Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Did you know that the federal government has no Constitutional authority over firearms? If you read the Constitution you will see that the federal government has limited authority and the extent of that authority is clearly defined. All other authority is left to the states.
Madison described the Second Amendment in his letters known as the Federalist Papers as a need by the states for its citizens to keep and bear arms in order to protect the states from a tyrannous federal government. It says nothing of personal protection.
The Second Amendment's first major assault was by the socialist regime of Roosevelt's New Deal in 1934 and then in 1938 where the Commerce Clause was used to attack that amendment in a move described by the Supreme Court as immoral means to an end not foreseen by the founding fathers. It was never an intent to use one law to attack another but Roosevelt and the socialist Democrats were intent on attacking the fabric of American and vastly enlarge the government.
If you didn't already know it, it was Roosevelt's close friend and adviser, Harry Hopkins who gave the Russians all the information to build their atomic bomb, not Klause Fuchs.
The first test of the new laws came in 1939 in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) where Miller transported a sawed-off shotgun over state lines. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction saying a sawed-off shotgun was not a contemporary weapon used by the military. Miller had been murdered before the case arrived in the Court and his lawyer could ill afford to attend the hearing where he could have argued that indeed a sawed-off shotgun was being used by the military of the day.
The implication of this case is that citizens are allowed to own military weapons but this decision has always been overlooked.
In 1968, LBJ pushed through the 1968 National Firearms Act which unconstitutionally handed the federal government the implied right to control firearms. In 1986 FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act) took away citizens right to own any machine gun made after 1986. Then there was the unconstitutional assault-weapons ban. Then there was D.C. vs Heller where, thanks to Scalia, the Supreme Court decided that Americans do have the right to firearms and personal protection....but then, Scalia is no longer with us....when you know the facts it becomes very hard to ignore the word "Infringed" as used in the Second Amendment...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn6UJbDm2-c
 

·
Awesome
Joined
·
17,339 Posts
prefatory clause (states a purpose for the objective clause and has no actual meaning) "a well regulated (trained) militia (able bodies males of military age) being necessary to the security of a free state"

and the objective clause, where the meaning comes from "the right of the people (all US citizens) to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms (weapons) shall not be infringed"

it was written so the people could defend themselves from a tyranny, so granting politicians the authority to dictate what you can or cannot own for that purpose is kind of like letting criminals decide what the police can carry... so CLEARLY it was written so the government has ZERO authority to regulate even the slightest feature

though people like to tout antonin scalia as being some great constitutionalist, when he said the second amendment is not limitless he got that wrong, big time, because it very much is limitless given who its to protect us against.. its not only your right to disregard gun laws you deem unconstitutional, but also your duty
 

·
Retrofitted Sheeple
Joined
·
30,073 Posts
So you're saying that those dullards who wrote the constitution took "the people" and "citizens" to mean the same thing?
No, they didn't. The Second Amendment was patterned after a similar law in Britain that declared self-defense to be a natural right. In other words, the government of the United States is to acknowledge that everyone has a right to self-defense and are specifically forbidden from infringing on that right. It doesn't matter who or where. The only restriction is on our government.
 

·
Weed 'em and reap
Joined
·
30,972 Posts
Did you know that the federal government has no Constitutional authority over firearms? If you read the Constitution you will see that the federal government has limited authority and the extent of that authority is clearly defined. All other authority is left to the states.
Madison described the Second Amendment in his letters known as the Federalist Papers as a need by the states for its citizens to keep and bear arms in order to protect the states from a tyrannous federal government. It says nothing of personal protection.
The Second Amendment's first major assault was by the socialist regime of Roosevelt's New Deal in 1934 and then in 1938 where the Commerce Clause was used to attack that amendment in a move described by the Supreme Court as immoral means to an end not foreseen by the founding fathers. It was never an intent to use one law to attack another but Roosevelt and the socialist Democrats were intent on attacking the fabric of American and vastly enlarge the government.
If you didn't already know it, it was Roosevelt's close friend and adviser, Harry Hopkins who gave the Russians all the information to build their atomic bomb, not Klause Fuchs.
The first test of the new laws came in 1939 in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) where Miller transported a sawed-off shotgun over state lines. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction saying a sawed-off shotgun was not a contemporary weapon used by the military. Miller had been murdered before the case arrived in the Court and his lawyer could ill afford to attend the hearing where he could have argued that indeed a sawed-off shotgun was being used by the military of the day.
The implication of this case is that citizens are allowed to own military weapons but this decision has always been overlooked.
In 1968, LBJ pushed through the 1968 National Firearms Act which unconstitutionally handed the federal government the implied right to control firearms. In 1986 FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act) took away citizens right to own any machine gun made after 1986. Then there was the unconstitutional assault-weapons ban. Then there was D.C. vs Heller where, thanks to Scalia, the Supreme Court decided that Americans do have the right to firearms and personal protection....but then, Scalia is no longer with us....when you know the facts it becomes very hard to ignore the word "Infringed" as used in the Second Amendment...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn6UJbDm2-c
Holy Wall of Text, Batman!

