fat tom
Absent Comrade
I apologize if this has been posted before.
This is for all FIREARMS owners and those that oppose firearms.Today, 27 JULY 2012, we have renewed calls for "Gun Control" from boththe United Nations and a few U.S. Congressmen.U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer said yesterday he wants "..... rational guncontrol". He and the other few Congressmen just do not get it. ThePEOPLES Bill of Rights, Second Amendment, clearly states "... theright of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Chipping away at the Second Amendment by "Ration Gun Control" or"Reasonable Gun Control" or "Common Sense Gun Control", as they alsolike to use, is INFRINGEMENT any way you look at it.The U.S. President erroneously claimed two days ago that the SecondAmendment is about hunting and target practice. He also said "I alsobelieve that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in thehands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals. That they belong onthe battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities".At the United Nations, Negotiators are working to put final touches ona treaty regulating trading in small arms. Treaty opponent JohnBolton, who was President George W. Bush's ambassador to the U.N.,wrote that gun control advocates "hope to use restrictions oninternational gun sales to control gun sales at home."Mitt Romney hasn't specifically addressed the treaty but broadlyopposes what he sees as overreach by the U.N. on many fronts. "I'm notwilling to give the United Nations sovereignty in any way or form"over U.S. citizens or law, Romney said July 18.Romney also gave his now famous two faced opinion adding "I'm willingto talk there."So where is the truth and where are the PEOPLES RIGHTS when it comesto the Second Amendment ?First, we will look at U.S. v Miller , a Supreme Court Case from 1939.Miller had been convicted of violating the 'National Firearms Act' of1934 by his possession of a regulated firearm. He appealed all the wayto the Supreme Court.The details of the case are mostly unimportant except when the Courtgave it's rational for the decision. In the opinion, it clearlydescribes the MILITIA.The Second Amendment -A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a freeState, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not beinfringed.The court - "Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion" and"that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting inconcert for the common defense."The Court also addressed the question - Is the Militia the Military,the Army, Troops ?The court - "The Militia is set in contrast with Troops which theStates were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. Thesentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the commonview was that adequate defense of country and laws could be securedthrough the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."So .... we now clearly know who the Militia is and it's purpose.THE MILITIA IS CIVILIANS, CAPABLE OF ACTING IN CONCERT FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE.Now let's discover which ARMS these CIVILIANS are to have.I will post the exact words from the Court's opinion and the explainthe subtleties of the opinion.The court - "In the absence of any evidence tending to show thatpossession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteeninches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to thepreservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot saythat the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear suchan instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that thisweapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its usecould contribute to the common defense."Where the Court explains that there is a GUARANTEED SECOND AMENDMENTWEAPON, the Court in absence of evidence cannot say that this weaponis one that enjoys such a guarantee. It also cannot find that "thisweapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its usecould contribute to the common defense".Why ? Simply because the short barreled shotgun at question is not"ordinary military equipment"The meaning is clear.A GUARANTEED SECOND AMENDMENT WEAPON IS ANY PART OF1. - ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENTand2.- THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMON DEFENSE.Now ... we have who the militia is and which weapons they will use(for the common defense). How do they get such weapons and what elsegoes along with the Second Amendment Right ?The court - In service of the militia .... "these men were expected toappear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in commonuse at the time."and "The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition,and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as tothe former."Meaning ?Clearly, you own and supplied the weapons and you also possessedammunition. This affirms the "keep and bear" language of the SecondAmendment and discredits those that would restrict ammunition to thePeople.To those that would restrict certain weapons to the People, if not banthem altogether, note that the weapons the militia is GUARANTEED TOOWN are ones IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME and are ORDINARY MILITARYEQUIPMENT.We now look at a more recent Supreme Court decision, District ofColumbia v. Heller, 2008.In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court definitively heldthat the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess afirearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weaponfor traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within thehome. Moreover, this right applies not just to (within) the federalgovernment, but to states and municipalities as well.This is actually an expansion of thought as to the Second Amendmentmeaning, covering those not in service to the Militia with the Rightsof the Amendment, that is, The People.||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||To the tyrants that would Ban, Restrict and or Limit Second Amendmentarms to THE PEOPLE, understand this:It is from WE THE PEOPLE that this nation is founded. It is from WETHE PEOPLE that our RIGHTS are enumerated in the United StatesConstitution Testamentary Trust and the Bill of Rights. It is for allTHE PEOPLE that the Framers and Ratifiers at the beginning of thisnation counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamentalrights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty.Your efforts to INFRINGE upon our Rights, our Liberty, will be countedas a violation of your oath of office and you are noticed that you maypeacefully retire from office immediately. Stay and your professionalimmunity is lost on your violation and continued stay and you do so atyour own risk.Do not expend your time or the Peoples Treasury on taking away ourrights. Pay attention to the Health Safety and Welfare of the Nationand it's People. Go after those who would have an unlawful purpose totheir actions, for there is where you will find the real threat. Inmost cases simply facilitate and enforce existing laws.Remove the cloud of threats to our Liberty. The War Powers Act, thePatriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act and anydistinction where the People's Liberty and Freedom are threatened.Finally.We the People, in order to provide for the common defense,self-defense and ordered liberty, claim our rights to purchase, own,keep an bear all arms of ordinary military equipment in common usetoday and in the future for lawful purpose. So say we all.
f.t.
