28th Amendment - Prohibition of Firearms

OH? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process

The "natural rights" you speak of are guaranteed by the constitution of the US. That they are natural rights only means that they are presumed rights whether they are guaranteed by any written document yet accepted by government. I have a natural right to eat and feed my family.

Loving guns is irrelevant. Gun owners like what the guns can do for them. Procure food, sporting pleasure, and as a guarantee the freedom of tyranny, (something our government is moving to in rapid order)

 

Better background checks!

- - - Updated - - -

Correction, TO BUY A GUN.

 

As it was intended firearms tended to be the arms, arms sufficient to curtail tyranny. Never bring a knife to a knife fight, bring a gun.

PSST, Your tag like is ridiculous garbage.

 

Great answer!

 

And pray tell precisely what would these hypothetical "more strict background checks" entail? What would they cover that the current ones do not? What would be considered a disqualifier for exercising a constitutional right under the undefined standard that you are proposing?

 

I am always flabbergasted by why they don’t understand it:

"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."

A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms is necessary for the free States. Two governments that must be kept free, Federal and State, the former is kept free by the free State Militias, the latter is kept free by the people.

 

Well regulated militia may even have used assault weapons, and assaulted the assailant and his position. Too bad the unorganized militia was not that well organized. How many gun lovers without clue and without Cause, were in attendance?

 

However many there were, they were probably afraid to get in trouble. Those days of pulling out a knife at school so the coach can open the box are over.

Most of us do not want to carry a gun to a club, a theater, a Turkish airport (gag me with a forbidden spoon shank), or a French café. Alcohol doesn’t mix with weapons any better than with cars.

There were at least two security guards there, one couldn’t hit the broad side of an Islamifascist, and his apparently cowardly friends who showed up later were following the Obamanation’s Panetta doctrine, and the other apparently was a Democratic party created man-caused disaster who joined ISIS because he couldn’t get laid by Gay men.

"The basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place." (Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta)

If the “Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon” deploy, without real-time information, the civilian guy with the gun standing over the extrajudicially killed protected class jihadist is obviously the right-wing extremist enemy of the Obamanation’s gun control measures; kind of defeats the purpose of the gun for self-defense if the police shoot you after you shoot the protected class jihadist, because “jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,” except, and let’s be perfectly clear about this (by the Islamic book, which Allah revealed along with the Torah {see, abomination unto the LORD thy G-d}) Gays are people transgressing (all limits) [026.166], which may be why they consider the Injil (Gospel) is corrupt, there are no calls by Jesus for exterminations.

The shooter might be an international protected class spiritual leader too:

“Dear Sheikh Yassin,
We are writing to you regarding continued attacks against civilians for which the Islamic Resistance Movement (harakat al-muqawama al-islamiyya, Hamas) has claimed responsibility. We are aware of remarks by you and by other leading Hamas figures, including Dr. Abd al-Aziz al-Rantissi and Dr. Mahmoud Zahar, endorsing such attacks.”
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/hamasltr080602.htm

“The Secretary-General strongly condemns Israel’s assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, which resulted in the deaths of eight others. He is concerned that such an action would lead to further bloodshed and death and acts of revenge and retaliation. He reiterates that extrajudicial killings are against international law and calls on the Government of Israel to immediately end this practice. The only way to halt an escalation in the violence is for the parties to work towards a viable negotiating process aimed at a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement.”
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sgsm9210.doc.htm

On August 30, 2001 10:35 PM I asked this question of muslim (New Member Member # 1324) for a reason:

Who exactly qualifies as a messenger?

“[22.75] Allah chooses messengers from
among the angels and from among the men;
surely Allah is Hearing, Seeing.”

Obama’s Million Man Marching butt buddy answered the question:

September, 16th, 2001: "Whenever a nation becomes great and powerful by God’s Permission, as America has; whenever a nation becomes the undisputed ruler of the world, as America has, by Allah’s Permission; when a nation becomes the only remaining superpower, having the power to destroy other nations and people by the tens of thousands and millions, as Allah has permitted America the power to do, and that nation then has a spiritual lapse and begins to sink into moral decline, the Qur’an teaches that Allah (God) raises a messenger, but he raises that messenger from among the poor and the abject to guide and to warn the great and the powerful.

Allah (God) knows that the powerful will not heed a warning coming from their ex-slave or from the weak or from the abject, so the Qur’an teaches that Allah (God) then seizes that nation with distress and affliction, that it might humble itself. For only in humility can the proud and the powerful heed the Guidance of God, which is mercy and grace from Himself. Allah (God) used this tragedy, hopefully, to bring a great nation to Himself." (Louis Farrakhan)
http://www.africawithin.com/farrakhan/farrakhan_response_911.htm

As you can see, there are some big problems to overcome when attacking protected class jihadists or spiritual leaders who are messengers from Allah.

 

I believe gun lovers merely confuse a natural right to defense of self and property, with militia service, well regulated.

 

I don’t want to protect myself, and carry everywhere, I want the State to do it, which is why I have guns, to keep the State honest with “consent of the governed”; I don’t want some Mooslim quisling Obamanation dictating that the State must execute those that exceed all limits with Gay mutations.

 

gun lovers without clue and without cause will immediately have a clue and cause in a situation that threatens their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Let me guess...the supporters for no guns are either female, dems or queer.

 

We have a First Amendment for that.

The Second Amendment only mentions the security needs of a free State.

- - - Updated - - -

but, not enough to assault a position with an assault weapon in a well regulated manner.

 

they will be well regulated enough to neutralize a common threat to their right to life, instead of being slaughtered and unarmed.

 

so, why does that not happen at every occasion?

 

gun grabbers have turned american's into defenseless sheep.

 

Yep! the organized AND the unorganized militias. Codified by: 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Many anti gun nuts don't like the unorganized militia which, REQUIRES all able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 (back then 45 was kind of old) be part of that militia. Some old documents suggest that it was a duty and ALL HOUSEHOLDS must have weapons to defeat governmental tyranny, and that is as true today as it was in the18th century. Quotes from the founders suggest that the arms be the same grade as the standing army carried, and as such as the standing military advanced weaponry was created, so must both of the militias advance as well. The firearms act of 1934 put a stop to some weapons considered to dangerous to be in our hands. Yet because we vastly out number the military, we can do without them. As it is, the government has started over the years to be tyrannical allowing judges to legislate "laws".

 

Irrelevant! The unorganized militia is on call, not everywhere holding firearms to solve immediate problems. Apparently you still DON'T UNDERSTAND the constitution or the laws codified by congress.

 

1) The First Amendment in the hands of “Emperor” Obama or Clinton does not protect us:

Official Statecraft of the United States of America, the first one was posted on the State Department's website:

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Clinton)

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Obama)

“Here's what you said at 11:00 that night, approximately one hour after you told the American people it was a video, you say to your family, ‘Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda- like group.’" (REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH)) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...testifies-before-house-committee-on-benghazi/

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of [an Al Qaeda- like group]." (Clinton)


"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of [those that believe the wooden horse is an offering to the goddess Athena]." (Clinton)

“Let me state very clearly that the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its contents.” (Clinton) http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-pakistan-ad-denouncing-anti-muslim-film?lite

Contents:

“[Elder Woman] Source: LYBIO.net
My age has exceeded 120 years and in all my young life ‘I haven’t seen such a murderous thug as Muhammad’. He kills men, captures women and children, robs the caravans, breaches agreements and treaties. He sells the children as slaves after he and his men have used them. And what’s more, he does this all in the name of God. What God is this? That he’s such an oppressor and so unfair to the people.” http://lybio.net/tag/innocence-of-muslims-muhammad-movie-transcription/

Evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids


(3) Narrated 'Urwa on the authority of 'Aisha: On the days of Mina, (11th, 12th, and 13th of Dhul-Hijjah) Abu Bakr came to her while two young girls were beating the tambourine and the Prophet was lying covered with his clothes. Abu Bakr scolded them and the Prophet uncovered his face and said to Abu Bakr, "Leave them, for these days are the days of 'Id and the days of Mina." 'Aisha further said, "Once the Prophet was screening me and I was watching the display of black slaves in the Mosque and ('Umar) scolded them. The Prophet said, 'Leave them. O Bani Arfida! (carry on), you are safe (protected)'." (Book #15, Hadith #103)


"(3) Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." (Book #62, Hadith #137)"

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 191:

Narrated Abdullah bin Abbas:
"He said, 'Do the noble or the poor follow him?' I replied, 'It is the poor who follow him.' He said, 'Are they increasing or decreasing (day by day)?' I replied,' They are increasing.' He said, 'Does anybody amongst those who embrace his (the Prophet's) Religion become displeased and then discard his Religion?'. I replied, 'No. ' He said, 'Does he break his promises? I replied, 'No, but we are now at truce with him and we are afraid that he may betray us." Abu Sufyan added, "Other than the last sentence, I could not say anything against him. Caesar then asked, 'Have you ever had a war with him?' I replied, 'Yes.' He said, 'What was the outcome of your battles with him?' I replied, 'The result was unstable; sometimes he was victorious and sometimes we.' He said, 'What does he order you to do?' I said, 'He tells us to worship Allah alone, and not to worship others along with Him, and to leave all that our fore-fathers used to worship. He orders us to pray, give in charity, be chaste, keep promises and return what is entrusted to us.'"

***

“‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,’ said Hillary Clinton.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331806/incredible-shrinking-president-mark-steyn

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

"’[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. [485 U.S. 46, 56] For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.’ Id., at 745-746.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=485&invol=46

Since the video in question was legal speech, and “we absolutely reject its contents” was not legal statecraft, therefore, Obama and Clinton violated their oaths of office, consequently, their actions must be impeached.

*******


"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."

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”

2) There is a reason why the Appointment of the Officers of the Militia is reserved to the States, they are a Republican Form of Government. The Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,” not “We the Militia…” The People must be armed also for a free State to exist, and there is nothing in the Constitution saying the “people” have officers over them.

Until you can show me what Officer I have appointed over me, the “people” in the Second Amendments means those not in the organized Militia, it means We the People and the Militia have Arms, with no qualifier or specified standard to make the people’s Arms less equal than those of the Militia, because Governments (including the States) are instituted among Men, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

 

Obama is not my commander-in-chief.

But I guess with what Obama said, while “liberals” were looking on like the orgasmic smiling throngs lining the streets as Hitler drove by, he is their self-Appointed Officer:

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” (Obamanation)

 

DivineComedy,

Your wall of text is nothing but propaganda and rhetoric. Our First Amendment enumerates the specific right to petition for redress of grievances. That right is not found in our Second Article of Amendment, simply Because, only infidels, protestants, and renegades to our Republic, do that. They are termed and styled, Insurrectionists and rebels of the People.

 

what has that got to do with the fact that the second amendment recognizes a pre-existing right of free men to be armed

a right that Article one Sec. 8 confers no power to interfere with?

 

Because it is simply a fallacy of false Cause or composition to believe it does. Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; which is what our federal Constitution secures, due to States' rights.

 

To get to the petition phase, other than the individual contacting their representatives (who will ignore them or not do anything because they can’t win against the Party of Treason) and calling for impeachment, one has to use rhetoric or propaganda, which is only a dirty word when the irrefutable facts hurt the “liberal” cause.

As the “liberal” college professor with the Philosophically Handicapped Degree in political science once said:

“The ‘good cause’ is determined by who wins the war.”

 

I agree with you that our politicians may simply state; that is all fine and Good, but you only have your one vote. why not get back to me when you have an entire "gang of votes".