An answer to gun grabbers;

[tombogan03884]

There are 20,000 laws on the books regarding firearms ownership, none are legal."Shall not be infringed" means just that and has been upheld in several State Supreme courts. Therefore DC v. Heller is irrelevant.
You do not need permission of Local, State or Federal authorities to buy a book or publish a newspaper. Years ago people were not allowed to attend certain schools, or live in certain neighborhoods based on religion or skin color, that was called, Bigotry, Racism, and Discrimination. The second Amendment is a CIVIL RIGHT, what do the Liberals have in mind that justifies their Bigotry and discrimination against us ? Edmund Burke wrote "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." My question for the rest of the country, my challenge, is this; Are you citizens who will demand that your public SERVANTS obey the law, or are you gutless sheep who do what you are told by your masters in Washington ?
THERE IS NO COMPROMISE ON CIVIL RIGHTS.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

There are 20,000 laws on the books regarding firearms ownership, none are legal.

Says who?

"Shall not be infringed" means just that and has been upheld in several State Supreme courts. Therefore DC v. Heller is irrelevant.

Cite the precedents please.

You do not need permission of Local, State or Federal authorities to buy a book or publish a newspaper.

Yup.

Years ago people were not allowed to attend certain schools, or live in certain neighborhoods based on religion or skin color, that was called, Bigotry, Racism, and Discrimination.

It took a long time but working through the system those problems and injustices were eventually corrected.

The second Amendment is a CIVIL RIGHT, what do the Liberals have in mind that justifies their Bigotry and discrimination against us?

Who knows? Who cares?

Edmund Burke wrote "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." My question for the rest of the country, my challenge, is this; Are you citizens who will demand that your public SERVANTS obey the law, or are you gutless sheep who do what you are told by your masters in Washington ?
THERE IS NO COMPROMISE ON CIVIL RIGHTS.

And my question for you is, "Do you respect the rule of law, or do reserve the right to select which laws you will obey and which ones you will violate?"

Another one is, "Since all each SCOTUS justice has on a given question is their own opinion (and that's the word they use to describe what they write), and that it takes a majority of them agreeing to issue a "ruling" (another word that was not chosen or used accidently) what makes you think that you can somehow "know" what the constitution and/or the law "really" means all by yourself?

And finally, what do we do if you have one opinion as to what the constitution means, and I have another? And the other 300 mimllion of us have a wide variety of opinions of their own, that are different from both yours and mine? Do we just listen to you? Or do you listen to me? And if not, why not?

 

[TAB]

You do not need permission of Local, State or Federal authorities to buy a book or publish a newspaper.

That is completly unture...

you do need permision to publish( IE print) documents... at the very least at the local level, and chances are at the state level as well.

 

[General Geoff]

I'm not aware of any permission needed to publish documents. As far as I know, you can print up a whole bunch of copies of something you wrote on your laser printer, and distribute them outside your house (which is a form of publishing) without issue.

 

[TAB]

Might want to check your local zoning and fire codes... There are limits on what you can do in your home before you ether need to get permits/ special equipment. If you want to do it on any type of real scale your going to have to deal with alot more then just local codes...( IE epa)Same if you want to do it for profit...

 

[General Geoff]

What jurisdiction does the EPA or local zoning have to do with distributing your own printed materials not for profit?


A message I type here and submit on THR will reach thousands, if not tens of thousands of people. I require no permit or special equipment to do so. How is printing out and distributing paper pamphlets any different?

 

[TAB]

That is why I said print, not over the internet, but if you really want to get technical, you need permission to have basic utilitys at your home.

Local codes will effect anything you do in your home... like it or not, that is a fact of life.

The point I am trying to make is we have freedoms, but only up to a point.

 

[Titan6]

The second Amendment is a CIVIL RIGHT, what do the Liberals have in mind that justifies their Bigotry and discrimination against us ?

I am not so sure it is "liberals" maybe depends upon what your definition of a "liberal" is.

Edmund Burke wrote "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." My question for the rest of the country, my challenge, is this; Are you citizens who will demand that your public SERVANTS obey the law, or are you gutless sheep who do what you are told by your masters in Washington ?

Hmm, maybe you should read some more material on this site first and look over in the activism thread. Your heart seems in the right place, maybe your message is not coming out correctly? Or misdirected perhaps?

 

[tombogan03884]

Says who ? Read your constitution.
You want precedents, 1)Wilson v State of Ark.To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying an arm of war... is an unwarrented restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms
2)People v. Zerillo Mich The provision in the constitution granting the right of all persons to bear arms is a limitation on the power of the legislature to enact any law to the contrary.
3)State v. Kerner NC The maintnance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.
4)Cockburn v. Texas the right of the citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the HIGH powers delegated directly to the citizen and is excepted out of thegeneral powers of government.a law cannot be passed to infring upon or impair it, because it is above the law and independant of law making power.
5) (My favorite) Miranda v. Ariz. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation that would abrogate them
It took a long time working through the system ? maybe on your planet, here on earth in '67 and 68 the cities burned.

.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

You want precedents,

1)Wilson v State of Ark.To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying an arm of war... is an unwarrented restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms

Can you include the year of this case or better yet, a link. There's a lot of people named "Wilson".

2)People v. Zerillo Mich The provision in the constitution granting the right of all persons to bear arms is a limitation on the power of the legislature to enact any law to the contrary.

Link or better info please including year. Note also that until recently, MI was a "may issue" state. (Currently it is "shall issue".) Apparently, the legislature did have the power to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons, despite your attempt to use information out of context to show otherwise.

3)State v. Kerner NC The maintnance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.

This refers to a state law challanged under the state's constitution. You quoted the part of the ruling that you liked, and left out the part that you don't like. Such as:

from one of the concurring opinions: ALLEN, J., concurring: The right to bear arms, which is protected and safeguarded by the Federal and State constitutions, is subject to the authority of the General Assembly, in the exercise of the police power, to regulate, but the regulation must be reasonable and not prohibitive, and must bear a fair relation to the preservation of the public peace and safety.

"Reasonable". "..subject to the exercise of the police power..."

4)Cockburn v. Texas the right of the citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the HIGH powers delegated directly to the citizen and is excepted out of thegeneral powers of government.a law cannot be passed to infring upon or impair it, because it is above the law and independant of law making power.

I've read this case before. It would have helped if you had provided the link and the year (mid-late 19th century I believe). You are pulling one somewhat strange passage from the opinion of one justice here, completely out of context.. Post the link and I'll post quotes that let the forum know what this decision really says and what it really means.

Also you failed to point out that the TX law banning the carrying of handguns, whether concealed or openly carried, was not affected by the high-sounding phrases that you seem to relish quoting.

5) (My favorite) Miranda v. Ariz. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation that would abrogate them

The famous 5th amendment case. Which part of this ruling supports your 2A opinions? Forcing the reader to wade through dozens of Earl Warren's nonsensical prose is a bit of overkill, is it not?

And not only are you taking the "meaning" of some very old rulings out of context, you should also note that none of these state court rulings affect the laws you are subject to in NH.

 

[green-grizzly]

So once the law says something is prohibited or required, it becomes my absolute duty to obey?

 

[JasperST5]

So once the law says something is prohibited or required, it becomes my absolute duty to obey?

That was always my understanding of what the words 'legal' and 'illegal' mean.

 

[cornman]

GW is a Grabber like no other.

Steve Watson

Many point to the fact that Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004 as an indication that he caved in to the NRA. John Kerry even accused Bush of conspiring to "chose his powerful friends in the gun lobby over the police officers and families that he promised to protect."

In Reality Bush wanted to renew the assault weapons ban but was forced to let it expire when it became clear that he may not retain office in 2004 should he alienate core Republican voters.

The assault weapons ban is just one of the numerous anti-gun positions taken by the Bush Administration. Additional examples include disarming airline pilots, forfeiting gun rights for misdemeanors, and arguing that the total DC gun ban is a reasonable restriction on the 2nd Amendment.

Speaking in late 2005 on the topic of the second amendment, former Republican Congressman, CIA official and board member on the NRA Bob Barr said that his position had enabled him to judge the difference between how the Clinton and Bush administration's approached the issue of gun control. Barr echoed the sentiments of many other prominent conservatives in expressing his frustration about how the Bush administration was even more anti-second amendment than the Clinton office.

"it's my impression to be honest with you, and this is confirmed by a lot of folks who are involved very heavily in regulatory matters involving firearms, that it is more difficult dealing with this administration than it was dealing with the prior administration."

