One set of laws applicable to all.
It’ll never work.
“…shall NOT be infringed…” What is so ‘effing hard to understand about this?
Anything short of nuclear weapons are our “personal property.” Mini-guns, bazookas, cannon. Bought and paid for by the sweat of our brows. Owned. MY SHIT!
Webs of illegal, contradictory, and licensing nets and hurdles should be swept away from the rafters to the basement.
Pingback: Interesting Site of the Week….and Christmas is Coming!!! | The Defensive Training Group
Pingback: Diplomatic Carry | Whiskey Tango Texas
Reblogged this on FOR GOD AND COUNTRY.
“Anything short of nuclear weapons are our “personal property.” ”
Um, you just infringed it.
Ping back? I’m in agreement with the article. Everyone should be able to make the choice to carry/ not carry. Not the govts job to approve/not approve.
One caveat, I do not support felons having the right/privilege of
possession or carrying any weapon. Their are exceptions to my caveat also.
Not all felons are criminals, some were truly in the wrong spot, at the right time. I’ve known dozens of people who bear that cross.
By job definition and retired laws, I’m in that special rules group. Ain’t no thing. I rarely carry after 25 years, I don’t want the responsibility of protecting anybody but me/mine.
A society armed w/personal full automatic weapons IS
a polite society.
The dropping of nuclear weapons into this discussion is pointless. The maintenance requirements and other issues that are entailed are an effective ban to private ownership. It is reductio ad absurdum. A realistic discussion of the concept necessitates that the realm of the realistic be hewed to.
I believe there are a number of people in the US who could afford to “own” a nuke, if they were allowed to do so and if they wanted to. I suspect most of them are people you would not want to have a nuke.
I could think of a few who could at least keep one maintained, none of which I want having them. Not that I support limitation, but there is a legitimate line of thought there about the social dynamics if Zuckerberg, Dimon, Soros and similar ilk had a private army and even a small yield tactical nuke. There are those who think the next progression of government goes from nation states to corporate states and I could see such a thing happening in that case. It’s an interesting thought experiment in any case. Technology is a blessing and a curse, I wish we had the sense to go back to a more agrarian and far more sustainable way of living but that’s right up there with the Great Kumbaya.
I love all the foreign languages spoken around here. Sadly I only speak AMERICAN.
That the fact your arms are your property are the first thing. Nothing else is required.
That as Freemen, we don’t require permission in any way. That is the second thing.
That I don’t give a wit about laws man made, that those laws, any laws rules or regulations usurp my primal rights. doesn’t matter. That is the third thing, that the moment I choose to violate that diktat, I am totally free.
We don’t need laws or anything, all we need is for us to choose that freedom and live with it.
As long as we as men allow ourselves to be effected in our actions by such artificial manufactured administrative tyranny, those “laws” have the power to control us as intended.
It is like the saying: “The only good government is No government”
The reason we have gun control “laws”, is because we go along with them.
That right there is the psychological brainwashing and hump in thinking we all will have to get over and then turn our backs on if we are to be total Freemen. Nothing else will do that, even our arms.
because you can have a shootout with a thousand fed thugs come after your guns, kill every one of them single handed, just saying, and if you are still thinking you need a “law” to make a primal right legal, well your still living in tyranny, because you think those “laws” have power over you, when all along it is the power you give those “laws”, even tacitly, that give them power over you to begin with.
They are not, never will be, no matter how twisted the circular logic they represent, be law natural and abiding to the primal freedom you are naturally born with.
You got to ask yourself, which came first in the great scheme of things. Understand that, accept it for the unalienable truth it is, and you have and become manifest your sovereignty, your freedom and liberty.
And that is why our guns, our property, is so dangerous, because our will, our liberty, our guns, they are dangerous, that is why these things are constantly under assault, by those, and their interests, who these things are dangerous to.
Gun laws are the gateway to tyranny.
Gun control is mind control is control of primal rights is tyranny.
Please, just let me have a WWII-clone M-1 .30 cal carbine with as many round clips as I can afford (shot one when I was a kid and adored it) and a Thomson here in CA (A man can dream, can’t he?) just to stick it to Gov. Moonbeam, the faggots in SF, all of our Mexicans, our incoming muzloids and our fucking coastal elites.
Oh, and a pump 20 gauge with a really, really short barrel for, you know, home defense (since I’m getting up there in years and don’t know if I could handle a 12).
I promise to only use them when absolutely necessary.