That said, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, as the latitude to regulate that right was never delegated to the federal government, nor to the states. It is a mere notice to the federal government that it may not act to infringe upon that right, and a clarification that the sovereignty over that right which was partially held bybthe King devolved to the individual, not to the state.
 

·
Weed 'em and reap
Joined
·
30,972 Posts
prefatory clause (states a purpose for the objective clause and has no actual meaning) "a well regulated (trained) militia (able bodies males of military age) being necessary to the security of a free state"

and the objective clause, where the meaning comes from "the right of the people (all US citizens) to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms (weapons) shall not be infringed"

it was written so the people could defend themselves from a tyranny, so granting politicians the authority to dictate what you can or cannot own for that purpose is kind of like letting criminals decide what the police can carry... so CLEARLY it was written so the government has ZERO authority to regulate even the slightest feature

though people like to tout antonin scalia as being some great constitutionalist, when he said the second amendment is not limitless he got that wrong, big time, because it very much is limitless given who its to protect us against.. its not only your right to disregard gun laws you deem unconstitutional, but also your duty
He was also gravely wrong about the nonbinding nature of the prefatory clause. Without it, the operative clause is void of the commission upon the people to restrain a tyrannical government in arms. The Second Amendment exists to make sure that the militia (a term which means all of the armed forces, not just the make-believe whackadoos) remains "well regulated" (of sound mind and faithful disposition).
 

·
I have issues
Joined
·
2,507 Posts
As we have seen so many times. If the constitution does not specifically give power to the government to do, control certain things then they get the idea they might as well grant themselves that power. But then now the courts are starting to blatantly rule in direct violation of the constitution and until WE the people stand up and say enough they will continue
 

·
One day at a time ...
Joined
·
1,854 Posts
Could this be why they don't teach sentence diagramming any more? It makes it much easier to understand statements when used - without, the only understanding you have is what is told to you by some authority (parent, teacher, government etc). One requires critical thinking, the other demands no thinking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,562 Posts
The right to bear arms is part of English common law and is part of the right to defend oneself and loved ones. That means it exists with or without the government, the Constitution, or the Second.

Given that, it is illogical for the Second to serve only as a reminder that this right must not be infringed, as there are also references in the same sentence to a well regulated militia and a free State. Also, the Second is composed of only one sentence, not two. Those are not two independent clauses but connected to each other. What's the connection, then?

The natural right to bear arms refers to defending oneself and loved ones. Defending strangers is not part of it, and that's part of joining a militia.

Why well regulated? Because it has to be trained correctly.

What is the reference to a free state? That doesn't refer to each state but to the country. That's the scope of the Constitution.

Thus, this well regulated militia is supposed to serve the country, and the right to bear arms must not be infringed so that this militia can be formed. Where are the other references to this militia? They are in Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts. The first states that the militia will be supported by the federal government and will receive orders from it. The second forces male citizens of a certain age range and with few exceptions to bear arms and train in this militia.

Why the need for such a militia? During that time, various states had their own militias, and they were used for law enforcement, slave patrols, etc. In this case, the same or new militias were to be formed to support a small Continental Army in order to deal with four threats, if not more: European invaders, whites who rebel, Native Americans, and slave riots.

Finally, the right to bear arms, like other natural rights, may not be infringed but may be abridged for one reason or another. That's why there are gun control laws of varying degrees in various states. Those are all legal and do not violate the Second or the Constitution.

Thus, the Second is actually a form of gun control in the sense that it forces all male citizens of a certain age range to do military service. What the framers did was take the natural right to defend oneself and then use it to justify the need to defend one's country.

The Second has been abridged by subsequent Militia Acts and the draft, and has been made superfluous given the formation of the National Guard, the removal of the draft, and the implementation of a selective service system. However, the latter still makes it possible to bring back the draft. That's what makes the Second still relevant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,734 Posts
I know what the US Constitution says in the Common English it was written in.

I don't believe that any number of Black Robed Lawyers can change what it says

based on their Political Beliefs.

