Well, there are many bad gun laws, and it’s hard to pick out the worst one. But it’s seems true that the recent surrender on the assault weapons ban by the anti-gunners is a misdirect. It isn’t what they’re really interested in. This is what they really want.
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it. The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.
10 comments:
These aholes are never anti gun they are anti normal non-elitist people having guns. All these people clammoring for gun control enjoy private security details armed with guns. I might have an ounce of respect for the elites calling for gun control if they were hippies who wanted all guns destroyed includding for their own protection but that is never the case.
These people dont get it. Some of us will never disarm. period. end of story. Life is starting to get crappy. Suicides are up. Life savings are lost. People who do have jobs have to work longer and harder for less pay. The elites think that threatening the masses with imprisonment and death will ensure compliance. 97% of the time, probbaly. 3% of the time, though.... Some of us are ready to face that possiblity.
In other words, we need a TARGET.
Uh, how about NO! No registry. I will not comply. Now whatcha gonna do?
Uh Duh! Day fooled me with the registration thing. I never would have thunk they'd use that to confiscate my guns...Do they think we are as stupid as them? I mean, really? Anyone in NY registering gets what they deserve. Especially at this late stage of the game when they have obviously shown us their hand..
A "gun owner registry" is the next step before complete confiscation, which is then followed by democide - death of the people by the people who "serve" (and I do use that term lightly) within our governments.
It is TREASON because those who serve within our governments were never given the authority to mess with the Bill Of Rights which PROTECTS OUR NATURAL RIGHTS BY FORBIDDING THOSE WHO SERVE WITHIN GOVERNMENT from any actions concerning them.
Those who serve within the general (federal) government the federal government are limited to what crimes fall under their jurisdiction (in the US Constitution), they are: Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting, and International law violations.
Alexander Hamilton: "Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
James Madison: "Because if . . . [An Unalienable Natural Right of Free Men] . . . be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: It is limited with regard to the coordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires, not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained: but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the greater Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are Slaves..."
Judge Thomas Cooley: "Legislators have their authority measured by the Constitution, they are chosen to do what it permits, and NOTHING MORE, and they take solemn oath to obey and support it. . . To pass an act when they are in doubt whether it does or does not violate the Constitution is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume."
Madison said: "That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people. That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right of acquiring property, and generally of pursing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution."
Madison, Fed 39: "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." (It was established)
(con't)
(con't) Alexander Hamilton, New York convention: “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this - that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding”.
Federalist #33, Hamilton additionally pointed out: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution….”.
Thomas McKean, Pennsylvania convention: “The meaning [of the Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states”.
James Iredell, 1st North Carolina convention: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”
It is important to know what those who serve within our government is ALLOWED TO DO, and more importantly, what they are NOT ALLOWED TO DO.
28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court Judge, wrote of the Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.” (The Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases, in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era.)
Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. . . . If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.
(con't)
(con't) William Rawle: “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people...”
Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court: ... "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. ... The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers... The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.
Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves... Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Joel Barlow, Revolutionary War veteran about the Constitution: "… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”
The New Hampshire ratifiers called for a guarantee (the Second Amendment) that: Congress shall never disarm any Citizen...”.
Bliss v. Commonwealth: “Arms restrictions - even concealed weapons bans - are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.”
Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful 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 the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”
Nunn vs. State:'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.
John Norton Pomeroy: The object of this clause [the right of the people to keep and bear arms] is to secure a well-armed militia.... But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms."
Those who serve within our governments were NEVER given the authority to confiscate, limit, or modify the 2nd - EVER.
State Gazette (Charleston): No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.
It is treason and terrorism against the USA and its people by those who serve, served within our governments.
ANON: Sep. 16 10:20 But they DO "get it" They just think that YOU and EVERYONE like you are peasants, with minds only a little above that of animals. Unworthy of life unless you are in service to them. While they on the other hand believe that they are living gods who DESERVE to "live forever" right here on earth with servants, and of coarse --worshipers. Like the god kings of old; They do "get it"; They just hope we don't until AFTER they "thin the herd" down to levels that they can "manage". That's what is starting now; "herd management". If people wake up in time it's the French Revolution. If not it's Hitler's Germany, complete with a train set. But the "time to get up and smell the coffee" is all but passed.
And the day they pass a registry is the day that good men & women will go out and kill every last bitch and bastard who has lusted to take our guns. Not all will do the necessary work, but some of us will. As long as those people are supported and not betrayed by spineless prags, we will have our liberty back in short order!
Adolph, is that you?
Post a Comment