Sure there were differing opinions regarding "Silveira" on this board. But regardless, something has become very clear to me. WE HAVE NO 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
If you can be fined, arrested, incarcerated or KILLED through the force of government hiding behind the curtain of "law"for attempting to exercise your "right" to: obtain a firearm, own any type of firearm you please, carry open or concealed anywhere you wish without paying or begging for the privilege- then for all practical purposes the "right" does not exist.
If the Supreme Court determines that you can be "allowed" to own a firearm but you have to first shove the gun barrel where the sun don't shine and dance like a demented monkey on a string begging for coins- then here's a news flash- you have no "right".
End of my rant.
Here's another.
http://www.etherzone.com/2003/sart120403.shtml
SUPREME COURT PROTECTS THE STATE
DEFY AT YOUR OWN RISK
By: SARTRE
The highest court in the land operates with one purpose - Preserving the Protection Racket. The idea that the U.S. Constitution means what it says and that the Bill of Rights has the categorical purpose of safekeeping individual rights, is ignored by the black ropes. Little attention has been given in the media to the refusal of the court to hear and rule on Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that the Second Amendment affords Americans no personal right to own firearms. By declining to take up this review, the Supreme Court ruled as every court has with their silence, since 1939.
According to Sue Ann Schiff, “Since [U.S. v.] Miller lower courts have considered Second Amendment challenges in hundreds of cases, not one of which has struck down a gun law on the basis of the Amendment. The Supreme Court has had many opportunities to review these decisions and has consistently refused to do so.â€
Are all these courts wrong over the last six decades? ABSOLUTELY!
The issue of individual ownership of firearms is the clearest and most definitive RIGHT of all - preservation of your life by the means of self defense. Plainly, this right rests within each individual. It is NOT a prerogative that resides within the State. Since the government is not a person, its only claim for continuance comes from the consent of the people.
This reality of human existence is not shared by defenders of government. Courts are designed to supersede natural human rights and function as arbitrators for the gatekeepers that maintain the State. There is nothing intrinsic in any court structure that guards the rights of citizens. Quite to the contrary, courts are creatures of the government, and maintain their power through the existence of the State. Contrived rulings are the norm; since the law has become a perversion of language, logic and common sense.
Guns are neutral items, but can become deadly weapons when bullets are fired by human hands. When courts deny the unrestricted lawful possession of legitimate means for personal protection, the courts expose themselves to their real loyalty - despotism. As long as citizens accept this fraud, sanctioned by an artificial judicial procedure, our mutual plight will be relegated to captivity. The law is NOT what judges tell us it is. The law is the essence of the intent and meaning of the moral principles that underpin the social conduct that protects individuals from wicked elements. The foremost lawbreaker is the STATE.
Disagree with this conclusion? Better look closely at the latest Supreme Court case they did take! A unanimous opinion by Justice David Souter said 15 to 20 seconds before forcible entry was enough to satisfy the Fourth Amendment's ban against unreasonable searches. The lesson should be clear. The police-state can break in and you better not have the weapon that could endanger the SWAT squad.
Still not convinced? How about that other case the top court will hear! The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to consider a Bush administration plea to extend US law enforcement authority around the world -- a significant issue as the government wages a global war on terrorism. "It is precisely when criminals are harbored abroad that diplomatic, foreign policy, and law enforcement concerns overlap and must be balanced, and that the need for decision-making by the Executive Branch becomes paramount," the appeal contended.
Let’s sum up, this is not a hard exercise to understand. The government defines who are criminals. Terrorism is the worst evil on the planet since it threatens the State. Individuals can’t be trusted to have firearms since some may become revolutionaries. Courts have a duty to protect the man who signs their check. And any other country that disagrees might get a visit from the - knock down your door - storm troopers.
This is the pattern of the rule of law in the United States, post 911. Surely, the State can’t allow another Georgia! (while it applies - not the home of the peanut farmer) Can you imagine EIR gets the picture, while the Bush flag wavers keep rooting on the enforcers of the law . . . Eduard Shevardnadze said that he was leaving the building of the State Chancellery without tears. It is inconceivable to think that a bloodless coup could remove our government from their seats of their supremacy! No “fear of tears†for our fearless leaders, the courts will protect them from disgruntled AMERICANS . . .
No guns means no risk of exile. A nice neat program for law and order. Their law and your obeisance. Forget the old Republic, the substitute has too many advantages, so says the judge! As soon as the individual is eliminated from protecting themselves, the courts won’t be needed to rule on cases; civil actions against the federal government, won’t be entertained. All the protection will come from those regents, who will regulate those militias. Yes, the Supreme Court must remain absolute; how else can you have peace and rid the society of criminal elements that endanger the dominion? The magistrate is the law and will determine what is illegal. So say the Supreme Court for the ‘United Interests of the STATE’.
If you can be fined, arrested, incarcerated or KILLED through the force of government hiding behind the curtain of "law"for attempting to exercise your "right" to: obtain a firearm, own any type of firearm you please, carry open or concealed anywhere you wish without paying or begging for the privilege- then for all practical purposes the "right" does not exist.
If the Supreme Court determines that you can be "allowed" to own a firearm but you have to first shove the gun barrel where the sun don't shine and dance like a demented monkey on a string begging for coins- then here's a news flash- you have no "right".
End of my rant.
Here's another.
http://www.etherzone.com/2003/sart120403.shtml
SUPREME COURT PROTECTS THE STATE
DEFY AT YOUR OWN RISK
By: SARTRE
The highest court in the land operates with one purpose - Preserving the Protection Racket. The idea that the U.S. Constitution means what it says and that the Bill of Rights has the categorical purpose of safekeeping individual rights, is ignored by the black ropes. Little attention has been given in the media to the refusal of the court to hear and rule on Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that the Second Amendment affords Americans no personal right to own firearms. By declining to take up this review, the Supreme Court ruled as every court has with their silence, since 1939.
According to Sue Ann Schiff, “Since [U.S. v.] Miller lower courts have considered Second Amendment challenges in hundreds of cases, not one of which has struck down a gun law on the basis of the Amendment. The Supreme Court has had many opportunities to review these decisions and has consistently refused to do so.â€
Are all these courts wrong over the last six decades? ABSOLUTELY!
The issue of individual ownership of firearms is the clearest and most definitive RIGHT of all - preservation of your life by the means of self defense. Plainly, this right rests within each individual. It is NOT a prerogative that resides within the State. Since the government is not a person, its only claim for continuance comes from the consent of the people.
This reality of human existence is not shared by defenders of government. Courts are designed to supersede natural human rights and function as arbitrators for the gatekeepers that maintain the State. There is nothing intrinsic in any court structure that guards the rights of citizens. Quite to the contrary, courts are creatures of the government, and maintain their power through the existence of the State. Contrived rulings are the norm; since the law has become a perversion of language, logic and common sense.
Guns are neutral items, but can become deadly weapons when bullets are fired by human hands. When courts deny the unrestricted lawful possession of legitimate means for personal protection, the courts expose themselves to their real loyalty - despotism. As long as citizens accept this fraud, sanctioned by an artificial judicial procedure, our mutual plight will be relegated to captivity. The law is NOT what judges tell us it is. The law is the essence of the intent and meaning of the moral principles that underpin the social conduct that protects individuals from wicked elements. The foremost lawbreaker is the STATE.
Disagree with this conclusion? Better look closely at the latest Supreme Court case they did take! A unanimous opinion by Justice David Souter said 15 to 20 seconds before forcible entry was enough to satisfy the Fourth Amendment's ban against unreasonable searches. The lesson should be clear. The police-state can break in and you better not have the weapon that could endanger the SWAT squad.
Still not convinced? How about that other case the top court will hear! The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to consider a Bush administration plea to extend US law enforcement authority around the world -- a significant issue as the government wages a global war on terrorism. "It is precisely when criminals are harbored abroad that diplomatic, foreign policy, and law enforcement concerns overlap and must be balanced, and that the need for decision-making by the Executive Branch becomes paramount," the appeal contended.
Let’s sum up, this is not a hard exercise to understand. The government defines who are criminals. Terrorism is the worst evil on the planet since it threatens the State. Individuals can’t be trusted to have firearms since some may become revolutionaries. Courts have a duty to protect the man who signs their check. And any other country that disagrees might get a visit from the - knock down your door - storm troopers.
This is the pattern of the rule of law in the United States, post 911. Surely, the State can’t allow another Georgia! (while it applies - not the home of the peanut farmer) Can you imagine EIR gets the picture, while the Bush flag wavers keep rooting on the enforcers of the law . . . Eduard Shevardnadze said that he was leaving the building of the State Chancellery without tears. It is inconceivable to think that a bloodless coup could remove our government from their seats of their supremacy! No “fear of tears†for our fearless leaders, the courts will protect them from disgruntled AMERICANS . . .
No guns means no risk of exile. A nice neat program for law and order. Their law and your obeisance. Forget the old Republic, the substitute has too many advantages, so says the judge! As soon as the individual is eliminated from protecting themselves, the courts won’t be needed to rule on cases; civil actions against the federal government, won’t be entertained. All the protection will come from those regents, who will regulate those militias. Yes, the Supreme Court must remain absolute; how else can you have peace and rid the society of criminal elements that endanger the dominion? The magistrate is the law and will determine what is illegal. So say the Supreme Court for the ‘United Interests of the STATE’.
