If They Come for Your Guns, Is it Your Responsibility to FIGHT?
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: If They Come for Your Guns, Is it Your Responsibility to FIGHT?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    ARIZONA-a short distance from the sun
    Posts
    9,661

    If They Come for Your Guns, Is it Your Responsibility to FIGHT?

    If the WATCHMAN sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the trumpet and warns the people, then if anyone who hears the sound of the trumpet does not take warning, and the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. But if the WATCHMAN sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the WATCHMAN'S hand".



    Considering things we see transpiring as of late there can't be much argument that we are faced with a culture seemingly gone mad. When these insane dictators come for your guns, you have to make a choice.

    If They Come for Your Guns, Is it Your Responsibility to FIGHT?

    COMFORT ONE ANOTHER WITH THESE WORDS ALSO...THERE WILL NOT BE ANOTHER GENERATION
    ~ The Fig Tree Prophecy -1948 -2028 ~

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    If the WATCHMAN sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the trumpet and warns the people, then if anyone who hears the sound of the trumpet does not take warning, and the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. But if the WATCHMAN sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the WATCHMAN'S hand".



    Considering things we see transpiring as of late there can't be much argument that we are faced with a culture seemingly gone mad. When these insane dictators come for your guns, you have to make a choice.

    If They Come for Your Guns, Is it Your Responsibility to FIGHT?


    When I saw this thread I knew I wanted to be a part of this board. I'm dismayed that nobody else commented as this is the most pressing issue we have before us today. Trump's tirades against John McCain, the antics of clowns like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the wall, and whatever is happening in Hollyweird cannot compare to this issue. So, let me wade into this and see if there is ANY way to give this thread new life.

    First, let us review a few things here. The Declaration of Independence states:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (Emphasis mine, of course)

    This country was built on the presupposition that your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) bestowed upon you Rights that are unalienable - meaning above the laws of man. Among those were the Right to Life. The main reason that the anti-federalists demanded the Bill of Rights was that they were afraid that the new government would use the Constitution (which replaced the Articles of Confederation) to limit the Rights of the individual citizen and of the states.

    In short, the Declaration of Independence created a foundation for the principles upon which our Republic rests. The Declaration was the promise and the Constitution was the fulfillment with the Bill of Rights being both a guarantee to secure the Rights and limit the powers of government. In the earliest court rulings from the states, the Right to keep and bear Arms was consistently interpreted the same way. It wasn't like we had divisions in the state as to what the Right entails. I'd like to give you the three earliest rulings by states:

    "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, Ky.)

    A few years later, Georgia ruled on the meaning of the Second Amendment:

    “The right of the people to 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, 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, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

    In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:


    "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."
    -Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

    Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

    “The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

    ..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"
    . United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

    There it is in plain black and white. The Right to keep and bear Arms is not a right (sic) granted by the Constitution. Yet it exists. It is absolute. It is above the law making power. It is an extension of the Right to Life which is why it is mentioned in the Second Amendment. And no matter how many pundits claim the Second Amendment means this or that, in plain English, the Second Amendment already presumes the Right existed; it was guaranteed because of the importance in securing a free state.

    Subsequent interpretations and RE-interpretations have changed the meaning of the Second Amendment 180 degrees of what was intended. I submit to you that the courts over-stepped their authority because they are only authorized to interpret the law. When the courts - primarily the United States Supreme Court reinterprets their own decisions, it is called legislating from the bench. THAT is dangerous and unconstitutional. There is so much more I'd like to say here. But, based on my initial posting (and hopefully we will discuss this) you have a Right, a duty and the responsibility to fight in defense of the Right to keep and bear Arms, but it will take a few more postings like this to fully state my case... IF you're interested.

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
  •  
Quantcast