again in Miller v Texas in 1894-” In his motion for a rehearing, however, defendant claimed that the law of the State of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons and authorizing the arrest without warrant, of any person violating such law, under which certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict with the Second and Fourth amendments to the Constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and, even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321; Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274; United States v. Cruikshank,92 U. S. 542, 92 U. S. 552; Spies v. Illinois,123 U. S. 131.” What gun owners fail to understand is that by embracing the errant Incorporation Doctrine they may be awarded a short term gain,but the long game, LIBERTY is lost forever. In allowing this doctrine to obliterate the ratifier’s federalism,the Bill of Rights is no longer a prohibition on the federal government. Instead they have become objects of federal interpretation. Worse yet, once interpreted by the very body they were meant to constrain,the federal government then grants doses of these rights as it see fit. This is the ultimate failure of the purpose of the B of R. Rather than enunciate rights that exist with or without government, they are now privileges that the federal government decides,divides and parcels out in its best interest forsaking liberty. The scope of the 14th Amendment was very, very narrow. If this grand incorporation were evident, it would have become apparent long before the second decade of the 20th century where it spawned wings and flew to the heights it enjoys today. There is a reason why the B of R has its own Preamble That Preamble tells the reader upon which government they are binding. The removal of prayer from schools,Heller,McDonald, removal of crosses from public lands and yes, even gay marriage were never intended to be deemed federal matters. Yet if you accept any of these on the basis of incorporation you must continue to accept what this article claims it resents–government by judiciary–federal judges interfering with laws determined by the sovereign people of the sovereign states. Stop looking to the feds to “protect” your rights. It is a protection racket worthy of the Mafia and you will do well to understand how much is lost by buying into the falsehoods of the Incorporation Doctrine.
SOONER than later judges, senators, congressman, governors, will start being executed by militia and there is nothing they can do to stop it.
Who is this Twit Blake, and how did she get appointed as a judge? Talk about the Peter principle….
U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake decided Tuesday against plaintiffs in Kolbe v O’Malley, a challenge to Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, ruling “assault weapons” and their standard-capacity magazines “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.”
I beg to differ, the judge(does not deserve caps)Blake is dangerous and the usual. These judges need to be thrown out for bad behavior and not supporting the Constitution. The time of reckoning is at hand…
Have you noticed that the Establishment Republicans, who claim to support the Constitution, like speaker Boehner never take efforts to impeach such judges?
Have YOU ever noticed that it was the DEMOCRATS that put her there in the first place
Anon – Yes! One of the problems is that both parties collect money from the same sources. The financial institutions give huge amounts to candidates from both parties running for the same office. No matter who wins, they win. Want this corruption to stop? It won’t … until we can get money out of politics. By that I mean no more lobbying, no more $5000-per plate breakfasts with congresspersons and senators, no more bombarding the sheep with TV ads. Until We The People force overhaul of the current corrupt system, we are just going to be twisting in the wind.
Judges make decisions on all kinds of issues that any one individual may agree or disagree with. On certain hot topic issues like the Second Amendment, many decisions are made by judges and much legislation is written and eventually one or more of these cases make it to the Supreme Court for review. And then a final decision is made, as established by the US Constitution. It’s at times slow, but it does work. If one truly believes in the Constitution and how it was written, then all of this makes perfect sense.
Which begs the question as to how many other Federal judicial rulings are based on pure fantasy.
WTF is wrong with people!?! How do we fight this??
I would think it’s pretty likely this case will end up at the Supreme Court and they will make the final decision.
Wes, a LOT of rulings are based on fantasy. That’s why it is such a big contest between liberals and conservatives to stock the courts with judges that suit their political views – even though judges (and especially SCOTUS justices) are not supposed to let their personal or political leanings influence their rulings. But they do.
One of the cases that is regarded as a victory for gun rights is 2008 Heller. Indeed there were some good aspects to the ruling. But there were also some incredibly bad ones. The ruling established that the right to keep and bear was an individual right. However, critically, it also reaffirmed that the Gov’t including State gov’ts had the right to restrict specific types and models of firearms. Nowhere in the Constitution or the writings of the Framers is there any hint that their intent was to allow this back door form of infringement. Any thinking man will agree that the public at large cannot have nuclear, chemical or biological weapons because they pose a massive threat to public welfare. This is not at issue, and those that bring it up are, frankly, idiots. But there is no corresponding massive threat to public welfare caused by any normal firearm. This includes full-auto machine guns, which are not and, despite being romanticized by the mob in the pre-war era, have simply never been a significant player in terms of crime.
Guns aside, recent rulings that are clearly fantasy include a determination that the fine for failing to comply with Obamacare’s health insurance mandate is a tax and therefore the Gov’t has a perfect right to force you to buy insurance. Also, the Court ruled that corporations had the same right to free speech as flesh-and-blood Citizens, and therefore could spend as much money as they want to exercise that right – effectively telling us that it is OK for deep pockets to try to buy elections. There’s plenty more, but you get the idea.
Although we’re pretty much in agreement, I don’t look at certain rulings as fantasy or not. It’s all reality in that it follows a Constitutional prescription. It’s not at all about whether I agree or don’t agree. It’s simply the decision of the court. And it can be reversed in some fashion if there is enough motivation/support to do so. As for the courts being stacked one way or the other; this is normal and predictable. One could even say it’s a product of whatever era we are in. And this is fine, too. All of this is predictable now, and I’m sure it was anticipated by the framers, who left things open enough for modern interpretations and also left us with the means to amend. A point I think very important is that in any country, society, etc, you must have a final authority. The decision they make isn’t right or wrong. It’s simply the decision they make. The beauty of our system is that through subsequent legislation and/or constitutional amendment, that “final decision can be altered. It was intentionally made difficult, because these things shouldn’t be treated capriciously, but it can be done.
Well, we certainly don’t agree on the fantasy issue. It is very difficult to overturn a SCOTUS ruling. This is particularly true when it comes to gun rights. 1939 Miller is still being used as a precedent.
Just because there is a procedure in place does not mean that court rulings will make sense, Just because they can be changed does not make irresponsible and implausible rulings of judges acceptable. This is the reason that the Framers included provision for impeachment of SCOTUS justices as well as politicians.
The Framers left a process for amendment, but I see no evidence that it was at all their intent to allow for “modern interpretation.” The fact is, the Constitution exists to limit Government – not limits on the rights of Citizens. I have no idea what you specifically consider a “modern interpretation” might be, but I am quite certain that if it involves limiting the rights of Citizens, it would not be supported by the Framers.
Again – some framers would support “modern interpretations”, some wouldn’t. You can disagree with Jefferson, but you have accept he was kind of a big deal.
None of these decisions by judges are truly irresponsible or implausible. Usually they are well reasoned and follow a very predictable logic. You just don’t happen to agree with them. There are many I don’t agree with also, but it’s not hard to see where the decision comes from. These are not impeachable decisions.
Scorch
I absolutely agree with what your saying. I think all of us here do. However we also know that government has the upper hand. If there are no guns or ammo to be had, it’s over. If your Glock went from $600.00 to $3000.00 how many would you have. If a carry permit cost you $2500.00, an FFL $10,000.00. If imports of all guns are stopped how much do you think my $500.00 Ruger will go to. What if you are require to have a million dollar liability rider for each gun you own. Government has many ways to enforce an agenda without direct assault.
Certainly I am just pulling numbers out of my ass for examples but It reminds me of the Borg from Star Trek .. “Resistance is Futile.”
On the other hand let me say you are certainly on the right track. I believe we must resist every change and every restriction. We must fight with all we can. Our best bet is in doing everything possible to get pro Constitutional people elected on every level of government. We need to be willing to stand up and say NO you are not taking my freedom and you will not take my guns without a fight.
MOLON LABE
Ignorance and dishonesty are at the heart of the courts arguments. It is largely the same anywhere they are used.
Actually, for a very grim reason, this decision pleases me. I hope there are more like it, and that at some point, the US Government decides to do what Australia did and confiscate all “unprotected” personal weapons. I expect the government will learn the same lesson King George III did, and when the dust settles, we will have a new Constitution that will hopefully incorporate all of the lessons we have learned to date – such as no lifetime appointments for Federal judges anywhere and sharply defined term limits for members of Congress. “Live Free or Die” is almost as good a motto as the one I honored as a Marine: Semper Fidelis!
you know i really don’t care what that judge says, if he thinks he can
come get them, i want to see him at the door…. guess who gets who
There will come a time and that time is not to far off when we will be at war within ourselves and our Government(which is run poorly) for our right to bear arms. People will be shot and Government officials will die because our government is refusing to honor our 2nd amendment rights.
Gun rights and Bill of Rights supporters, Republicans and conservatives have long made the same mistake over and over. They let the opposition control the language used for debate. The left intentionally misuses words and chooses language that defines the issues in their favor, such as calling any AR-15 platform type firearm or similar, an assault weapon. It has become the norm, used even by gun rights supporters, military and law enforcement types. No semi-automatic firearm of which any AR-15 type firearm is can be an assault weapon. An assault weapon is by definition a fully automatic weapon.
Multiply this type of verbal trojan horse MO by the thousands and what we have today is the left controlling the language to their effect.
When out courts and lawyers whose occupation is built on precise parsing of words, terms and their legal definition are allowed to use the term assault weapon to define a semi-automatic firearm successfully, we are one step away from all semi-automatic weapons being banned which is one of the foundational pillars of the anti-gunners platform.
It is not a minor or moot point. Assault weapon, high capacity magazine, military type weapons, heavy weapons, Black Talon and many more terms are constantly misused and mis-defined to the point most don’t know the true definition, the difference and why it’s important.
All of us who are Second Amendment, Bill of Rights and Constitutional Supporters, patriots and freedom fighters need to take the time and effort to educate ourselves in this regard and insure we not only use the language of freedom correctly but to correct those who misuse it whenever possible. This MO by the left is used across the ideological spectrum with issues such as taxation, birth control, religion, regulation and more. We have allowed the hypocrites, liars and perverters of our US Constitution to redefine American history, destroy religious liberty, allow unlawful search and seizure and to define who we are and what we stand for. Minorities who come of age are brainwashed to believe that their only hope of the American dream is to rely on the condescending handouts, bribes and slavery offered by the racist hypocritical left, the true enemies of freedom.
Know what you say, say what you mean and mean what you say. And never let anyone put words in your mouth or define who you are. Stand up, stand straight and tell the truth, at all costs. Otherwise you are naught but a sheep and an indentured servant to the tax and spend central government Communists at the head of the lefts table.