No, because as Scalia explained, “bear” means “carry with you.” Can’t carry a nuke. But absolutely modern AR-15s, etc are obviously protected.
b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—”the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, & c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, § 6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed.1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 849, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35-36, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, 2792*2792 prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
The left’s war on the Second Amendment is occurring in several cases that do not make the front page — or even the back page — news. For example, in Friedman v. City of Highland Park, ___ S. Ct. ___, No. 15-133 (Dec. 7, 2015), just a few days after the San Bernardino shooting, on a day that President Obama announced new “gun control” measures, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert in a gun grab case in which the municipality and lower courts blatantly ignored Heller‘s clear holdings. Thankfully, Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented from the denial of cert and wrote a passionate opinion, which provides additional ammunition with which the friends of the Constitution can wage the legal battle going forward.
As Justices Scalia and Thomas observed:
“[O]ur central holding in” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), was “that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald, we recognized that the Second Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750; id., at 805 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
Despite these holdings, noted Justices Scalia and Thomas, several Courts of Appeals— including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision at issue—have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. Justices Scalia and Thomas would have granted cert “Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents.”
The facts of the case are shocking. As the dissenting Justices observed:
The City of Highland Park, Illinois, bans manufacturing, selling, giving, lending, acquiring, or possessing many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic firearms, which the City branded “Assault Weapons.” See Highland Park, Ill., City Code §§136.001(C), 136.005 (2015), App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a, 71a. For instance, the ordinance criminalizes modern sporting rifles (e.g., AR-style semiautomatic rifles), which many Americans own for lawful purposes like self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. The City also prohibited “Large Capacity Magazines,” a term the City used to refer to nearly all ammunition feeding devices that “accept more than ten rounds.” §136.001(G), id., at 70a.
The City gave anyone who legally possessed “an Assault Weapon or Large Capacity Magazine” 60 days to move these items outside city limits, disable them, or surrender them for destruction. §136.020, id., at 73a. Anyone who violates the ordinance can be imprisoned for up to six months, fined up to $1,000, or both. §136.999, id., at 74a.
This ordinance does not even pretend to comply with due process or other requirements of the constitution by providing any compensation. It’s worse than a mandatory “gun buy back” program in which at least citizens would receive some payment for surrender of their property that was legal when purchased. Setting aside the issue of “gun control,” it’s a simple deprivation of property without any compensation or due process.
The petitioners in Friedman—a Highland Park resident who sought to keep now-prohibited firearms and magazines to defend his home, and an advocacy organization—brought a suit to enjoin the ordinance on the ground that it violates the Second Amendment. The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to the City.
A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The panel majority acknowledged that the prohibited weapons “can be beneficial for self-defense because they are lighter than many rifles and less dangerous per shot than larger-caliber pistols or revolvers,” and thus “householders too frightened or infirm to aim carefully may be able to wield them more effectively.” 784 F. 3d, at 411.
The majority nonetheless found no constitutional problem with the ordinance. It recognized that Heller “holds that a law banning the possession of handguns in the home . . . violates” the Second Amendment. 784 F. 3d, at 407. But beyond Heller‘s rejection of banning handguns in the home, the majority believed, Heller and McDonald “leave matters open” on the scope of the Second Amendment. 784 F. 3d, at 412. The majority thus adopted a new test for gauging the constitutionality of bans on firearms: “[W]e [will] ask whether a regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification or those that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, . . . and whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense.” Id., at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Beginning their analysis, Justices Scalia and Thomas noted:
The Second Amendment provides: “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.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767-769. We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted).
Heller could not have been more clear in this regard. Justices Scalia and Thomas chastised the Seventh Circuit for its refusal to adhere to the law and the requirement that the U.S. Supreme Court is a superior court:
Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635. We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634-635.
Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. It is interesting to note that when a local county clerk refused to implement the Supreme Court’s decision on “same-sex marriage,” she was thrown into prison. And when the Christian owners of a cake-baking small business did not want to be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, they were harassed and threatened at the national level, including even tweets by Hillary Clinton, despite obvious 1st and 13th Amendment issues.
It is also interesting to note that liberal judges do not want to leave decisions to the political process — letting the people in each locality and state decide, using democracy — when it comes to “same-sex marriage,” even though it is incontrovertible that the Second Amendment expressly mandates that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed,” but the Bill of Rights says nothing about contraceptives, abortion, marriage, a vague “right of privacy,” or a “substantive due process” that gives courts the power to overrule the will of the people and create law to push a leftist agenda. Of course, as the liberal Justices themselves observed just two terms ago, the area of family law is handled at the state level. Every person who has been to divorce court knows that one files her divorce action — and other family law actions — in the local state court.
In Friedman, Justices Scalia and Thomas noted that the lower court the court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410. But the U.S. Supreme Court said in Heller that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid. But that, observed Justices Scalia and Thomas, ignores Heller’s fundamental premise:
The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627-629. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether law abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “[i]f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives house-holders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis, as Justices Scalia and Thomas observed, misreads Heller:
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627-629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624-625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767-768; Heller, supra, at 628-629.
The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411-412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—”are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409. Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412. Heller, however,
. . . forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding `interest-balancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.
The dissenting Justices also pointed out a few obvious facts that would cause the Court’s liberal Justices to feel embarrassed if they had a conscious:
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. E.g., Maryland v. Kulbicki, ante, at 1 (per curiam) (summarily reversing because the court below applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), “in name only”); Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U. S. ___ (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing a judgment inconsistent with this Court’s recent Fourth Amendment precedents); Martinez v. Illinois, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (per curiam) (slip op., at 10) (summarily reversing judgment that rested on an “understandable” double jeopardy holding that nonetheless “r[an] directly counter to our precedents”).
Justices Scalia and Thomas concluded:
There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.
To any American citizen who is paying attention, cases like Friedman, and the fact that the Court could not even muster enough Justices to pass the rule-of-four test for granting cert even before Justice Scalia died, is scary.
(This was written 11 months prior to our recent election.)
Is it right for “officials” to maintain the right to keep and bear,
when we the people, their employers, cannot?
The answer to this question is obviously NO!!!!!
I prefer Sovereign Carry.
For anyone, everyone.
Including former “felons”.
Who may have attained that status by carrying without officious permission.
The second amendment reaffirms our natural right, under God. There are NO persons, governments, laws, or special privileges that can change this fact. Oh-“they” can try. The special assholes no longer argue with me over why a Senator/Legislature/Monkey Wrench-ee “needs” a weapon to protect his or her special class of tomfoolery. Needs are speculative to the needy. Rights under God are irrevocable.
Yeah buddy! Here behind enemy lines in the sanctuary state of MD, only criminals, lawyers, police, judges and those who’ve had a documented (reported and investigated by the MD state police) threat against their lives can get a CCW permit. No others need even ask. There is a 5 day mandatory wait to buy a handgun or….gasp!!!….and AR15 type weapon and that is AFTER you get the HQL (Handgun qualification license) that takes weeks, criminal background check, fingerprinted, registered at a website….and coughed up couple hundred bucks.
Get caught carrying in this friggen state and you WILL go to jail.
Shall not be infringed? Tell that to the cocksuckers in Annapolis!
Lest we forget it was the glorious Reagan who gave us the MG ban.
I realize you probably can’t but get the hell out of there. That said I used to live in NoVa and there are some really rural parts of MD where I suspect things are not as buttoned up as the beltway. MD always gave me the heeby jeebies even 10 years ago, esp Bodymore Murderland.
ITOR,THATS, what makes America exceptional. We can agree to disagree. No harm, no foul.
Their are Felons among us who will never join society. Their the ones who think my shits theirs, I have met some evil evil mother fuckers in my time. They should be out of the pen, about the fifth of NEVER!
Thems be a lot of words there. Too many for my likin. And the funny thing? The majority didn’t have to say any to get their point across.
Sure appears to me there the FUSA is currently a hybrid Corporate/State. What with the administrative tyranny that sends it’s agents to eat out the peoples existence, the proceeds of which are greedily consumed to support ever more administrative tyranny and increase it tyrannical power.
Got to ask, whats the difference?
Besides, isn’t that unholy axis of power, it’s repudiation and clear withdrawal of consent for it by us dirt people, the very reason Donald Trump is reviled and such dark plans are set against him and who he represents?
“Can’t carry a nuke”
“Can’t carry a nuke”
As I asked before, do you really think you’re Henry Bowman/Unintended Consequences or is that actually your real name?
He defied the law at every turn and here you do nothing but tell us of all the nasty laws you have to supposedly obey. All the CWC permits you have to jump thru the hoops and bend over for so you can “legally” carry, something you seem to brag about. “Look at me, look at me, I got a gun permit!!!”
In reality, I hope you’re half the man Henry was.
The majority of gun owners in this country do not understand what it means to actually be free; to carry anywhere they wish, to walk around the grocery store or sit in a restaurant and have a pistol at their hip, or carry several black rifles in a pickup truck window rack. So being ubercompliant is second nature to most of them, they don’t understand weapons carry is not like sneaking a porn mag into the high school locker room and showing it off to the guys. Many do not have the mindset to just do as they please and fuck what the law says. Many will rat you out if they see a gun. Most will never have any hope of being free with that attitude, they’re slaves to the system because they can’t think outside the box they keep themselves in.
