Posts
Why is it so hard for American Lawmakers to understand that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of independance speaks for itself clearly? What has to be defined really in the Constitution? Doesn't it plainly speak for itself very clearly as to what is inquired and how it was written for all to understand? As I read the Constitution to understand when I research it, It speaks loud and clear to what is meant in each article of our Amendments and common law our Forefathers "BODY" agreed upon. What needs to be interpreted? Sir William Blackstone (originally pronounced Blexstun) (10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780) whose ideas the Constitution and Common law are derived from are very simple understanding of rights of Freemen equally and their right to own property and protect their families etc.bearing arms if necessary. It is understood plainly. Blackstone's exhaustive work helped design what our forefathers dreamed and made possible so for interpretation all one has to do is read about individual rights of protection in his Commentaries of English Common Law. Here is the LINK:http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/blacksto.htm.
Look at how easy it is to understand law as it is written. There is much there to read but it seems to be plain and clear.
The Second amendment is as well designed and plainly instructive for United State Citizens to go against a CORRUPT Tyrannical beast that is devouring the freedoms of the right to Moral freedoms, useless taxation's, foreign and private entities such as the IRS, UN and the Federal Reserve, NWO freedom poachers to unite US to Global governance or a one world order type George Orwell, H.G. Wells, Jules Vern and Bible prophecy pessimists system to control the masses, take away Property ownership and classify humans as numbers to their destruction while they sit FAT and well fed while society around them crumbles with out a care in the world while these Power hungry madmen run the show even fighting against each other for world dominance. Our Constitution, Bill of Rights are what all these guidelines were written for to Keep America Free from Tyranny and or Corporate madmen who want to run this country secretly as we witness today correct?.
Now getting to the heart of this article I read a recent article (BELOW) about the Second Amendment once again being in court and possibly the Supreme court eventually and the RIGHT to Citizens to BEAR ARMS which is our God Given Right is up in our faces again in court about to its exact meaning and needs to be what interpreted?. Since in my opinion Power-mongers want to rid our country of our individual rights truthfully and create a Socialized System comparable to the Europe Economical Community called the North American Union with Canada and Mexico and whoever else, the Second Amendment would be the first thing Power Mongers would attack and RID the US of desperately so a Governed Police politicalized federal state or how about the simple explanation of a sub-tyrannical socialized Government hypocritically disguised as a free society could slither into control venomously poisoning our individual Moral Rights away drastically so the few, the proud, the tyranny could be a reality to those who want godhood status now . Since Americans are letting this happen and not really caring and buying into all the propaganda and the tickling eared lies this may be a reality in the future near you. WE ARE JUST GIVING OUR BLOODSTAINED COUNTRY AWAY TO THEM. And if the Second Amendment is abolished completely and not allowed to be in FULL effect since right now it is regulated, we will be doomed and that is FACT. REMEMBER HISTORY IN GERMANY LET SAY IN THE 20TH CENTURY WITH THE NAZI REGIME?
How about before with the TYRANNY OF KING GEORGE?
Here is a sample to refresh your memory AMERICAN:
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;
For imposing taxes on us without our consent;
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;
For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
Declaration of independence July 4, 1776
So could we agree the Declaration of Independence is also the forerunner of the proving Second Amendment too?
What is not to know about it and why waste tax payer money to understand it. It speaks for itself.
The Second amendment is a proven deterioration of Crime if Citizens who hold to moral value seriously and are armed in their homes, on their person etc whether it is a handgun or a Bazooka. Most crimes would happen less if a whole Free society is armed and protectively dangerous to Criminals, Cult like freaks and the Insane. How many times do we have to say it: GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. The Second Amendment has been threatened because of some ill-advised persons not raised by God fearing parents who held no taught moral values or is just plain wicked used illegal arms or legal arms to do their personal unnecessary evil and most of America has to pay for their personal crimes. So what does the Government do? Of course march with glee to restrict Citizens their God given Rights because of evil in a few individuals whose rebellious nature chose to do another person harm even to death. And look at what happened and is happening because of these Government restrictions and regulations and out right banning. How many car chases, murders, Child molestation's, rape, robbery, go on because citizens are not armed. We are supposed to all be on watch if we want to remain a free society to which we do not really live in true freedom today. Freedom today is like the how the Constitution is treated, they are both interpreted and interpreted immorally by lawmakers who are bought and paid for and who share in ending American Rights to fulfill their vision of Global governance. The Second Amendment is their target firstly correct? and any rights that get in their way. Are you going to WATCH or are you just going to ignore and live in Dull CARE American?
Richard White (C)Nov 28 2007
Article Below:
US Supreme Court agrees to review handgun ban
Posted: 21 November 2007 0307 hrs
WASHINGTON : The US Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed for the first time in 70 years to review the right to own guns, as it considers whether the city of Washington can ban private handguns, a court spokeswoman told AFP.
The high court agreed to review an appeal by the city insisting its three-decade ban on handguns is constitutional, said court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg.
Arguments are expected between February and April with a ruling at the end of June, just a few months before the November 2008 presidential election.
The US capital, plagued by chronic violence in many of its poorest neighbourhoods, took the case to the nine Supreme Court judges seeking to maintain the prohibition on individuals owning handguns.
Washington, which is also home to the president and the government, has interpreted the constitution's disputed second amendment, the right to bear arms, to mean that there is a collective right for those who are part of a police force or security force to bear arms.
Since 1976 it has banned residents from carrying handguns, but they are allowed to keep a rifle or hunting gun in their homes, providing it is under lock and not loaded. The ban remains in place until the US high court issues a ruling in the case.
For millions of Americans however - and especially the powerful gun lobby represented by the National Rifle Association - the second amendment guarantees the right of every American citizen to own any gun, with few limits.
The amendment declares that: "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."
In 2003, Washington resident Dick Heller, who lives in one of the city's tougher neighbourhoods, lodged a suit against the local authorities saying his constitutional right to bear arms was being violated. Although his case was initially rejected, he won on appeal to a federal appeals court in March.
Washington officials in turn then lodged a case with the Supreme Court in September insisting that it must rule on the extent of access to handguns, the weapon of choice in two-thirds of robberies and assaults.
Handguns are used in half of the 15,000 murders across the country every year, according to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigations.
"Faced with the evidence that handguns pose a particularly serious threat to public safety, the council chose to ban handguns because it concluded that less restrictive regulations would be ineffective," the city said in its petition to the court.
"Whatever right the second amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die."
Opponents of gun restrictions welcomed the court's decision to hear the case, hoping the more conservative panel of justices that now sit on the bench will strike down the gun ban.
"That's good news for all Americans who would like to be able to defend themselves where they live and sleep," the right-leaning Cato Institute said in a statement after the court agreed to review the case.
"And it's especially good news for residents of Washington DC, which has been the murder capital of the nation despite an outright ban on all functional firearms since 1976," said the group, which backs Heller.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the country's largest non-partisan group leading the fight to prevent gun violence, continued its campaign for gun control.
"We are hopeful that the Court will reverse the lower court ruling (on Dick Heller's lawsuit), which we thought was deeply flawed, and that the Supreme Court will reaffirm that communities are free to enact the strong gun laws that they think will protect the safety of their citizens," Brady Center vice president Dennis Henigan told AFP.
To date the Supreme Court has rarely considered the issue of the right to bear arms.
In the 19th century, it determined that the founding fathers meant to give all states in the union the freedom to draw up their own gun laws.
Then in 1939, the court upheld a law requiring that arms transported from state to state be registered.
But all states have formulated their own restrictions, which vary wildly. - AFP/de