This judge is a dolt!
An AR-15 is not an “assault rifle”.
“AR” doesn’t stand for this “liberal progressive” definition.
Is the judge incinuating, if one possesses a semi automatic, “sporting rifle” is not being used legally, ever???
I think that is a total discriminatory assault on my rights as a sovereign, citizen of a free Republic.
This judge can and should re-read the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
What part of “shall not be infringed” doesn’t she quite understand!
Having a judge who knows nothing about guns and who makes fantastically bizarre statements as “facts”bis bad enough, but what bothers me a lot is that the Supreme Court gets to decide which appeals they will hear. That seems quite un-American to me.
It makes no difference if you call it an assault rifle or not. The Federal Government does not have Constitutional authority to preclude you from owning one. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it perfectly clear that the point of all 10 of the first Amendments is to prevent “abuse and misconstruction” of authority by the central Government, To fulfill the intent, the right protected by 2A must extend to at least the same types of weapons as are available to the Federal Gov’t’s military.
Full auto or 3 round burst mode isn’t that big of a deal. Spray and pray wastes a lot of ammo and doesn’t hit the target. I’m comfortable that my rifles, no matter what you call them, put me on level footing with what the military uses. And THAT is the right that is protected by 2A.
The People have the ultimate power in this country. If enough people simply refuse to comply with unconstitutional restrictions and infringements the government would then have no choice but to respect the will of the People and uphold the Second Amendment.
in 1803, Thomas Jefferson, then a candidate for President, explained the meaning of the 2A very succinctly, saying, ” The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the People from a tyrannical Government. Not for the People to protect the Government.” The anti-gun crowd need to go back to school and learn the true history of this Nation, not the Left’s Liberal History that is being taught now.
It would be more interesting if Jefferson had actually said this but he didn’t. What he did believe is that laws should reflect the times. And the Second Amendment is certainly a product of it’s times and due for a healthy revamping. What people need to understand is that the entire early Constitution (Bill of Rights, etc) is a product of it’s times and although much of it contains great guiding principles, much of it needs to be adapted for todays world. And this isn’t a bad thing.
You ARE a cityslicker. The precepts of our Constitution are the basis of this great country. The course for change exists in amendments to the Constitution, a legal process. I find your comment, in the least, to be subversive.
I’m not sure where it is we disagree. I believe our Constitution is a great document and I also believe that changes to it should only come through the methods established by the founders in the Constitution itself. They built in 2 methods for change – 1) legislation that is vetted by the Supreme Court as Constitutional and 2) the process of enacting Constitutional amendments. Both of these processes are reasonable, whether you or I agree with the changes which result. I’m pretty sure Thomas Jefferson would agree.
I couldn’t disagree with you more. The Constitution doesn’t need adapting at all. The US Constitution is unique in that it does not grant rights. Rather, it presumes that the People already have rights and simply limits the authority of the Federal Government. The problems we face today are not because the Constitution is anachronistic, but because unrelenting pressure and outright corruption have led to a body of laws that nibble away a the intent. What needs to be updated are the politicians and judges that think their duty is to circumvent the Constitution, take away firearm rights, force you to buy insurance under a warped interpretation of the Commerce Clause, grant corporations the same right to Free Speech as flesh and blood citizens and in so doing enable them to buy elections, etc.
I don’t think it’s a situation where it’s a “need” to be adapted. The fact is, the Constitution was made with the idea that it could and would be changed. And it has the mechanisms built in, put there by the framers themselves. You do know that there are already many amendments which did in fact “change” the original document. Many of them were done by the founding fathers themselves and many done at later times. But “change” is the wrong word. It’s amend and adapt. But it’s a living document by design. A case in point, which you mentioned, was the Citizens United decision by the US Supreme Court. I don’t like it at all. It’s terrible, in my opinion. But it’s a decision by the Court, as directed by the Constitution. Now, if we the people disagree with it, there are a couple of things to do. New legislation could be passed, which hopefully passes Supreme Court review (if it is challenged and gets that far). Or the States could try to amend the Constitution. I believe both are in the works. But the bigger point is that all of this is done through processes established in the Constitution itself, by the founding fathers. They knew what they were doing. They knew these things would happen, and they gave us the means to deal with it. It isn’t easy or fast, but it does work. And as frustrating as it is, it’s probably good that it isn’t easy or fast.
@cityslicker – you’re pointing out only that the Framers included means for allowing change to the Constitution. There is no argument there. I do fully agree with you that they made the process onerous and difficult very deliberately, and it’s a good thing they did.
The bone I have to pick with you is your statement that 2A is “…due for a healthy revamping” and “much of [the Constitution] needs to be adapted for today’s world.” This is the battle cry for those that want to get around the protections offered by the Constitution.
Since the original 10 in the BoR, there have been 17 additional amendments. ONE of them, the 18th (Prohibition), placed a restriction on the rights of Americans. It was subsequently repealed by the 21st. ALL of the others serve one of only three purposes: First, the majority of the remaining 15 Amendments (11,12,17,20,22,23,25,27) adjust or clarify the workings of Government – such as term limits, popular election of Senators, inauguration day, etc. One Amendment (the 16th) enables the Federal Government to levy an income tax, and was done in response to the Court finding that their attempts to do so were unconstitutional since the Connie up until then granted no such power to the Federal Govt. The other Amendments (13,14,15,19,24,26) were added to codify explicit *protections* of Citizens’ rights.
There is NO good reason to change the Constitution to adapt to modern times. The premise is incorrect and very, very dangerous. The ONLY reason to change it is to add explicit prohibitions to the Government’s authority to limit rights. For example, denial of voting based on race or color, prohibition of slavery, prohibition of poll tax, etc. These rights, in accordance with the premise of the Constitution from the start, are presumed to exist (even if they were not always recognized). Like the first 10, the Connie simply guarantees that they won’t be usurped by the Federal Gov’t. The one case where an Amendment was ratified (inexplicably) that restricted rights – prohibition – was repealed.
When the BoR was introduced, many of the Framers did not think it necessary since the Connie itself stated that the Feds had no authority beyond that granted to them explicitly. The Anti-Federalists and the the States, both distrustful of a central government, did not buy this – and it’s a good thing that they didn’t. All of the original 10 amendments were specifically intended, as stated in the Preamble, to prevent “abuse and misconstruction” of power. Your notion that much of the Connie needs to be adapted for today’s world opens the door for that. Laws almost always serve to take away rights. We are blessed with a system that takes away Gov’t powers. Any revision of the Constitution under the guise of “adapting it for today’s world” is nothing more than an excuse for removing the most effective protection for the rights of Citizens in history.
Anthony – thanks for a thoughtful reply. I would like to clarify that when i said healthy revamping I am referring to the processes as laid out in the Constitution. I happen to love it, and that’s whether it’s interpreted in a way I agree with or disagree with. You bring up some interesting points. Yes, prohibition was an amendment that restricted rights, but I find it interesting because it was an amendment of it’s time. It had widespread support. Heck, it still does. But times changed (or people forgot how much they like to get a good legal buzz) and it was repealed. People agreed and disagreed with the 18th and agreed and disagreed with it’s repeal. And so it goes. The income tax levy is also interesting because of it’s origin. There wasn’t any wording to support the tax and now there is. The same thing could be said for the ACA. Or for Citizens United. To me, a revamping of the Constitution would be an amendment addressing the Citizens United ruling, effectively invalidating it. I see nothing at all dangerous in this. It’s what was expected to happen by the framers. It’s difficult and onerous, as you mentioned, but I believe it has widespread support (although it would be quite a battle fighting the money). So this would be an example of adapting to modern times, since I don’t think there has ever been this degree of money influencing policy. And I see nothing at all wrong with it. The very fact that it is so difficult to accomplish things like this ensure that there is sustained and widespread support. Even changes of the make-up of the Court itself play out over a generation or more and this is reflection of the times. And even though I’ve lived through some Courts I didn’t particularly like, I recognize that over the long term, as society changes so does the court. And this is also a good thing. It’s all pretty slow, pretty stable and pretty cool. All these people calling for shooting judges and politicians and such really have no idea how it all works. If they step back for a moment and just take the time to learn, they’d see it’s a beautiful thing and nothing to afraid of. The Constitution works even as it, and people who interpret it, change.
Look, I fully agree that FEC v. Citizens United was a landmark case of stupidity. There are many others, including the recent ACA decision, that rival it. But the point is that we can’t and shouldn’t have to address landmark stupidity with the Constitution. Just because there is a process for amendment does not meant that it should be the process for competent legislation. The Framers never intended this. They established the three branches to handle such matters, with the Judicial branch being entrusted to make proper and well-reasoned decisions. The SCOTUS was the Framer’s “court of last resort” – not Constitutional amendment. If they are not doing the job, it is up to Congress to provide legislative solutions or to impeach. And if Congress is corrupt, and the executive branch similarly sits back and does nothing, then it is up to the People. Not to SHOOT anyone, for cryin’ out loud, but to stop voting for the same corrupt politicians, to recall them, to urge impeachment. And yes, it is conceivable that it could degenerate to a very bad situation. Do you suppose the Jews would have so readily been massacred by the Nazis if they were all armed? I don’t.
In addition to its concept, the beauty of the Connie is in its brevity. This was done on purpose. There *is* danger in using the Connie to address issues such as Citizen’s United. Before long we will have a Constitution that is as thick as the tax code, with as many loopholes and just as difficult for the people to understand. 2A serves as the best example. It is giving the anti-gun crowd absolute fits… because it is so short and to the point. But even so, there is little we can do about numbskulls like Blake that make completely off the wall rulings.
Regarding Prohibition, it is the only Constitutional amendment that actually restricts a right of the people. The income tax law doesn’t – you do not have a right not to pay taxes. All the 16th amendment did was grant the Federal Gov’t the authority to create a new “type” of tax. Prior to that, the Government did collect taxes, but of different types. Now, did Prohibition really have widespread support? No, it didn’t. It was pushed by a group of vocal social progressives (liberals, we would call them today) that felt compelled to impose their sensibilities on the rest of us for a variety of their own religious and ethical reasons. It created fear in the mind of politicians who didn’t want to lose their votes. And let’s not forget that the prohibitionists were also aiming at immigrants, who they looked down at as a bad element of society that they also associated with alcohol use. Reality is that alcohol consumption dropped approximately in half under prohibition, but started to rise back up almost immediately. Police departments disliked it, because it was essentially unenforceable… and as a result they didn’t really bother. Despite the media-created visions of raids on the speak easy, basically very little effort was put into enforcement — because no one really cared. In the end, the whole thing was considered ridiculous and the Gov’t finally realized that they were losing a lot of revenue.
