Found this...
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Found this...

This is a discussion on Found this... within the Politics forums, part of the Main Category category; I wanted to add it to my Signature, but it was too long. Good to have at hand, though... "' ...

  1. #1
    Ektarr's Avatar
    Ektarr is offline Dedicated Infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084

    Default Found this...

    I wanted to add it to my Signature, but it was too long. Good to have at hand, though...

    "'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 militia, 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."
    [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Middle TN
    Posts
    1,130

    Default

    Very nice. Thanks for sharing.
    David

    The only person available to protect you 24 hours a day is you.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Mid Michigan
    Posts
    2,590

    Default

    very well put. makes perfect sense to me
    You can have my freedom as soon as I'm done with it!!!

  4. #4
    Ektarr's Avatar
    Ektarr is offline Dedicated Infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084

    Default Great Logic!

    Found this also while perusing the 'net...
    _________________________________

    With the Supreme Court hearing District of Columbia v. Heller, many people are asserting that the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms is dependent upon judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    That is totally incorrect!

    The Second Amendment is a statement that the people’s Right to keep and bear arms, a Right that pre-existed the Constitution, can not be infringed in any way. The Amendment is a statement of the Supreme Law of the Land that no federal, state or local “law” may be enacted that will deprive the citizens of their Right to Keep and Bear arms.

    The Right to keep and bear arms is an Unalienable Right.

    The only argument required to substantiate this and to overrule all gun laws written anywhere in the United States is:
    1. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme Law of the Land.
    2. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a part of the supreme Law of the Land.
    3. The Congress and no state or lower jurisdiction may enact and/or enforce any law or
    ordinance that is contrary to the Constitution.
    4. Therefore, all laws written anywhere in the United States restricting the Right of the
    people to keep and bear Arms are unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.

    There is written authority in the Constitution for each statement above and the Courts of the United States have upheld each.

    I. The Constitution of the United States is the “supreme Law of the Land.”
    Authority: Article VI of the Constitution of the United States prescribes that the Constitution and the Laws of the United States written in accord with the Constitution are the supreme Law of the Land.

    II. The Second Amendment is a written part of the supreme Law of the Land. The Second Amendment and all the other Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution in 1791.

    III. The Congress and no state or lower jurisdiction may enact and/or enforce any law or ordinance that is contrary to the Constitution.
    Authority: Article VI of the Constitution of the United States also prescribes: That everything that the Constitution pertains to, including the Amendments, overrules all state constitutions, laws, and ordinances and all lower jurisdictions’ laws and ordinances that are contrary to this “Law of the Land.”
    Authority: Amendment 14 of the Constitution of the United States prescribes: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”
    Court Upheld: U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay wrote on Monday, 21 May 2007, that an Anti-Immigrant Law passed by the community of Farmers Branch, Texas, is invalid and writes that the community can not “pass an ordinance that conflicts with federal law." citing the Supremacy Clause of The Constitution of the United States as the grounds. Further, U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay wrote: "The court recognizes that illegal immigration is a major problem in this country, and one who asserts otherwise ignores reality" "The court also fully understands the frustration of cities attempting to address a national problem that the federal government should handle; however, such frustration, no matter how great, cannot serve as a basis to pass an ordinance that conflicts with federal law."
    Court Upheld: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)
    All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. ?amp;quot;
    Court Upheld: [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] 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 militia, 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.
    Court Upheld: U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 591-592 (1875). The United States Supreme Court has stated that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not constitutional in nature, but a right that ensures the citizens because it existed before the Constitution. Instead, the 2nd Amendment exists to restrict the Congress from infringing this right. The U.S. Supreme Court said in Cruikshank v. U.S. (1876) that the Second Amendment protects a right which existed even before the Constitution was written. The right to arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that the Right shall not be infringed."

    Therefore, as specified in the Constitution of the United States and upheld by the Courts, All gun laws written anywhere in the United States restricting the right of the people to keep and bear Arms are null and void.

    Some will continue to argue that all statutes and ordinances written regarding gun control are valid and the law of the land.

    A general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. This is not true. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement with the Constitution. Any statute not in agreement with the Constitution is unconstitutional. An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void.

    An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.
    Court Upheld: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176

    In summary, all laws written anywhere in the United States that restrict the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms are contrary to the Second Amendment and, therefore, unconstitutional and null and void.

    The only problem with proving that all laws pertaining to the people’s Right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional is that the federal, state and lower jurisdictions will never accept this proof. All government wants control of the people and the best way to control the people is to ensure they are not armed. If this were not true, there would be no laws written to infringe on the people’s Right; there would be no agencies enforcing the unconstitutional laws; no court would need to hear any case regarding the Second Amendment and all laws restricting the Right to keep and bear arms would be stricken from the record.

    Jerry, Socialist Republic of MarylandApr 08, 2008 @ 01:19 AM
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow View Post
    very well put. makes perfect sense to me
    Well put Scarecrow. nothing more to add.
    "Victory at all cost Victory in spite of all terror. Victory no matter how long and how hard the road may be; for without Victory there is no survival."
    (Winston Churchill)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cape Cod
    Posts
    587

    Default unalienable right

    Well put! I can't wait for the Supreme Court's decision on DC v Heller in June!!!

    Surfcc

  7. #7
    gvaldeg1's Avatar
    gvaldeg1 is offline NRA Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chandler
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    Found this also while perusing the 'net...
    _________________________________
    This is so right. I keep telling people that the 2nd Amendment only protects a fundamental right from infringement and I get treated like a pariah. I firmly contend that there's nothing wrong with the assertion that the RKBA is fundamental and not "granted" by the 2nd Amendment.
    MOLON LABE

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,857

    Default

    The 2nd amendment like all the rest of the Bill of Rights does not give us any rights but is there to keep the government from encroaching on our preexisting God given rights. I guess most of our politicians have not read the Declaration of Independence or could it be they know the truth but have an agenda that needs an unarmed citizenry.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Southeast Texas
    Posts
    357

    Default

    You know,I want to say something about the SPOTUS's decision in the DC vs Heller case and I am sure that you all thing alike.I honestly hope that the SC shows some sense and sides with the people on this.And if they do,it will make things easier for all of us who love liberty.But what if they don't?Will it be any less valid?Personally,I am still going to keep my weapons.Laws are made by men and women.People,just like us.If the Supreme court decides that a law is not in favor of you,does that make it true?Or right?If congress makes a law that says the state can come into your house uninvited,rape your daughter and wife,forcibly take your son to serve in the state police,and arrest you if you complain and the supreme court says that you have to comply,does that make it right?
    That's all I'm saying.Some things are too simple to need 'clarification'by th SC.And rights are not given by the government at any level.There needs to be accountability of those who make laws,interpret laws,and enforce laws.And these laws must apply to ALL,including,and especially those who make,interpret,and enforce them.And,about the 'interpret' part.The laws should not need interpreting.They should be worded simply enough so that people can understand them.
    Give everybody guns.
    Natural selection will cull out the idiots.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •