Post by bazooka on Aug 28, 2018 12:11:21 GMT
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
Very simple. 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.
Read that the same way you read this... Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion.
Now consider what would happen if congress said it is forbidden for any person to do anything on Sunday except worship God. No shopping, no movies, all TV stations are off the air ditto radio and the internet. Special dispensation will be made for nurses, doctors and other emergency personal. But they have to go through a special training course and special religious classes. No cooking on Sunday and no eating. It is a day of fasting and prayer. Would you feel oppressed?
Or less extreme. Congress passes a law that states everyone must wear a cross around their neck and the cross has to be visible at all times. Do you feel that would be a violation of the First Amendment? Would you be angry about that? As a Christian, I say you SHOULD be. And you should also be frightened by it. If the powers that be can ignore any smallest part of the Constitution they can ignore all of it.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
Any person who would trade their freedom for security deserves neither. Ben Franklin said that. I will take it one more step. Not only does a person who gives up freedom for security deserve neither but they HAVE neither. When you give up freedom to gain security what you gain is only the illusion of security. You trade one threat for a much larger threat. Any government that is strong enough to give you what you need is also strong enough to take all that you have.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
The right to keep and bear arms is the only right that is universally taken away from a person for life as punishment. It doesn't even have to be for a violent crime. Embezzlers lose the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. In all but two states Kentucky and Virginia there is a path out of voting disenfranchisement. It is entirely possible that a convicted violent offender has the right to vote on a referendum to fund police depts, but they will NEVER again have the right to defend themselves.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
We all want a safe society. But rather than taking the people who are threats to that safety out of society. The government has opted to take away my right to defend myself. Considering that in the last 12 years of over hyped and over blown reporting on mass shootings there has only been 1 mass shooting where the shooter used a lawfully acquired fire arm, I have to ask how does rendering me defenseless make you safer? Laws do not stop criminals. By definition a criminal is a person who does not obey laws. Not a single mass shooting would have been stopped by banning " Assault Weapons " The one lawfully acquired fire arm used in a mass shooting was a shotgun.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
There are legitimate heroes in our society that will not be able to take advantage of the rights they risked their lives to defend. A Veteran who has sought help for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, can be under the new executive orders banned from the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. This is an extremely DANGEROUS precedent. Not only is this a violation of the Second Amendment, it is a clear violation of Doctor Patient confidentiality. Let's try the same thing with people who catch a cold. If you go to the doctor for a cold he is going to report you to the CDC and some one will be along to quarantine you in your house till you recover. If you are caught outside with out being cleared you go to prison. I don't think I'll be going to the doctor any time soon.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Across the board those municipalities that have the highest crime rates also have the toughest gun laws. Those municipalities with fewer and less strict gun laws also have lower crime rates. Across the board! I see this. Do you think the law makers and the gun grabbers don't see it too? If I know it then they know it yet they continue to push for more gun laws and tighter enforcement of gun restrictions. Makes you wonder what gun control is really all about. I don't think it is about guns.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Given the blatant usurpation of the current regime... The founding fathers would be shooting already.
Very simple. 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.
Read that the same way you read this... Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion.
Now consider what would happen if congress said it is forbidden for any person to do anything on Sunday except worship God. No shopping, no movies, all TV stations are off the air ditto radio and the internet. Special dispensation will be made for nurses, doctors and other emergency personal. But they have to go through a special training course and special religious classes. No cooking on Sunday and no eating. It is a day of fasting and prayer. Would you feel oppressed?
Or less extreme. Congress passes a law that states everyone must wear a cross around their neck and the cross has to be visible at all times. Do you feel that would be a violation of the First Amendment? Would you be angry about that? As a Christian, I say you SHOULD be. And you should also be frightened by it. If the powers that be can ignore any smallest part of the Constitution they can ignore all of it.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
Any person who would trade their freedom for security deserves neither. Ben Franklin said that. I will take it one more step. Not only does a person who gives up freedom for security deserve neither but they HAVE neither. When you give up freedom to gain security what you gain is only the illusion of security. You trade one threat for a much larger threat. Any government that is strong enough to give you what you need is also strong enough to take all that you have.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
The right to keep and bear arms is the only right that is universally taken away from a person for life as punishment. It doesn't even have to be for a violent crime. Embezzlers lose the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. In all but two states Kentucky and Virginia there is a path out of voting disenfranchisement. It is entirely possible that a convicted violent offender has the right to vote on a referendum to fund police depts, but they will NEVER again have the right to defend themselves.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
We all want a safe society. But rather than taking the people who are threats to that safety out of society. The government has opted to take away my right to defend myself. Considering that in the last 12 years of over hyped and over blown reporting on mass shootings there has only been 1 mass shooting where the shooter used a lawfully acquired fire arm, I have to ask how does rendering me defenseless make you safer? Laws do not stop criminals. By definition a criminal is a person who does not obey laws. Not a single mass shooting would have been stopped by banning " Assault Weapons " The one lawfully acquired fire arm used in a mass shooting was a shotgun.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
There are legitimate heroes in our society that will not be able to take advantage of the rights they risked their lives to defend. A Veteran who has sought help for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, can be under the new executive orders banned from the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. This is an extremely DANGEROUS precedent. Not only is this a violation of the Second Amendment, it is a clear violation of Doctor Patient confidentiality. Let's try the same thing with people who catch a cold. If you go to the doctor for a cold he is going to report you to the CDC and some one will be along to quarantine you in your house till you recover. If you are caught outside with out being cleared you go to prison. I don't think I'll be going to the doctor any time soon.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Across the board those municipalities that have the highest crime rates also have the toughest gun laws. Those municipalities with fewer and less strict gun laws also have lower crime rates. Across the board! I see this. Do you think the law makers and the gun grabbers don't see it too? If I know it then they know it yet they continue to push for more gun laws and tighter enforcement of gun restrictions. Makes you wonder what gun control is really all about. I don't think it is about guns.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Given the blatant usurpation of the current regime... The founding fathers would be shooting already.