Now, I have no idea what you have in mind as the revamping of 2A that you wrote about earlier. As I see it, Scalia was very plain in 2008 Heller v. D.C. that the prefatory clause announces a purpose but does not limit the operative clause, which states “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Now to me, that doesn’t need any updating. There are no modern interpretations required. It is very clear today, as it was in 1791: Hands off the people’s right to firearms. I doubt if anything that could be written today could address the matter more clearly. Certainly today’s group would use far ore words to say something that would be much easier to cirumvent.
The problem is that all the process and procedure contained in the Connie and the law provide no assurance that Judges and politicians won’t simply decide to make incredible rulings. Now I certainly don’t advocate shooting judges, and hope that such comments from others are just emotions coming to the surface. But I very strongly disagree with you that the People should sit back and trust in the system. That’s not a good plan at all. Just because procedures are in place does not mean that, even if they are followed, we will get a reasonable result. today or ever. To wit, the 1939 Miller case – 75 years ago – defended, on very shaky grounds, the NFA and to this day it is used as the precedent for Government infringing rights by attacking certain types of firearms. The ones they attack are more or less exactly what is commonly used by the Military. And the BoR makes it clear that the purpose of all of the first 10 amendments is to, essentially, provide a very strong voice for the Citizens against “abuse and misconstruction” of government power. Now, how can it be possible to address the purpose of 2A with inferior weapons? The system so far has not protected us from that, and the Miller case happened before most of us were born. Moreover, SCOTUS has ruled that is it unconstitutional for Government to keep a registry linking owners to specific firearms. Constitutional protections trump State law, yet gun registration is going on in several states, including mine. Nothing is happening to defend my rights. So no, I do not subscribe to sitting back and watching the system work its magic. And neither would the Framers. These men were all activists of the highest order, who would never condone what is going on today and certainly would not advise anyone to assume that “it is nothing to be afraid of.”
Finally, you have to understand that the Constitution was *not* intended to be a living document that would adapt to modern interpretations. The amendment procedure was designed to make is exceedingly difficult to amend to help ensure that it would *not* fall into the trap of being adjusted to meet prevailing social attitudes. The Framers understood that since its purpose was to limit authority of Gov’t, there was no need for that. And historically, as I pointed out, most of the amendments since the 18th Century are matters of government operation and procedure. Other than prohibition, the amendments that deal with rights specifically *guarantee* rights of the people. I have a feeling that most of the people today that believe the Connie is anachronistic don’t want to guarantee us rights…. they want to take them away. And that is why I don’t want to see any updating to the Constitution.
I know that people like to cherry pick historical quotes, and I’m no exception. From Jefferson’s letters, “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did beyond amendment. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs . . . Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before.”
Now, these were Jefferson’s views and I’d consider him a pretty heavy hitter. There were people then and there are people now who would disagree. Fair enough. But it would be disingenuous to say the founding fathers didn’t anticipate, or even expect the Constitution to be amended for it’s time and generation. It’s perfectly valid to disagree with this idea, but flat out wrong to say the intention of the founders was to create a document that would not be adapted for changing attitudes. The beauty of the way it is set up is that it is designed to be quite difficult. This ensures that there is widespread support among the states and maintains a very conservative approach to change.
So, at certain points in history, there are issues which could be defining moments, worthy of consideration for Constitutional amendment. Events leading up to, and the actual decision in Citizens United would be one, in my opinion. I believe that the single biggest problem we have in this country, one which actually cuts across many of the issues we are discussing here, is the influence of money on the debate of said issues and the policy resulting from said debate. The money is corrupting the people who make policy, it is used to deceive, shape public opinion, further narrow selfish goals, and in general, overwhelm opposing voices. This must end, or it will be the end of what the framers intended. You see, I love the way our system is supposed to work; even when I disagree with a law or a SCOTUS decision. What I don’t like is policy being determined by a military contractor, or a drug company, or a petro-chemical multi-national. This is where our freedoms are being eroded, as our ability to make the right decisions for our country are subservient to the desires of the oligarchs and their corporations (disclosure: I love capitalism but I am not naive to it’s consequences ).
Jumping around a bit –
1) I’m not going to address the nazi/jew canard. It’s a specious argument, speculative at best. But if I were to offer an opinion (as you do), I’d say that if Jews had started shooting nazis, they would have been massacred in their homes in a far shorter time than played out in the gas chambers. But, as I said, this is opinion and worth little in the debate.
2) Prohibition did have widespread support. And although some of the social progressives of the day did support it, mostly it was advanced by christian groups (same as today) and women’s groups. It was definitely a long term issue of those days. As I mentioned, I find it interesting because it was an amendment that followed the social norms of it’s time, although perhaps one that was just slightly too narrow, hence it’s repeal. Was it a frivolous use of the amendment process? Hard to say, but certainly not as frivolous as trying to get Constitutional ban on flag burning or something along those lines.
3) No Supreme Court justice has ever been removed from the bench through impeachment. In my studies, I don’t think there was ever really a need. Their job is to evaluate based on their understanding of the Constitution – yet another beauty of the document. There are many areas which are certainly unclear and open to interpretation. This is both by design, and also because it’s the best the FF could do. And it works out well. When decisions are reached which one doesn’t agree with, one needn’t scream about incompetence or the need to impeach (or shoot) judges. People need to be active, to vote, to participate, to think, to campaign, to write letters and make calls. Because it all starts with who you put in office.
Oh – did I mention we need to get the money out? Because everything I’ve said, all I believe is possible, is at risk of being null and void because of the influence of money on what should be a beautiful process. First things first.
One last speculation – the framers would roll in their graves if they saw how money has corrupted their Constitution and it’s processes. Everyone from Madison and Jefferson to DDE knew this. Not so much since then (possibly JFK, but we’ll never really know).
As it happens, my opinion is that Jefferson was probably *the* most significant architect of the Country, and the most admirable. Yet your citation does not support the notion that the Constitution should be a “living document.” There’s a difference between amendment and the notion of the Constitution as a “living document”, which invites contemporaneous interpretation and thus invites, over time, a self-conflicting body of precedent. The difficulty and time required to amend precludes the notion that the Framers intended the Constitution to be adaptable prevailing public opinion.
As an example, we can look at 13A as a case where the Amendment was fully justified, but would have never flown if proposed in 1791. It is important to note that the 13A does not break new ground or grant new rights. Rather, it codifies an extension of an existing, presumed right of citizens to apply to slaves. Similarly, suffrage (19A) extends voting rights to women. And, like 13A, 19A would not have gone anywhere in 1791. I believe that these are the sorts of amendments that Jefferson was referring to, and I have no problems with them whatsoever.
In fact, I do not have a problem with amendments at all. The ratification process does not include a provision for popular vote, so it is not subject to the whims of fickle public opinion. Where I strongly disagree with you is with your statement that “…much of [the Constitution] needs to be adapted for today’s world.” Since you’ve not been specific (except in the case of your feeling on Citizens United) as to what these changes should be, all I can say is that I do not see a need to adapt “much of it”. You also stated that 2A, “…is due for a healthy revamping” without elaboration. I suppose I might agree with you….. IF the “revamping” consisted of a minimum number of words that prohibited Gov’t restrictions on the types of firearms. As a side note, obviously, WMDs are not and never have been protected under 2A, as the safe and responsible storage and maintenance of such weapons are well beyond the scope of what any individual can provide, and the deployment of such weapons intrinsically results in unpredictable and uncontrollable large scale destruction. Only a fool would argue that WMDs are protected by 2A…or that shouting “Fire!” in a crowded room is protected under 1A.
In reply to your other comments:
1) You said you weren’t going to reply to the Nazi/Jew “canard”, but you did, now didn’t you? You are free to hold any opinion you like, but I believe that an armed resistance, would certainly have fared better than the unarmed Jewish population did, being herded like livestock to their death. The point is that dictators and tyrants often make disarming their subjects or soon-to-be victims a priority.
2) The extent of support for Prohibition is subjective. There are no counts of how many of the population supported it, so your assertion that support was “widespread” (whatever that means) is impossible to prove or disprove. However, estimates are that after Prohibition took effect, alcohol consumption dropped to no less than 50% of pre-prohibition levels, and then almost immediately started to rise – probably because people realized that there was little change of getting busted due to the impracticality of enforcement. It rose to 80% of pre-prohibition levels. From this we can conclude that Prohibition never had a majority of support among the public. And certainly it must be logically true that if alcohol consumption dropped to 50%, prohibition must not have been representative of, as you assert, “…social norms of its time”. Had prohibition been reflective of social norms, consumption would not have dropped in half when the law came into effect, nor would it have started rising almost immediately. The real point, however, is lost in a debate of unverifiable numbers. The take-away should be that Prohibition was the only amendment that actually deprived the People of a right, it failed, and was subsequently repealed. The repeal had far more support than the prohibition, as one would expect. Most people prefer being given rights to having them taken away.
3) No SCOTUS Justice has been removed via impeachment. However, one has been impeached – essentially for making bad rulings. So there is a precedent. There are a number of removals via impeachment or resignations in the face of impeachment of lower court Judges.
You can hold any opinion you like, but whether a judge that makes poor decisions is actually removed or not, impeachment sends a strong message not only to the subject of the action but also to other in similar position as to how far is actually *too* far.
I do fully agree that voting is an important tool I disagree that impeachment should not be used as a tool. Impeachment is a process that has been provided expressly to deal with cases where an official needs to be removed. In the case of SCOTUS Justices, the options are to wait for him/her to either retire or die. Neither of those are too good. Impeachment was provided as the more civilized approach to shooting the scoundrel, which is the method most other nations/governments/citizens have historically used, which I think we can agree is not the thing we want to promote.
As to whether you think that decisions are impeachable is a subjective matter. I disagree. As I see it, FEC v. Citizens United is an incredible decision, and rises to that level. Justification of the personal mandate by characterization of the fine for non-compliance as a tax rises to that level. The recent Abramski 2A SCOTUS case, which supports BATFE essentially making legislation, rises to that level. There are others. Your judgments are yours; I don’t agree. Years are rolling by and nothing is happening except that the rights of the people are being whittled away.
I fully agree with you about money compromising the entire US system. It is not “at risk” of doing so – it already has done so.