This is for all FIREARMS owners and those that oppose firearms.Today, 27 JULY 2012, we have renewed calls for "Gun Control" from boththe United Nations and a few U.S. Congressmen.U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer said yesterday he wants "..... rational guncontrol". He and the other few Congressmen just do not get it. ThePEOPLES Bill of Rights, Second Amendment, clearly states "... theright of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Chipping away at the Second Amendment by "Ration Gun Control" or"Reasonable Gun Control" or "Common Sense Gun Control", as they alsolike to use, is INFRINGEMENT any way you look at it.The U.S. President erroneously claimed two days ago that the SecondAmendment is about hunting and target practice. He also said "I alsobelieve that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in thehands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals. That they belong onthe battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities".At the United Nations, Negotiators are working to put final touches ona treaty regulating trading in small arms. Treaty opponent JohnBolton, who was President George W. Bush's ambassador to the U.N.,wrote that gun control advocates "hope to use restrictions oninternational gun sales to control gun sales at home."Mitt Romney hasn't specifically addressed the treaty but broadlyopposes what he sees as overreach by the U.N. on many fronts. "I'm notwilling to give the United Nations sovereignty in any way or form"over U.S. citizens or law, Romney said July 18.Romney also gave his now famous two faced opinion adding "I'm willingto talk there."So where is the truth and where are the PEOPLES RIGHTS when it comesto the Second Amendment ?First, we will look at U.S. v Miller , a Supreme Court Case from 1939.Miller had been convicted of violating the 'National Firearms Act' of1934 by his possession of a regulated firearm. He appealed all the wayto the Supreme Court.The details of the case are mostly unimportant except when the Courtgave it's rational for the decision. In the opinion, it clearlydescribes the MILITIA.The Second Amendment -A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a freeState, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not beinfringed.The court - "Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion" and"that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting inconcert for the common defense."The Court also addressed the question - Is the Militia the Military,the Army, Troops ?The court - "The Militia is set in contrast with Troops which theStates were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. Thesentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the commonview was that adequate defense of country and laws could be securedthrough the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."So .... we now clearly know who the Militia is and it's purpose.THE MILITIA IS CIVILIANS, CAPABLE OF ACTING IN CONCERT FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE.Now let's discover which ARMS these CIVILIANS are to have.I will post the exact words from the Court's opinion and the explainthe subtleties of the opinion.The court - "In the absence of any evidence tending to show thatpossession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteeninches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to thepreservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot saythat the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear suchan instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that thisweapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its usecould contribute to the common defense."Where the Court explains that there is a GUARANTEED SECOND AMENDMENTWEAPON, the Court in absence of evidence cannot say that this weaponis one that enjoys such a guarantee. It also cannot find that "thisweapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its usecould contribute to the common defense".Why ? Simply because the short barreled shotgun at question is not"ordinary military equipment"The meaning is clear.A GUARANTEED SECOND AMENDMENT WEAPON IS ANY PART OF1. - ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENTand2.- THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMON DEFENSE.Now ... we have who the militia is and which weapons they will use(for the common defense). How do they get such weapons and what elsegoes along with the Second Amendment Right ?The court - In service of the militia .... "these men were expected toappear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in commonuse at the time."and "The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition,and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as tothe former."Meaning ?Clearly, you own and supplied the weapons and you also possessedammunition. This affirms the "keep and bear" language of the SecondAmendment and discredits those that would restrict ammunition to thePeople.To those that would restrict certain weapons to the People, if not banthem altogether, note that the weapons the militia is GUARANTEED TOOWN are ones IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME and are ORDINARY MILITARYEQUIPMENT.We now look at a more recent Supreme Court decision, District ofColumbia v. Heller, 2008.In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court definitively heldthat the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess afirearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weaponfor traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within thehome. Moreover, this right applies not just to (within) the federalgovernment, but to states and municipalities as well.This is actually an expansion of thought as to the Second Amendmentmeaning, covering those not in service to the Militia with the Rightsof the Amendment, that is, The People.||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||To the tyrants that would Ban, Restrict and or Limit Second Amendmentarms to THE PEOPLE, understand this:It is from WE THE PEOPLE that this nation is founded. It is from WETHE PEOPLE that our RIGHTS are enumerated in the United StatesConstitution Testamentary Trust and the Bill of Rights. It is for allTHE PEOPLE that the Framers and Ratifiers at the beginning of thisnation counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamentalrights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty.Your efforts to INFRINGE upon our Rights, our Liberty, will be countedas a violation of your oath of office and you are noticed that you maypeacefully retire from office immediately. Stay and your professionalimmunity is lost on your violation and continued stay and you do so atyour own risk.Do not expend your time or the Peoples Treasury on taking away ourrights. Pay attention to the Health Safety and Welfare of the Nationand it's People. Go after those who would have an unlawful purpose totheir actions, for there is where you will find the real threat. Inmost cases simply facilitate and enforce existing laws.Remove the cloud of threats to our Liberty. The War Powers Act, thePatriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act and anydistinction where the People's Liberty and Freedom are threatened.Finally.We the People, in order to provide for the common defense,self-defense and ordered liberty, claim our rights to purchase, own,keep an bear all arms of ordinary military equipment in common usetoday and in the future for lawful purpose. So say we all.
f.t.