I have carried a weapon in public since I was 11, and have always stood up for myself in that regard. I have a hard time understanding this childish request to beg and grovel for permission. But then again, I’ve spent almost my entire life living in the western states that did not deny us our basic rights of self defense and open carry. It was a non-issue here.
If you can’t defy the law today, how can you break it when you need to?
“Oh fireworks!” Yes! I’d say a grand Christmas present! Forget the fireworks, get the range finders and infrared out now. 19th December approaches….but I’ll bet they extend the electoral college vote until January, they have dastardly ideology like that!
Well said . Many here in NY have already crossed that bridge.
“In this country, the people are the sovereigns and government is the servant.”
Utter rot. It amazes me that some people still believe it. Yeah, maybe it would be nice if it was like that. I’d like it if unicorns existed as well. But I don’t include them in my day-to-day plans or calculations. No servant would ever act as government does, and expect to remain employed.
Back in old days, those dead old white guys would have laughed in their faces. If push had come to shove, someone was going to get shot.
Does anyone see the problem we have today?
The above is obviously why Scalia inhaled a pillow.
politicians/legislators = parasitic thugs
laws = threats and demands made by above mentioned thugs
lawmaking = parasitic thugs making shit up as they go
taxes = extortion (aka carjacking, mugging,..see THEFT)
law abiding taxpayer = mentally hypnotized victim believing in the
superstition of gov (see below entry)..will tacitly allow self-victimization
by 1st mentioned group
legitimate government = a non existent entity superstitiously believed
in by both the 1st mentioned group and their enablers, orc enforcers
and most ‘law abiding taxpayers/sacrificial victims/human grocery bags’.
Arms bearing and possession DOES NOT require any ‘permission/licensing’
from ANYONE..that also includes possession of man portable small – medium yield tactical nukes.
“Weapons permits?!…we don need no stink’n weapons permits here!!!”
Go Forth and Be Free and Armed!
Yours In Daily Armed Liberty!
That’s why I left 10+ years ago. KY is so much nicer
I won’t drift into your other claims Publius, but have nuke, will travel is real. http://www.nationalterroralert.com/suitcasenuke/ Think of the safety in a nuclear foot ottoman. You would be just like any nuclear armed State — Don’t screw with me. (I kid about the last part, but probably true. )
The government derived it’s power from our consent. Just as we cannot grant a power we ourselves do not have,such as legal theft. We cannot therefore grant the government the power to hold weapons that we ourselves do not have the power to hold. No matter what the level of destruction they represent. The MEANS to hold them is another thing entirely as is the ability to use them without infringing the right of others.
Not even felons who have served their time ?
I got tossed from the jury for asking about the right of the former felon woman who had served her time but was on trial for having a pistol to protect herself from her psycho boyfriend.
To quote a smart person “If they are too dangerous to have a gun, they’re too dangerous to be let out in public.”
These are questions to be asked of the other Jurors during deliberation. Frequently, the other jurors have not thought of this, and if the behavior was proper (mere possession) otherwise, can result in a Not Guilty verdict without the stigma of “jury tampering”. She won’t probably get the pistol back (cops love used pistols!), but will go free.
That, and he was likely to rule exactly the same in the next case, and the next one, and the next one, and…and…and…
“(This) government derive(s) it’s power from our consent. Just as we cannot grant a power we ourselves do not have,such as legal theft. We cannot therefore grant the government the power to hold weapons that we ourselves do not have the power to hold.”
Fixed it a little…and yes…absolutely correct…we cannot grant a power to government that we ourselves do not have…and that includes a whole lot of things…not just pertaining to the possession of firearms. When you think about it…THIS government has presumed a whole lot of powers…presumably with “our consent” since we have not stormed the gates, demanding retribution…so it holds that we have a whole lot of powers that we have not quite yet realized…and when we do…the scales will fall from a lot of eyes.
If’n a feller is safe enough to be let walk free, I reckin he’s okay with a gun as well. The trick is to not let dangerous felons out until they are okay to be free.
I do try to be diplomatic in my dealings with others, right up to the point where it ceases to be reasonable to do so. I’m as peaceable as the next guy will let me be.
Then I go first.
“No, because as Scalia explained, “bear” means “carry with you.” Can’t carry a nuke. ”
The T-1 and T-4 nukes weighed about 150-200 pounds. They definitely could be carried, and they weren’t even the lightest available. Some others were in the 50-70 pound range. Granted, employing one wouldn’t exactly be conducive to one’s own health, but that doesn’t change the fact that they could be carried.
Did you forget about the *keep* part?
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,653 other followers