Also to the point of money, I support an intelligently designed balanced budget amendment. While it has been talked about for many years, it has, inexplicably, never gotten traction. However, it should. Debt creation is how money is transferred to the banking industry. Every bit of wealth that is taken from the People ends up somewhere.
As for an amendment to address Citizens United, let me say that while I fully detest that decision, an amendment is not needed. Article 4 of the Connie guarantees a Republican form of Government, thereby precluding special any special interest money from influencing elections. Other non-corruption legislation, such as the RICO act, have been upheld based on the Commerce Clause. The entire lobbying system could be taken down by Article 4 and the Commerce Clause. An amendment is not needed. In fact, it’s rather embarrassing to think that we need an Constitutional Amendment to declare that graft and corruption are not allowed. Moreover, you will never see such an amendment. The time needed to get it introduced and ratified means that anyone that supports it will be find themselves shunned and out of office at their very next election.
I choose to believe that Jefferson fully knew the ramifications of the very document he was instrumental in creating. It makes little sense to think he wouldn’t, but that’s what you’ve chosen to do.
Your citing of 13A and 19A are great examples of how the Constitution is a document of it’s time.
As for the 2A, I would support amending it for the very reason that it’s wording (and thus, meaning) has little use in 21st century life. Personally, I don’t care whether they spell out what type of arms one can bear or if they say you can own any weapon ever made. Clarify the damned thing and be done with this divisive debate.
A point about WMD’s and shouting fire in a theatre – these examples show a bit of inconsistency in your argument. You see, somewhere in between a Colt 45 and a nuclear ICBM is a line. And someone has to draw that line. And a court may have to decide if the line is in the right place. And somewhere between sitting quietly in a theatre watching Gone With The Wnd and standing up and shouting fire is another line and so on…. When the SCOTUS decides where the line should be, they have done the job Jefferson knew they would do. He didn’t know WHERE they would draw the line, but he certainly knew they would have to draw it.
Now, there are people who believe that the 2A allows for pretty much anyone to own any weapon. And there are people who believe the 2A is a relic addressing only militias and doesn’t even apply to a modern society with a standing army. And everything in between. Personally, I believe it falls somewhere in between. Where? I have no idea, and it’s not for lack of study. So I say, rewrite the thing and put this to rest. I’d like to thing Jefferson would agree and based on his known sentiments on the adaptability of the Constitution, I think I’m on pretty solid ground in thinking this.
The rest:
1) Other than a handful of dead German soldiers, the result of having armed Jews would have been the same as unarmed. It is fantasy to think that an untrained and outnumbered group of non-soldiers had a chance against the Nazi Army.
2) The take-away should be that prohibition was a product of it’s time.
3) Impeachment was never intended for decisions you or I don’t agree with. It’s for crimes. I realize some have tried to expand the criteria, but it hasn’t really been successful, nor do I believe it should be.
Re: an amendment addressing Citizens United – I believe I read that 50 senators have signed on, so it seems support is there and building. Also, public opinion surveys show support in the 70 to 80% range.This is a defining issue of our time and an amendment is needed because it’s not just about the lobby system. It’s about the entire corporate takeover of the political process (except for a few). You can’t even talk about a balanced budget without talking about the money spent by defense firms to procure their bloated contracts. Get ALL the money out first, then hopefully our newly elected, clean representatives can get down to the business of making policy based on what’s right, not who is paying.
None of the Framers could possibly fully understand the ramifications of the Constitution any more than even the most skillful engineer can be 100% sure of his designs. This is why a change process (amendments, in the case of the Connie) is always necessary. Only an arrogant fool would design a machine, or a governmental charter, with no provision for change, and our Framers were (a) not fools, and (b) forced to reach compromise in the design in order to get the thing ratified, thereby taking their arrogance (there was some) out of the equation.
You missed, or chose to ignore, the meaning of my discussion on 13A and 19A. I’ll try again. While I asserted that neither of these would have been ratified in 1791, the point was that neither justifies the notion that the Constitution needs revamping to reflect modern times. The fact is that prohibition of both slavery and denial of voting based on sex do not create new rights, they simply clarify and codify that all citizens shall enjoy protection of those rights. Prohibition of slavery and women’s voting rights could have been implemented via federal law without a constitutional amendment. Such laws would have been constitutional, and thus the amendments were not really required. There were reasons that amendments were chosen as the vehicle for both of these, and I have no problem with that. In fact, I generally have no problem with any amendment that expands rights or expands the class of persons for which rights are protected. But, neither of these amendments is a good argument for the notion that the Constitution needs revamping to reflect the times. As a further example, consider the Equal Rights Amendment. This couldn’t really get any traction, and while it was a hot topic 25 or 30 years ago, it isn’t even discussed these days. The reason? It isn’t needed. Federal law is fully capable of accomplishing the objective without an amendment to the Constitution.
Regarding WMDs and calling “Fire!” – there isn’t any inconsistency at all, The act of calling “Fire!” is not protected because the exercise of an individual right is not protected if it is done with malevolence, infringes on the rights of others, or creates a significant risk to public safety. Calling “Fire!” clearly does all of these (unless there is actually a fire), and no reasonable person (a valid standard) would do such a thing. There is no redeeming value in the action of calling “Fire!” that outweighs negatives – in fact, there is no value, redeeming or otherwise, to call “Fire!” at all – other than to create mayhem. Now, let’s look at WMDs and firearms. Storage of WMDs itself intrinsically poses a serious threat to public safety. A leak in a vial of anthrax or a cylinder of serin gas, or exposure or release of even small amounts of nuclear material has catastrophic ramifications to public safety. No reasonable person would possess such items in light of the huge risk. We then have to ask, is there any such risk associated with exercise of the 2A right to keep and bear with respect to (any) firearm? How about an AR 15? How about an MP5? A Thompson sub machine gun? To my knowledge, there is not a single instance on record of a gun, on its own or as the result of deterioration or other time-related effects, somehow putting the lives or well-being of the public at risk. There are plenty of cases of guns rusting up solid and not working at all, but not of the other case. In reality, all cases of unjustifiable harm from firearms derives from involvement of a person that contributes one or more of the following: (a) criminal intent, (b) incompetence, or (c) negligence. Thus, there is a distinct difference between firearms and WMDs. Next, look at the use of the weapons. WMDs create massive widespread destruction and/or loss of life that no reasonable person has the ability to control or predict, and obviates their use for any reasonably foreseeable domestic application. Does this apply to firearms? Guns vary in their effect, to be sure. But unlike WMDs, any gun, including any flavor of fully automatic firearm, does not result in uncontrollable or unpredictable destruction. The weapons are specifically designed to be operable and controllable by an individual. In summary, simple possession and storage of WMDs poses a severe risk to the public, and their use causes uncontrolled and unpredictable destruction. On the other hand, firearms are readily stored safely thus pose negligible risk to possess. They are expressly designed to be controlled and used by an individual. As I see it, the contrast between WMDs and firearms is just as clear of a line as the distinction between free speech and shouting “Fire!” in a crowded room.
So clearly 2A does not apply to any weapon. However, 2A does require that the Court apply a reasonable and justifiable criteria, not an arbitrary one. After all, the right is important enough that is was explicitly stated in the BoR. Such criteria should not only address points of the above discussion of WMDs v. firearms, but also must respect the intent of the Amendment. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it clear that the 10 amendments are aimed squarely at prevention of “abuse and misconstruction” of governmental authority. Thus, there is no justification for restrictions on any firearms that are used by the Federal Gov’t (i.e., the military). as long as those weapons don’t have characteristics (like WMDs) that pose unreasonable threats irrespective of the intent of the user. Can I have an ICBM? No, it doesn’t fit the “reasonable person” criteria and poses an unreasonable risk to the public…not to mention that it is out-and-out insane. Can I have an anti-aircraft gun in the back yard? Maybe, if I can secure it safely (but that’s insane, too). The AAG can sit there until it is a pile of rust but it do anything on its own. The WMD might deteriorate with time and kill half the city. Big difference.
Getting down to practical matters, should the individual be allowed to carry a concealed weapon? Yes. 2A guarantees the right to keep and bear. As a matter of safety for police officers, there is no harm I can see in having CC permitted so that the police know who they are dealing with, although someone with criminal intent is unlikely to bother with a permit. What is unacceptable, though, is refusal by the local gendarme to issue CCW permits, as they do in many states. Should an individual be allowed to carry a firearm in his/her car? Absolutely. The police are free to change their procedures for traffic stops to anything they need to in light of this. And to the point of the article, should an individual be free to own and AR-15, full burst-mode M4, or fully auto M16? Of course. These are in use by the Gov’t, do not pose the intrinsic risk that WMDs pose, and are protected (ref 1939 Miller v. United States).
Regarding your other comments:
1) Jews/Nazis… Ask a WW2 French resistance fighter, if any are still around, if he would rather have a gun or a free train ride to a Nazi death camp. Ask an Iraqi insurgent if he would give up his AK. An armed group of people is a powerful force that you should not underestimate.
2) Calling anything a “product of its time” is a trivial statement. Prohibition was…. a mistake, that was recognized and corrected.
3) Impeachment was intended for crimes, to be sure. Abuse of the power of the office is a crime, as is violation of the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This includes making arbitrary or politically motivated decisions. I disagree that it should not be a tool. You are free to hold the opposite view. It is not about whether I “like” the decisions or not. Impeachment is essentially indictment; hearings determine whether the abuse of power, violation of oath, etc. occurred.
An amendment re Citizens United will never fly. Mark my words. Never. Congress is doing what they do best – wasting time. They should be proposing legislation consistent with Article 4 and the Commerce Clause. Public opinion *should* run against the Citizens ruling 80% (it should be 100%), but the poll you read about is nonsense. Go ask 100 people on the street if they agree with the ruling on FEC v. Citizens. You’ll get 3 answers and 97 blank stares.
Finally, we can and must talk about balanced budget irrespective of the defense contracting situation. All of the defense budget is about $680B, and most of that goes to people expenses, not hardware contracts. The total federal budget is $3-1/2T, with entitlement costs and debt service poised to be the largest issues. Thus, defense amounts to less than 20% of the total. The tails should not wag the dog. it is critical to bring defense spending to reasonable levels, as Eisenhower’s warning about the military industrial complex has become reality. But we can’t hope to reduce waste and excess in the DoD until the money actually goes away. Expecting that situation to resolve itself while the Gov’t can simply borrow without restraint is unrealistic. It hasn’t happened yet.
