100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Research on Right to Carry | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
people will dumbfoundedly surprised and revealed as insanely stupid when the actual "chain of authority" of the world is revealed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.
A natural right is a right that is not granted by society but is an inherent human right. The text of the 2nd amendment actually says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be "abridged". "Abridged" means "changed", "altered", "limited", or "controlled". Any measure that limits or controls the right to keep arms is therefore a violation of the second amendment. And more importantly it is a violation of the natural law that predates civilization, the right to defend oneself against oppression. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence". In other words the right to bear arms for the purpose of resisting oppression existed as a human right before the constitution was written and even the constitution has no authority to limit it. --------- 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. Texas Court Decision Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps those doing the study never heard of Kennesaw Georgia.
In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21] (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore. (b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony. Crime Rate in Kennesaw Georgia Crime Statistics -City of Kennesaw Georgia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All gun violence isn't bad. Most citizens with gun permits are law abiding. Few criminals have gun permits. The statistics in the OP make no distinction between someone getting shot and and someone deserving to be shot. Is shooting a carjacker, as he attempts to drag you or your family out of the car, gun violence? I don't have any gun permits, and I own guns. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I heard it said by a policeman that the "Right to Free Speech" has resulted in more assault charges than all other factors combined. Does that mean Free Speech should be banned, restricted, and controlled? It should be noted that all or almost all of the instances where someone was about to be robbed or assaulted and pulled a gun, promptly ending the attempt, are not recorded. Have you been hiding under a rock or something? Just where is their free speech? In the "FREE SPEECH" zones? Not within earshot of one of Odumbo's goons? And your example of the instances where there is no news of trespasses stopped because of one being armed, is that not a prime example that free speech is likewise restricted? Not surprisingly, you missed the point. I'm sure others didn't. Missed what point, was there one? Does hearsay from some supposed "Policeman" illustrate any point? And just how does being assaulted have anything to do with "Free Speech? Actually one better, define "Free Speech" as used in this context. And I have seen many instances on various news sources about concealed carry persons confronting criminals with or without guns. Just type it into Google and a whole slew comes up. Again, do you have a point? Can the Secret Service tell you to shut up? Last week, President Obama signed into law the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. This law permits Secret Service agents to designate any place they wish as a place where free speech, association and petition of the government are prohibited. And it permits the Secret Service to make these determinations based on the content of speech. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All gun violence isn't bad. Most citizens with gun permits are law abiding. Few criminals have gun permits. The statistics in the OP make no distinction between someone getting shot and and someone deserving to be shot. Is shooting a carjacker, as he attempts to drag you or your family out of the car, gun violence? All violence is bad, period. There is a huge distinction between violence and force and violence is always bad. The distinction being that once violence has been initiated, it is one's right to use force to counter the violence and restore the peace. Other than to defend as an action to restore the peace, any use of force on another is violence. Soooooo, according to you, the killing of bin Laden was bad. 
Actually, yes, it was murder, plain and simple. Where and when was he tried in other than a court of public opinion? Even for the worse atrocities of WWII, the perpetrators were tried, found guilty and hanged. But that could never happen here could it? Too many stories would come out. Stories even the unwashed masses may find interesting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Folks, a single study does not a fact make. Ooh, I would love to hear the justification for that juicy little tidbit! The justification is a little thing called "reality". 
That is just a word, hardly a justification. And which reality would you be referring, this world, a make believe world, liberal world, neo-con world. Which one? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. While the founders of these united States were very well versed with the works of Blackstone among others, rights granted by kings were not motivators. They were well versed with the history of man and fallacy. Little gems like, "In contrast to these rights, the right to keep and bear arms can claim an ancestry stretching for well over a millennium. The antiquity of the right is so great that it is all but impossible to document its actual beginning. It is fairly clear that its origin lay in the customs of Germanic tribes, under which arms bearing was a right and a duty of free men; in fact, the ceremony for giving freedom to a slave required that the former slave be presented with the armament of a free man.[4] He then acquired the duty to serve in an equivalent of a citizen army. These customs were brought into England by the earliest Saxons. The first mention of the citizen army, or the "fyrd" is found in documents dating to 690 A.D., but scholars have concluded that the duty to serve in such with personal armament "is older than our oldest records." (Not knowing of the earlier records, 18th century legal historians including the great Blackstone attributed the origin of the English system to Alfred the Great, who ruled in the late 9th century A.D.)" Historical Bases of the Right To Keep and Bear Arms [quote A natural right is a right that is not granted by society but is an inherent human right. The text of the 2nd amendment actually says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be "abridged". "Abridged" means "changed", "altered", "limited", or "controlled". Actually it doesn't, what became the 2nd amendment was Article the fourth as presented for ratification. It became the Second Amendment because Article the fist was never ratified and Article the second was not ratified until 1992 and became the 27th Amendment. And the text of the article does not say abridged at all, never did, never will: "Article the fourth... 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�fringe - verb actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.). act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on." Any measure that limits or controls the right to keep arms is therefore a violation of the second amendment. And more importantly it is a violation of the natural law that predates civilization, the right to defend oneself against oppression. Now you're talking, the real source of all law, natural law. The unalienable right of man to be safe in his person and property no matter the means. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence". In other words the right to bear arms for the purpose of resisting oppression existed as a human right before the constitution was written and even the constitution has no authority to limit it. --------- 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. Texas Court Decision Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Me... I have a lot of guns...not for any reason.. I love my knowledge of them...the fact that I can shoot...and my lack of fear towards them.. The right to bear arms was created for when our governments abused their privileges...hmmmm...you can shove a gun in my face and I will kinda shrug...hope it wasn't my day to die...and if you don't have the sense to kill me at that point....trust me...I will kill you...
|
|
|
|
|