How much do I believe that? Enough to take an Oath to that was administered in 1967

that I have not rescinded my Oath to this Country or it's Constitution.

Jungle Work
 

·
Weed 'em and reap
Joined
·
30,972 Posts
The right to bear arms is part of English common law and is part of the right to defend oneself and loved ones. That means it exists with or without the government, the Constitution, or the Second.

Given that, it is illogical for the Second to serve only as a reminder that this right must not be infringed, as there are also references in the same sentence to a well regulated militia and a free State. Also, the Second is composed of only one sentence, not two. Those are not two independent clauses but connected to each other. What's the connection, then?

The natural right to bear arms refers to defending oneself and loved ones. Defending strangers is not part of it, and that's part of joining a militia.

Why well regulated? Because it has to be trained correctly.

What is the reference to a free state? That doesn't refer to each state but to the country. That's the scope of the Constitution.

Thus, this well regulated militia is supposed to serve the country, and the right to bear arms must not be infringed so that this militia can be formed. Where are the other references to this militia? They are in Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts. The first states that the militia will be supported by the federal government and will receive orders from it. The second forces male citizens of a certain age range and with few exceptions to bear arms and train in this militia.

Why the need for such a militia? During that time, various states had their own militias, and they were used for law enforcement, slave patrols, etc. In this case, the same or new militias were to be formed to support a small Continental Army in order to deal with four threats, if not more: European invaders, whites who rebel, Native Americans, and slave riots.

Finally, the right to bear arms, like other natural rights, may not be infringed but may be abridged for one reason or another. That's why there are gun control laws of varying degrees in various states. Those are all legal and do not violate the Second or the Constitution.

Thus, the Second is actually a form of gun control in the sense that it forces all male citizens of a certain age range to do military service. What the framers did was take the natural right to defend oneself and then use it to justify the need to defend one's country.

The Second has been abridged by subsequent Militia Acts and the draft, and has been made superfluous given the formation of the National Guard, the removal of the draft, and the implementation of a selective service system. However, the latter still makes it possible to bring back the draft. That's what makes the Second still relevant.
In order to understand the right to keep and bear arms in the English common law framework, one needs to look back to October 13, 1066. That was the last day on which the Law of King Edward, as the system of absolute rights was subsequently known, was in full force. The following day, William the Bastard (who later re-monikered himself "the Conqueror"), Duke of Normandy, defeated Harold Godwinson at Hastings, beginning over 1,000 years of tyranny.

William dispossessed 2,000 Anglo-Saxon earls of their estates and reapportioned the nation among fewer than 200 of his barons as tenants-in-chief. He instituted his own laws and courts by fiat, abolishing the common law. Over the next several centuries, the kings and the people were in constant opposition over the reinstitution of their rights. Henry promised to restore the Law of King Edward in 1100. John was forced to do the same at swordpoint in 1215. Charles was presented with the opportinity in 1628, but declined. The people lopped off his head over it, and forced the reinstitution in 1641. King Billy then magnanimously offered to be the lesser of two evils with his Bill of Rights in 1689.

In all of these situations, the crown suffered the people their rights only the extent that they could be forced to. To draw our understanding of the intent of the common law from these bastatdizations and half-measures is myopic at best.

But now look at the logical nullity of your reasoning: if the watered-down iteration of the common law were what the framers of the constitution intended, then there was no need to fight the Revolutuon, as that law was already in place.

With the Unanimous Declaration, sovereignty was vested in the people, individually, and exercised by them, directly, holding government to be a mere servant. This rather unique unbifurcation of sovereignty required a clarification, lest those in government begin to think that the sovereignty formerly resting with the crown devolved upon the government, not the peolple. It would be inconceivable to many, in light of the rather explicit nature of the mission statement in the Unanimous Declaration, but, thankfully, they prevailed in creating a Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment clarifies what happened to George III's sovereignty over the keeping and bearing of arms. Ever since the Assize of Arms in 1181, the crown's position had been that keeping and bearing arms was a duty to the state, not a right of the individual. King Billy tweaked that a bit in the Bill of Rights by clarifying that Protestants had the right to keep and bear arms against Papists, if and when he said so. In light of that restrictive philosophy, George III attempted to disarm some of the American colonists, which sparked the kerfuffle at Lexington and Concord.

Realizing that the people needed to retain the right to keep and bear arms in order to keep the government, and even the militia, honest (well-regulated), the framers of the Constitution included in the bilateral grammar of the Second Amendment the absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms, this in contrast to the jealous ban they emplaced against standing armies.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top