I failed to make one more important point.
With respect to 2A, you said, “So I say, rewrite the thing and put this to rest. I’d like to thing Jefferson would agree and based on his known sentiments on the adaptability of the Constitution, I think I’m on pretty solid ground in thinking this.”
Surprise, I don’t agree at all.
Look, in 2008 Heller, the majority opinion clearly establishes that the prefatory clause announces a purpose, but not the exclusive purpose, for protection of the right. It also states that the prefatory clause therefore does not limit the operative clause. That puts the all the militia arguments to rest.
Now, the operative clause is, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” How is it possible to rewrite this to make it more explicit or less subject to creative interpretation? I don’t think it is possible. There is nothing that gun control proponents would like more than a chance to re-write this clause. I guarantee that whatever re-write were to occur, it would have far more words and would be far less definitive than the original. Therefore, not only do I not support a re-write, I believe it would make things much worse.
Would Jefferson have agreed with a re-write of 2A? Perhaps, but I suspect only if he was the one doing the re-writing. And if that were the case, I would support it as well. You have to remember that Jefferson was, for most of his public life, a strong believer in maximum liberty and minimum government. Sadly, there are no modern day Jeffersons around… so I would rather not open that can of worms. I prefer to stay with “…shall not be infringed.”
Ah, but by ramifications I am talking about the results of it’s construction. They knew that amendments would be made and that judges would interpret. Of course they couldn’t predict specific issues that would arise, but they knew they had put something in place to address them. I see that you always omit the part about the judges and I understand why you do. But to do so is to ignore one of the most important parts of the Constitution. One who does this isn’t a Constitutionalist at all. You can’t pick and choose the parts you like. You can change the parts you don’t like (through the very mechanisms built into the document itself) but to ignore them is to not support the Constitution.
I didn’t ignore your points about 13A and 19A – I get it. I’m not debating whether rights were taken away or given, I’m just noting that they were amendments of their time. You reinforce this idea when you say they had no chance in 1791. That wasn’t their time.
Fire (and other words/actions) and WMD’s (and other weapons). The reasonable standard is at the core of much legal decision making. You’ve given an AAG a maybe, I give it a no f’ing way. We’re both reasonable. There are many who agree with you, and many who agree with me. You’re obviously cool with fully auto weapons, I am not. Many will agree with your very well though out argument, many will agree with mine (I haven’t offered one, but you get the idea). The point is, we’re reasonable people, as are the people who agree and disagree with each of us. Who decides? The Court. Do you or I agree with their decision? Well, that depends, doesn’t it? Point is, whatever their decision is, it isn’t incompetent, or impeachable. It’s their well reasoned decision.
1) French resistance fighters are very hard to find. There were hardly any to begin with. Most were too busy minding their own business or helping the Nazis.
2) Ever heard of Nicki Minaj?
3) I DO believe impeachment should be a tool. But I think we need to have a VERY high threshold. I’d like to first put an end to the corporatist oligarchy we’ve become. Then I’m pretty sure politics and judgeships will change. Too much influence right now. We’re only human, after all.
We need a Constitutional Amendment that says something to this effect:
Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
I’d be curious as to why you would disagree with this. And please don’t say because it’s not needed. That’s just code.
I don’t ignore the judges at all. I simply don’t subscribe to your assertion that their decisions are consistently well reasoned. It is hard to look at Citizens United, Miller, Abramski, the ACA personal mandate, or dozens of others – some of which are really out in left field – and conclude that we should just accept these blatant miscarriages . You seem to be confusing the existence of a process with the competent execution of the task. Competent execution does not follow from the existence of a process. If I put a high school team on the field with an NFL team, they will both follow the same process, but with very different degrees of competence and very different results. You seem to be willing to live with poor decisions. I am not. We have been living with this some of this nonsense for a long time. Having said that, I never said that impeachment should be the primary means of redress. Legislation should be the primary means. However, impeachment IS a constitutional process, and therefore should be used.
Why would an AAG get a “no f’ing way” from you? I am curious as to your rationale. It intrinsically poses no threat, like a WMD. It is just a big gun, If you want precedent, it clearly has militia applicability and thus satisfies 1939 Miller. If you want to claim a reasonable position, you have to present a reasonable rationale, that addresses how the AAG infringes on the rights of others, poses a significant threat to public safety, etc. Sorry… can’t just say it’s too big and scary. The same goes for black rifles, full auto guns, or 30 round magazines. On this last one, judges have resorted to such pearls of logic as “there is no need for such magazines for hunting” or “Evidence presented by law enforcement has not substantiated the need for more than 5 rounds for defensive use”. These arguments are seriously flawed. 2A is not about hunting nor is it about home defense. It is also not about potential murders conducted by criminals or mentally deranged people – even thought there were plenty of murderers and crazy people in the 18th century. The reason for 2A, along with the other protections contained in the BoR, is explicitly stated to be dissuasion of abuse and misconstruction of Governmental authority. If a judgment… or your opinion, with all due respect… fails to respect that purpose, then it does not pass muster and is not a well-reasoned and on-point rationale. We must insist on on-point and well-reasoned rationale when it comes to Constitutional protections.
1)I didn’t really expect you to find a French resistance fighter. It was presented as an example of an armed resistance against the German army, contemporaneous with the Nazi war on the Jews. You can also look at other armed elements of the public that have succeeded in giving very powerful armies fits. The Iraqi insurgents are certainly one. The Soviets had their butts kicked in Afghanistan. The US military had a very hard time with the Viet Cong. The question is rhetorical, no? Even if being armed provides only a small increase in one’s chance for survival, it is infinitely preferable to a one way ticket to Treblinka.
2) Yes, I do know who Nicki Minaj is, but just barely. You will have to be more explicit, as I am afraid that I don’t see the connection to prohibition. Unless you are suggesting that she was a mistake attributable to alcohol use, which would not be very kind 😉
3) Impeachment and its threshold have always been the same. Articles are drafted, and congress votes. Once impeached, hearings occur, and again, makes its determination. The threshold, therefore, is set by Congress and always has been.
Let’s say your amendment passed exactly as you wrote it. Churches would be exempt. Unions would be exempt (they promote labor’s interest, not business interests). PACs would be exempt. Shell corporations would be exempt. All these (and more) would clog up the courts for years. And to what end? What is needed is legislation..
But it’s all academic. One thing that you and I totally agree on is that money is a cancer when it comes to Government, and needs to be cut out like the malignancy that is it. But… we tend to disagree on operational details, and this is yet another such disagreement. Your amendment will never happen. Insofar as I have not broken the code you refer to…. I do have to say that, an amendment really isn’t needed. Even if I am way wrong and it could happen, it would take several years. I am getting concerned that we are running out of time.
I suppose you don’t ignore judges, but what you do is equate decisions you don’t agree with with incompetence or even criminal behavior. I do not. Further, I agree with some decisions you disagree with and vice versa. And that’s how it goes. I tend to read the opinions and I understand where they come from, whether I agree or not. Reasonable people will disagree on which rulings are good for the country and which are bad.
So, I am not willing to live with rulings that I consider bad for the people of this country. And by people, I tend to mean the greater middle class and lower. The rich don’t usually need much help, and that’s fine.
I’m sure you know why my 2A “line would exclude something like a functioning AAG. I don’t subscribe to the idea of only considering the intrinsic value of something. Potential horrible unexpected outcomes involving both intentional and unintentional human behavior would, for me, preclude including weapons such as this in any 2A discussion. You have to understand, I’m a gun owner, but I’m not prepping for a war against cops, or the feds, or the black people, or atheists, or ISIL or whatever Muslim group is about to pull me out of my house. As much as I am sometimes annoyed by airplanes continually flying over my neighborhood trailing an advertisement, I’m not sure that shooting them down is reasonable. I would however, support a law banning such types of advertising as unreasonably noisy, dirty and in general wasteful. I hope that doesn’t qualify as the gov’t taking away our liberties!
1) Dark humor. You can’t find a French resistance fighter because there weren’t many. De Gaulle was a little bit FOS. Hype, if you will. As far as the rest of the examples of insurgents you mentioned – entirely apples/oranges. These are all fanatical groups that have a way of thinking completely alien to you, me, and European Jews of the time.
2) Light humor. Nicki Minaj is a horrible pop singer. A product of our time.
3) I am referring to a threshold to even consider filing articles of impeachment. It should be very high. It should not be because someone disagrees with a ruling. It should be because one thinks they can prove criminal behavior. Or because someone has simply lost their cognitive skills (like I feel I have as I respond to these long posts).
Back to my fictional amendment – Yes, let’s make it clear that the Constitution only applies to natural persons – no organized groups whatsoever. No unions, churches, PAC’s, newsgroups, etc. Perhaps you can redraft it and get back to me?
I don’t think it’s a fair assessment to say that equate any ruling I disagree with incompetence or criminal behavior. What we are discussing here are the cases that are blatant. I’ve explained that I consider a well-reasoned opinion to be one that addresses the *complete* body of relevant concerns surrounding the issue, in light of precedent, the Constitution, public safety, etc. and intent of the Constitution (fortunately the Framers were prolific writers). In the case of 2A decisions, let’s come straight to the point. I am unaware of even a single SCOTUS 2A decision in the last 100 years that recognizes or addresses the intent of the protection granted by 2A in the Preamble to the BoR, which states in unequivocal terms that the purpose of the amendments is to dissuade abuse and misconstruction of Gov’t authority. Not a single one. Now, how can we possibly accept 2A decisions that restrict a Constitutionally-protected right of Citizens if the Justices of the Supreme Court, who are charged with the final say on Constitutional matters, are unwilling to even address the clearly-stated intent of the relevant amendment in their decisions?
Instead of reasoned arguments, we get arguments based on hunting and home defense, and a good bit of nonsense (such as ’39 Miller, where the ruling that was since the particular model of short barrel shotgun in question was, by make and model number, not part of any known military, the court could not conclude that it had any applicability to militia service, and therefore wasn’t protected. Unbelievable nonsense. Now, I understand that having a branch of the Federal Government advocate for a right of the people that intrinsically is aimed at creating a threat to that very Government is indeed a tall order. However, *that* is the job, and *that* the sworn oath. SCOTUS dances around the issue of the intent of the right, plays word games, and manufactures reasons and illogical logic to enable the Federal Government to get away with infringement. So, yes, I do feel that very much of the body of 2A rulings, SCOTUS or otherwise, are incompetent and or criminal. Not because I happen to not like them (although I don’t), but because they purposely ignore and therefore disrespect *my* Constitution and the intent that the Framers were so careful to capture on paper. This makes them bad rulings, and the judicial branch becomes complicit in railroading gun control through. Any true Constitutionalist should certainly be very, very unhappy with such decisions… and you should be, too.