In the past another Republican Congressman, and now Presidential candidate, Ron Paul has accused the Bush administration of attempting to set in motion a militarized police state in America by enacting gun confiscation martial law provisions in the event of emergencies such as an avian flu pandemic or natural disasters.

"I think they're concerned about the remnant, the remnant of those individuals who don't buy into stuff and think that they should take care of themselves on their own, that they should have their own guns and their own provisions and they don't want to depend on the government at all and I think that is a threat to those who want to hold power. They don't want any resistance to their authoritarian rule."

Paul, a staunch gun-rights supporter, has previously blasted the administration's position on so-called "assault weapons" while claiming it is gun-rights oriented as hypocritical.

In making his point, Paul quoted Georgetown University professor Robert Levy, who recently offered this comparison: "Suppose the Second Amendment said, 'A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.' Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?"

"Tortured interpretations of the Second Amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed," said Paul.





What is a liberal? A tax raising history revising gun grabbing socialist, like Hillery or Obama both of whom have openly referred to them selves as "Progresives".

 

[ctdonath]

none are legal

Have you read any of them?

 

[MacEntyre]

WAT DO YOU THINK SET ME OFF IN THE FIRST PLACE? :banghead:

Protocol is that when a thread on THR sets one off, one starts a rant thread, right?

The informed, thoughtful responses have been interesting to read.

 

[armoredman]

Who cares? You would if you had any brains at all, I bet you don't vote either, probably not a veteran so you don't have any investment in liberty or FREEDOM.

Petty attack. Cease and desist, please.

 

[Art Eatman]

To any and all; "If the shoe don't fit, don't try squeezin' into that sucker!"

So:

Free expression of ideas which are on-topic in this forum is not at all restricted. Only the method of expression, as in courtesy and politeness.

Ranting and venting can lead to a thread's being closed. Personal attacks lead to action by the moderators to prevent such events in the future.

Simple, really...

, Art

 

[Titan6]

Well okay

 

[RP88]

regulation and infringement are two different things.

That bit about Bush 'caving' and 'swearing to protect police and their families' is also quite...retarded. Apparently the rest of us who for whatever reason voted for him again don't matter in the slightest, right? The more I hear from him, the more I wonder just how bad Obama, Hillary, or McCain could possibly be compared to our last two presidents.

Also, thank you Ron Paul for the words of common sense.

 

[tombogan03884]

So what if they are from the 1800's, so isn't the 13th amendment, you think we should do away with that to ? You are correct, these do not have anything to do with NH, If you were as smart as you think you would know about OUR 10th amendment which protects our right to armed resistance to oppressive government,
This Thread is titled "An answer to GUN GRABBERS" If you are offended by that then one of us is on the wrong forum
Any one who answers the question of what is intended for our country with, "who knows, who cares" deserves neither courtesy or politeness.

 

[209]

That is completly unture...

you do need permision to publish( IE print) documents... at the very least at the local level, and chances are at the state level as well.

Funny, I just set a book transcript out to a publisher in Canada. They'll be printing 200 copies for me.

What law did I break?

 

[ZombiesAhead]

Tom,

Why the hostility? THR is probably one of the least compromising RKBA-advocacy message boards out there. Passion is good but you're preaching to the choir.

Furthermore, pointing fingers at "liberals" without equally critiquing other political parties is a little short-sighted. Use your energy to write a letter, run for public office, or try to convince those who actually oppose THR's majority opinion.

 

[m38shooter]

regulation and infringement are two different things.

American Heritage Dictionary:

in·fringe [in-frinj] Pronunciation Key -
verb, -fringed, -fring·ing.

–verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

–verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.

[Origin: 1525–35; < L infringere to break, weaken, equiv. to in- in-2 + -fringere, comb. form of frangere to break]



Anything that lessens (weakens) a right in any way immediately infringes upon said right. Our lawmakers need to pull out a dictionary every now and then.

 

[gunsmith]

Step away from the coffee!

If you were as smart as you think you would know about

I'm not the smartest guy on thr by any means, but I think, sir, you are missing a few commas.

If you are going to insinuate superior intellect, you could start with better writing skills then folks like me, who got their GED in the Army.

GW is a Grabber like no other