Regarding the AAG, I don’t think you on very firm ground. But let me first reiterate what I said before, namely that an AAG in the back yard is insane. That, however, is not a grounds for placing a limit on the right. And, frankly, neither is your reasoning. In the first place, the firearm does nothing on it’s own, I think we’ve agreed on that. Second, the potential for high levels of damage is a non-issue, Weapons are supposed to cause high levels of damage. The Framers did not expect that the Citizens could dissuade abuse and misconstruction of power with pea shooters or squirt guns. Jefferson, as you must know, was quite resigned to and even supported the notion of violent insurrection as a natural means of keeping Government from becoming tyrannical or out of control. So, as long as they are safe to store (which nuclear material, bio and chemical agents are not), and controllable by the individual, an AAG is no different at the basic level than a Glock or a .22 or an AR…. or a musket. What damages are done is solely up to the person controlling the weapon. 2A exists to ensure that the person, if he is a US Citizen, has that choice. Criminal law exists to set the societal norm for, and establish the consequences of, criminal choices as to how to use the weapon.
The reality is that small arms in the proper hands are capable of taking a far greater human toll than an AAG. The AAG was developed to protect the target, not to inflict losses on the enemy. There are a lot of AAG rounds fired to bring down one plane. Considering that an airliner flies at 35000 feet, you aren’t going to take one down, whether you are mentally deranged or quite sane. So the truth of the matter is, it would be not just insane but pretty stupid for any individual to keep his own AAG. But nevertheless, his right to do so is protected.
I appreciate that you are not prepping for war. Neither am I. It is irrelevant. Some people are. Some people believe that if the economy collapses they will need their AR to fend off the mob that wants their food and water. Some people are afraid that the Government will lose control if the dollar collapses and will establish martial law. I don’t think any of those things are likely, but then again prognostication is not my business – nor is it the Court’s. The Constitution *guarantees* that you get to make whatever choices you want to, within the previously mentioned limits. If you have your firearms because you like to hunt, great. If you like to go the range, great. If you want them for home defense, great. If you like to polish them up and admire them, great. And, if you want them because you want to be prepared for *whatever* hell you think might break loose….or a government gone berserk…. that’s equally great and every built as protected as the other reasons for firearm ownership.
1) Dark humor – ok, got it. Disagree with your apples/oranges thing. The insurgents are all, irrespective of motivation or level of fanaticism, capable of creating havoc. The Framers were fanatics that defeated the British. Read through the comments here and on other message boards. People *are* fanatical about their commitment to the Constitution and the rights that they fought for, or that their parents and grandparents fought for. I am fanatical. Don’t get me wrong…. I am not looking for a fight, I am a lover not a killer. But I do keep several firearms including ARs (more than one, set up for different missions) and I spend time and money to make sure that I am fully capable of using them effectively. Not because I expect the SHTF scenario, but because, as I’ve said before, if it helps my odds even a little, it is well worth it.
2) Got it. Very odd person. I hope we are not the only ones that think so,
3) So am I. Members of congress decide when it is bad enough to draft articles of impeachment and present them. It has always been that way.
Please forgive, but I’m not going to re-write your amendment. The point I wanted to make, namely, that amendments are difficult to do properly and can open an very nasty can of worms, I have done. I do respect and don’t disagree at all with your intent. But an amendment is not the right way to go about it. There are huge problems with public funding of campaigns or with setting the spending limit very low. You will have 200,000 people running for President. Those are the sorts of issues that need to be addressed.
It’s been a fun discussion, but time consuming and therefore expensive. Thanks for the civilized and reasonable discourse.
“It’s been a fun discussion, but time consuming and therefore expensive. Thanks for the civilized and reasonable discourse.”
The pleasure has been mine.
“The point I wanted to make, namely, that amendments are difficult to do properly and can open a very nasty can of worms”.
I laughed when I read this. Intentional irony???
Good luck and thanks for your time.
Totally agreed!
Maryland needs to start a massive petition to remove this Judge from her seat!!!!!!!!!!
@ G-Man.
Sorry it took so long, to respond to your “E”. It’s Wound Center day, and there was a long line. The thought of assassination did cross my mind, when he/she asked about, the two .30-caliber (penetrator) ammunition, and using 1/4-inch Plywood and 1/2-inch Steel, as an armor defense. The only thing he/she didn’t ask about was range, night and/or day conditions, humidity, temperature, and all the other unknown variables. It was like he/she, were asking somebody else too Fill-In-the-Blanks or “Proxy by Ambush”. And then there was the idea, that this was a “Test Question” from the Shooter’s Log. Too ferret out or weed out, those people troubling thought patterns. Or, could do some serious damage to the Discussion Groups. And, that why I contacted you. I only received my first computer, back in February of 2014 CE. And with little or no knowledge of computer etiquette or protocol procedures on how too address this issue. With my thanks, you are Greatly Appreciated. (I don’t know if I’m saying that right. Having had a stoke, can be a Royal-Pain-In-the-ASS.)
Outstanding post Anthony………………
David Codrea has written a very good article pointing out many of the problems with this ruling, and the comments have also made some very good points.
Unfortunately, none of it matters a bit.
We can debate the clear problems with rulings such as this one, and many of the arguments are good. Of course the rulings are ludicrous. However, the real problem is not a legal one. The problem is that the fox is guarding the hen house. We have entrusted the Central Government to “preserve, protect and defend” a Constitution that limits their authority and power. It’s a major conflict of interest. The result of this conflict of interest is constant and unrelenting pressure to defeat the Constitution and expand the authority of Central Government. Why would we expect anything different?
Even 2008 Heller, widely seen as a victory for gun rights, was really a wolf in sheep’s clothing. While the ruling recognized the right to keep and bear as an individual right, it also propped the door wide open for the Government to continue its relentless infringement by exempting certain types of hardware from protection under 2A. This itself is nuts. Today it is ARs and AKs, tomorrow it will be all semi-autos. Today it is magazine capacity, tomorrow it will be how much ammo you can have. It was the Heller ruling that re-established that only firearms in common usage and having clear applicability to militia use were protected. There is absolutely no justification for either of these qualifiers, other than to leave provide an avenue for future Government infringement. The Government knows that they will never be able to repeal 2A, so they are trying to regulate your choice of weapon. Of course they have no Constitutional authority to do so, but rulings such as 2008 Heller provide precedent that they can use to effectively get around the intent of 2A.
I think we are wasting our time, and the NRA and gun industry is wasting money because we have the wrong strategy. Court rulings, at best, have proven to be a deal where you get something (such as 2008 Heller’s affirmation that 2A protects an individual right) but you also give up something (such as 2008 Heller and 1939 Miller, both of which support infringement by regulation of specific types of firearms). You have to keep in mind that the Gov’t WANTS control. Because of this, with every single decision we will lose a little more of the right that 2A was intended to establish as “off-limits” to Government.
We need to get serious about voting politicians out based on their 2A position, and supporting recalls and impeachment of judges making perverse rulings. The NRA, as well as smaller gun owner organizations, are our largest voice. I look to them to lead the charge.
Secundius
Left is left whether they call themselves democrats, republicans or independent which is a point I made earlier. I’m not here defending republicans. As far as i’m concerned a RINO is no different than I democrat so frankly it doesn’t matter to me who appointed and who approved. In fact it makes my point. Do me a favor and find something to do. you’re wasting my time.
Secundius
You want to make this personal. Fine. It’s all you pussy Obamites have left. Take you socialist views elsewhere moron. If I want your opinion I’ll let you know.
@ Mc Ruger.
I think you misunderstood your Father, he wasn’t applying the “phrase” to somebody else. He was APPLYING IT TO YOU.
Secundius and Shawn McEwen
Many years ago I first heard my father use the term “educated idiot”. My dad used this at the time to describe someone that had all the formal education available but did not have enough common sense to come in out of the rain. Since that day I have used the term in political discussions to describe those who depend solely on academia for knowledge but are not intelligent enough to step outside of their formal education to see reality or even consider alternatives. Academia is God. Although the term can apply to anyone I find it most often fits and at times describes the modern day progressives.
This lady who claims that three percent is not significant never read the story of the Boston Tea Party with the vast numbers involved or the american revolutionary war with the vast 3% of the population under arms and in active service. Three percent means little when you consider that the dastardly revolutionists had MODERN SPORTING RIFLES equal in capacity, accuracy, rate of fire, and were superior, in many cases, to the British arms.
An assault rifle, by definition, is capable of selective (meaning fully automatic or rat-tat-tat) fire. MSRs, then, cannot qualify as assault rifles. This lady had reached judgement before ever hearing the first word of testimony. The “common capacity magazine troops carry hold thirty rounds.”. This judge makes a convoluted logic and; then, rejected her own logic. Eight million of one single weapon is not considered to be “in common use” but no other single weapon constitutes a much higher percentage. Therefore, NO WEAPON of any type is in common use. She then rules that forty MILLION thirty round magazines does not constitute common useage. What measure is worthy of being considered to be common use age?
Sales of MSRs, over the past twenty years are among the most common weapons sold. Before then they were not easily and affordably available. Over what period of time is a weapon’s sales record to be judged. By her measure, no new weapon could ever meet the test of “common use age.”. Judged on first year sales, the firearm is a very low percentage; therefore, must not be allowed for private ownership. Because it is not present in sufficient percentage of all other types of weapons (unspecified percentage required…) it would be proscribed from private ownership. She uses her own personal brand of logic. A more valid test would be what percentage of total rifle sales do MSRs constitute since the end of the last date they were banned.
We the people must once more remind government who is the root of all power. Hopefully we can do this peacefully at the ballot box. I shudder to contemplate the results if they refuse to listen. Eight to ten million MSRs may not be able to pass that judge’s test (what would be a qualifying number over what period of time?) but the number of citizens carrying them sure would be significant.
@ Heyoka.
Are sure that not 14,000 cannon balls and not mount cannons, That seem a little excessively on the high side. Even for the Militia. I don’t think the Continental Army had that many Mounted Cannons.
@ Shawn McEwen.
All true, But even that didn’t workout either. Did it.
@ Mike.
She made a RULING, she didn’t pass a LAW. The Supreme Court, can override her ruling at any given time, if they wish too!!!
However, her ruling is obliged to be consistent with the law. This judge erred, and her ruling is null and void, by reason of being un-Constitutional. That is why we citizens must exercise jury nullification. Unfortunately, even the vaunted Supreme Court is not above interpreting the law based on “international standards” instead of the US Constitution, and must be reined in. Apparently, Congress is even more afraid of impeaching/recalling errant judiciary than elected officials. Therefore, it is incumbent on we, the people to work harder at electing incorruptible congressmen.
The “money shot” in Heller is not “within the home” or even “dangerous and unusual”. Notice, please, neither is a complete sentence and therefor cannot be straightforwardly declarative in and of themselves.
A great deal that some try to play as if it is not settled actually IS when one considers one salient sentence. “The Second Amendment is no different.” This is, obviously, pertaining to the declarations of fact just prior to it. The example prior is the courts longstanding precedent in handling the FIRST amendment. In short, the court admitted in that one tiny sentence what is true – anything one seeks to apply to the second amendment must also apply to the first! Can government limit the number of words a person uses? Nope? Then neither can it limit the number if cartridges. Can it dictate ink and ban pencil? Nope. Likewise, it cannot claim only flintlocks are protected but new technology is not.
The bogus nature of the doctrine of selective incorporation aside, the heller McDonald combination destroys every attempt this judge makes and indeed exposes her to what SHOULD be removal from the bench. She is BLATANTLY disregarding crystal clear precedent set. She ignored what those two decisions create – binding precedent on lower courts.
Ironically, her doing so demonstrates the failure of the manufactured doctrine of stare decisus as well as selective incorporation and even judicial review!
When it comes down to it, this decision by this judge shows WHY the Declaration of Independence says that governments derive just powers from the consent of the governed rather than by judicial “ruling”. Why, if SCOTUS can simply declare itself as final arbiter of constitutionality IN SPITE of what the declaration and constitution says, then, well, so too can this judge do the same thing in “her” court. And that’s exactly what she did. Sadly, she will face no consequence for doing so either.
The ROLE of the judiciary is to APPLY the law as written. This “case law” garbage is destroying this nation. Remember, MAKING law is the role of the legislature. So who then is to be judge of constitutionality?
We The People. The Declaration declares so pointedly. And what then do we do if government refuses to relent authority it was either not delegated or that it usurped? Well folks, the declaration is CLEAR about that too.
All that’s lacking is an admission of this reality.
In closing, I’ll say this. We MUST hold government to the proverbial line and we must accept our boundaries as well. We must hold the line that the RIGHT to keep means the RIGHT to purchase, sell, inherit and gift. That means gubmint HAS NO PLACE dictating mandating or banning anything in this area, period. As for carry, well, same thing. Open or concealed, long gun handgun sword knife or club loaded unloaded are all INDIVIDUAL decisions with no proper gubmint interference. Use in self defense is off limits to gubmint as well. That’s a personal liberty, a choice each must make for themselves.
BUT, this cannot mean government has no real and delegated authority for USES outside those DEFINED rights. Notice please, there is no right to murder, there is no right to use to rob rape or steal.
There are PLENTY of examples of criminal behavior, abuses, that are criminal in nature and that government is ABSOLUTELY empowered to regulate and ban. Likewise, like say unlawful discharge in a city, that’s proper for ban mandate and regulation as well. Every example OUTSIDE the rights themselves is DEBATE WORTHY.
Look peeps, Ted Cruz showed everyone how SIMPLE this is when he put it straight to the godmother of gun control herself – Diane Feinstein. He asked her OPENLY and POINTEDLY if she would apply her proposed ban to first amendment rights (and fourth as well). She danced but he pressed forward, requiring a straight answer.
She was forced to answer a plain “no” and get gun control bill died the ugly death it deserved the following day.
The Second Amendment is no different.
THATS THE PRECEDENT and THAT is SO ORDERED! That my friends is exactly the case we should be making going forward cuz when it comes down to it, the TRUTHFUL ANSWER to anything put forward has to be the same answer Diane was forced to admit. Government simply isn’t empowered to decide, even on a case by case basis, whether a right is really worth insisting upon. Indeed, enumeration itself specifically removed that authority from the hands of government, leaving it all right where it belongs – in the hands of the people themselves.
I don’t recall the 2nd amendment that specifies the types of arm’s, simply the right to keep and bear arms. This judge seems to be rewriting the amendment. I believe in our constitution the way it was written, as a soldier I took a vow to defend the constitution which I still abide as a civilian. The constitution needs no revision or interpretation, it is powerful and simple and needs to be preserved and observed in the form in which it was written of the people and by the people
Interesting things are going through my mind right now as a result of Heyoka’s posts. I’m a fair student of history, although not as well read on colonial times as I should be… working on it, but obviously he is. There is kernel of hope in all that he said about the judge not knowing anything about what she was talking about in her ruling. I say use that.
Liberals are for the most part intellectually inferior in their political ideology, and they know it. Why else would they ignore all evidence to the contrary, and wail at the top of their lungs about the children, whenever some conservative points out facts contrary to their argument? Because they don’t want conservatives to know they are dullards! This judge (a term to be applied loosely) knows the law insofar as she can use it to interpret her desires for the setting of precedent, but she hasn’t the first damn clue about the history of the law in question, which if I’m not mistaken, is the precedent already having been set that she is overturning. Stupid? Oh, hell yeah!
It is stupidity not because she is ignoring prior statutes (Heller) and pushing her own agenda, that’s just blind obeisance. The stupidity comes from not knowing the history of the 2nd Amendment in the Colonial era, and therefore which laws apply that precedent.
Liberals hate being referred to as intellectually inferior, even though in most political spheres they are. They have a big complex about this, as is evident by the fact that they pass themselves off as “enlightened” and “superior” every single chance they get. People will always tell you what their weaknesses are, often by accusing their opponents of being what they are afraid of being seen as. Think about it. What happens every time a conservative tries to plead their case to a liberal? They are derided en masse as being idiots. This is misdirection. By pointing to the opposition and crying “STUPID!”, they are praying that others won’t see the fact that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
If one were to attack liberals, not on the merits of the argument (which they don’t know anyway), but on the merits of whether or not they’re even capable of arguing the point in the first place, we might find our situation improving. How does this work in a court of law? It doesn’t… at least not yet. To bring down a building, you don’t climb to the roof and blow a hole in it. You attack its foundation. The court’s foundation is the people who, in their misguided stupidity, support it’s current direction.
Last, but not least, in order to do this you’re going to have to personally engage liberals in conversation, and then systematically destroy them. Not their beliefs, THEM. You must get in their face, and when the obscenities fly as a result, you have to really turn it on, leaving them no possible conclusion other than the fact that everything they believe about conservatives is WRONG. It won’t be pleasant. It won’t be fun. You can’t so this on the blogs. It’s a repugnant idea, I know, but make no mistake ladies and gentlemen, we are in the fight for our lives here. It’s time we start taking the enemy to school. Otherwise we end up killing each other, and when it gets to that point nobody wins.
@ Shawn McEwen.
Give me a break. I live just outside of Washington, DC. And I see stupidity everyday, everywhere I look I see acts of stupidity. And Capitol Hill, Congress and Senate is no different. I don’t care what side you on Democratic, Moderate Republican, Tea Party Republican, Independent, or Libratarian. Their stupid people everywhere. I see Law Makers, walking down the side walk that can’t eat a sandwich or chew gun at the same time. Or, Blackberry messages to each without walking into oncoming traffic. And, as far a judges are concerned. Every judge is always going to have a Party Slant in their rulings. Its the way things work, its the way things are. Live with it. Were never going to have an “A Political Party” Congress, Senate, Judicial or Presidency. Deal with it.
So, what was it I said that you don’t agree with?
@ Shawn McEwen.
Nothing, STUPID is a Universal Constant.
If stupid is a universal concept, and it very likely is because evidence points to the inescapable fact that everyone is stupid in some areas of life, then by the laws of nature intelligence must be a universal constant as well. Just as dark has light, up has down, cold has hot, stupidity must have intelligence as its opposite. With diligence and hard work, anyone can become intelligent. All that is necessary to remain ignorant, is laziness. I just think that in order to foster a desire for intelligence, you must first make ignorance, and laziness uncomfortable.
@ Shawn McEwen.
Unfortunately, that’s easier said, then done. I sometime wish that there is something that could be put into the national drinking water supply system. Like, fluoridation. But too many people already running around with aluminum baseball caps.
Very true. But then I remember someone once saying that he didn’t know how, but that we were going to the moon… he even had the audacity to give a time frame.
@ Mc Ruger.
The only thing I questioned, was the wording of your sentence. You claimed Left wing agenda. I just pointed out that the Republicans put her on the judges chair, not the left.
Secundius
Well good for you. Don’t really care what you are. You questioned my post and my comprehension. It was unwarranted and unnecessary.
@ Mc Ruger.
Believe it or not, I’m not a Democrat,. And, I’m NOT a Tea Part Republican. I’m an Old Fart Moderate Republican, just like Ronald Wilson Reagan, was!!! Do with that as you wish.
@ Heyoka.
Don’t worry about it. All the website are the same when it comes to misspellings and other gramatical errors.
It’s this 10H Sky Blue on a White background, that causing the problems. I have difficulty reading and seeing what I read and writting. I also think they could double, or even triple the font size, for the “Old Farts” on these websites. If anybody listening or reading on the other end of the website management oversight team!!!
Hey Secundius you don’t have to be a jerk… Or maybe you do. I don’t recall saying anything about democrats or republicans. I mentioned the LEFT which takes up a lot of space and I talked about US which I consider to be constitutional conservatives. With few exceptions Republicans are nearly as bad as Democrats.
My aplologies for the gramatical and spelling errors in my last post, I was carried away by passion and the righteous indignation resulting for an over exposure to stupid. 🙂
The arms possessed by civillians at the outset of the Revolution included two 3 pound field guns and 14,000 mounted cannon and swivel guns on privately owned and armed ships. I doubt that the low information judge or anyone so engaged in the litigation thought to research the history and the true intent relying instead on century plus later legal subterfuge in which legal minds discussed in the predisposed limited view.
The information is from Minute Man Park in Concord and the United States Maritime Museum. My brother has been to see the 3 pound brass field piece in Concord. I suggest everyone make the trip to see the rightful history before the rats that have infested our country find a way to obscure that as well.
The mere fact that the guns existed in civillian hands destroys the infrence in the Heller decision limiting arms to what could be carried. This is pure absurdity but as well all know it will not disuade the Marxist’s fom their mission to make us all equal, except for their elite of course.
Any military historian can tell you that the guns were the pinnicle of military technology in the day. Anyone who has experiences an artillery barrage will tell you that the sheer horror is life altering. Therefore this moron in a black robe is not qualified to pass judgement on any such theory much less fact. Canon loaded with grape shot or cannister is such a devistating force that any who has not experienced it nor seen the effects in practicle demonstrations have no clue.
In fact the dangerous and frightening weapon discussed in the Heller case was a headsman axe. Of course the thing would be frightening if carrier in public with threat or cause while going through a daily routine. In fact such a tool is only meant to be frightening as it would have no practicle military application whatsoever. In ancient times smalled axes were employed that are easily weilded so as to be a practicle weapon of war, not a symble of despotic terror. How utterly ignorant this menace sitting on a judicial office this person has displayed herself to be. Of course canon would not be carried in public. I doubt that the swords carried by men invoved in war would be pubically worn as well. It did not mean that they were not in use and that no one possessed them. This tiny minded simpleton is applying a comment lifted from a statute regulating the public display of weapons not normally carried in a peacful environment. The ststute did not address what was stored at home on in a militia’s store house to be used at appropriate times. In fact they cannot find any statute in existance that limits what type of arms that may be possessed by the people.
The militia statutes listed the very basic arms and equipment that all men were to possess. It did not limit the arms it merely listed and made mandatory the bare essentials. In facts the men were fined-this is even stated in the statutes-if they failed to show up for muster with their bare essentials. those who did not have the bare essentials were supplied their arms and that was paid out of the funds collected through fines and forfitures. The Superme Court and this tiny brained fool of a black robe are not on point at all. There is no authority in the Constitution that grants to the general government any authority whatsoever to limit the arms possessed by the people. In fact the Second Amendment forbids such activity. Madison states that the “…powers delegated are few and defined”…, Federalist 45. Few-not many-defined expressly written and defined by intent. How in God’s name can you define a power without writing it down?? can’t plain and simple. This is what we get by deferring to some one else with a vested interest and accepting their version of what they have power to do, NOT!
So we have a totally ignorant person passing judgement on a condition, publically carrying for normal activity, that is mutually exclusive of the use for resisting tyranny, concerning a weapon that is kept in the home or vehicle that is in common use declaring that it is too frightening or dangerous. Great I suppose that she would declare gravity null and void if she thought it too dangerous for people to experience or might frighten their senses.
@ Mc Ruger.
What part of the Article did you not understand. Clinton, “Nominated” her.
The Republican controlled Senate “Approved” and “Commissioned” her. In this particular case the Republican controlled Senate SCREWED-UP.
As G-Man and others have stated. This opinion has no basis in fact or in common sense. It is based solely in hidden agenda and ignorance in power. This is the reason we must vote our own people into office. The left will continue to appoint their own and we will continue to take our freedoms. Remember, Supreme Court members are Appointed by the president and contrary to the ideal of neutrality they are political.
Perhaps when a judge render an uninformed opinion 500,000 phone calls and emails would help them understand the error.
@ Mc Ruger.
There you are again. The President NOMINATES them. And the Senate APPOINTS and COMMISSIONS them.
Liberal Judges like Catherine C. Blake are the self appointed “firewalls” to preserve state government control over the people, their Natural Rights and The Constitution be damned.
@ Arthur L Pavis.
The US Senate didn’t have to approve and/or commission her you know!
With respect to 10 U.S.C. 311 “Militia composition and classes” in defining the “unorganized militia”. It should be understood and without ambiguity, that the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Subsec 15 & 16 pertains to the “militia” and the calling forth the “militia”. Since the “organized militia” is already defined as members of the National Guard and Naval Militia and …if the “unorganized militia” is not recognized, … then who exactly is the President and the U.S. Congress calling forth, if it is not the National guard and the Naval militia, since the U.S. Constitution only authorizes the “calling forth of
“Militia” men during conscription and draft activity. If we are not recognized and acknowledged to exist, then we the 17 year olds through 47 years old need not step forth to be obligated to give life and limb to country, as we “no longer officially exist.”
Also, which level of government is responsible for arming the “citizens” with arms that will contribute to the benefit of the Militia? Is it County? State government? or Federal government? According to Houston v. Moore a “militia” man is not subject to the U.C.M.J. (Uniform Code of Military Justice) until he reports to a designated point of rendezvous, on a specific date and not later than a specific designated time. Also prior to reporting, who is to familiarize the “un organized” group of citizens (since they are no longer acknowledged as “militiamen”) with arms that are beneficial to the foot soldier, the dog-face, the “Grunt”, the “Devil Dogs”, …such as the rifle, handgun, and knife. You know …the type of arms that are in common use.
The only things that separates an “assault rifle” and a “rifle” is (1) only an assault rifle has a selector switch that goes from fully automatic mode to semi-automatic mode and (2) if the caliber is larger that a .50 caliber round. Over .50 caliber, that round is determined to be a destructive device via the National Firearms Act and through definition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).
Cosmetic features of a particular firearm does not alter the speed, velocity, range and distance or the initial “killing velocity” and speed of
cyclic rate of fire. It does nothing to enhance performance. Cosmetics on a firearms only enhances vision, ease of firing and control. It does not make for a better marksman, other than human traits and characteristics.
Soon the liberals will be encouraging the use of “harsh language” and vigorous arm, hand and “finger” gestures in a defiant manner. Hoping to win wars against the ISSL, the Boko-Haram, the Al-Quida, and drug Cartels. They are all having a good laugh as the U.S. self-destructs for the safety of the police and children.
Well darn it, by this judge’s definition smart-guns with wrist IDs are forever banned because they are not in common use. What a bummer eh?
I’d already posted my opinion in a similar CTD article, and since this article is of the same topic I’ve decided to share again below:
When I read about other court decisions that rule in favor of positions I may not agree with, at least they are usually founded on some type of logic and facts that allows me to reasonably accept the loss; however, in this case it is impossible.
This federal judge’s decision was such an incredible stretch from reality that it is more than obvious she is profoundly anti-gun. Ever since the Heller ruling was won this judge has been salivating for an opportunity to get her hands on this type of case just to get even.
Her greatest feat here was not in earnestly deliberating the facts with judicial integrity, because it is quite apparent she did nothing of the sort, but rather her true landmark feat was in figuring out how she was going to wrap her twisted logic around all the solid facts that fly in the face of everything she ruled against. Well, she failed miserably at convincing anyone, and she should cringe with the utmost embarrassment.
We know these types of biased judges manage to get on the bench, it’s an unfortunate part of life, but it is still an incredible let-down to see one in action. I am not even certain she cares how obvious her bias showed in this one.
I truly hope this is an isolated incident that will be corrected by the Supreme Court with a simple overruling. However if this is instead a growing trend, then left uncheck, something this obvious delegitimizes the entire court system – and these matters will need to instead be taken up by the people before it becomes detrimentally beyond our control.
@ G-Man.
I thought the NRA, made a ruling on the sale and use of Smart Guns, in New Jersey or anywhere else. Back in November 2013 CE.
They really need too change the color font on these websites, I can barely read them, or see them.
we need to find out who appointed these clowns and get rid of both of them come November if at all possible.
@ hank Alvarez.
In the case of US. District Court Judge Catherine C. Blake. President William Jefferson Clinton, nominated her in 4 May 1995 CE. And, the Republican Control Senate, approved her in 11 August 1995 CE. And, then commissioned her in 14 August 1995 CE. Clinton, NOMINATED and the Republicans APPROVED & COMMISSIONED.
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”
— George Washington
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
— Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
It is time to start putting these so called “judges” and politicians in the hot seat. Whenever they put their own personal perspective, ideals, and political agenda’s above what we all know is true intent of the law which is the constitution they should be held accountable and dealt with accordingly. When these pukes start loosing seats of authority, are disbarred, and better yet going to prison for violation of their oaths of office maybe they will start stepping to.
@ Merle.
What I understand and I may wrong. G-man could probably verify it or not. But US District and Supreme Court Judges, are Life-Time Appointments.
And they have die and/or retire first, too vacate the judges seat.
@ Secundius: Sorry, been away this weekend so I was slow to respond.
You are absolutely correct. Just as Supreme Court Judges are appointed for life, so too are Federal District Judges appointed for life as laid out in Article III of the Constitution. The only way to remove either type of Judge is through a Congressional impeachment process very similar to that which applies to a president.
There are also other special types of U.S. Judges that fall in the same Article III category as well, but they are rarely in the public eye.
@ G-Man.
I have a question, that I’m finding hard to resolve. There’s a person on the Sig Sauer Elite Defense Ammunition website, at the bottom of the page named romney. And his questions are a little disturbing to me. The question’s he/she, is asking are too specific to be in the norm. I don’t know if I’m overblowing his questions, or not. To me it sounds, almost like what “ballistic data” on how too kill someone. I would much rather be wrong about this, then right about it. See what you can read into this subject.
@ Secundius: It could be innocent in the sense that a very dedicated Constitutionalist would be well within their rights to inquire in preparation about the ballistics capabilities of weaponry that a tyrannical government would use against its citizenry or their homes.
I will agree that when isolated, his questions could appear a bit extreme, but given the general context and purpose of a gun forum, I can’t think of a better place to ask such questions – if for nothing more than pure curiosity.
Unfortunately we must also take into account the atrocious actions of this current administration which in-turn has fueled a lot of passionate speech lately in these forums; speech that at any other time would also appear a bit extreme.
Nevertheless, the specificity of his questions is a bit more practical than hypothetical – so there is nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution. I would never want folks to ever feel their speech in these forums is being monitored so I may or may not have forwarded this to a more appropriate case agent.
Isn’t it also true that congress can defund and/or legislatively eliminate a particular district court?
My interpretation is, it applies to Lon-Range and Extreme Long-Range Weapons. Like the Barrett .50-caliber (12.7x99mm) Sniper Rifle. Or rifles with barrels over 20-inches (508mm) in length.
I can’t believe she’s stupid enough to think it’ll cut down on crime. Obviously they’re worried we will right the government back on course.
She’s not that stupid. She knows EXACTLY what she’s doing. Her actions have nothing whatsoever to do with crime prevention – it is solely for the usurpation of rights.
@ Ned.
What rights is she usurping. She made a ruling, that’s all. If the US Supreme Court wants to knock it down, they can do it.