Gun Control

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Well, that particular subsection is a definition. What I am asking for is the law by which I must behave. Where do I report? When? How often? What is the command structure? If none exists, to whom was authority delegated? [/quote]
Herein lies the biggest problem with the modern American idea of what the militia is; our media and our government has turned the term ‘militia’ into a synonym for ‘wannabe military nutbag’. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

If your neighbor’s door gets kicked in by some criminal in the middle of the night, and you take up arms to defend them, you are performing your civic militia duty.

If your community is under attack by gang thugs, and you band together to drive them out, you are performing your civic militia duty.

You don’t need a chain of command, and the authority is in the hands of the people.

This duty does not exempt you from law while performing it! Just like the police or the sheriff, you are expected to obey the law while you uphold the law. You are to honor and defend the Constitution at all times, just as any member of the military would and should.

Since I was unaware and did not report, yellow beret in hand, and recognize no one in authority over me, have I not broken the law? Will my attorneys at Dewey, Cheatham and Howe, have to mount a defense in federal court?

No, of course not.

I would softly suggest that this clause is there in much the same way that humans are born with an appendix; once an evolutionary necessity, now a vestige of another age (or, more likely a vestige of superceded laws. e.g., see the enabling legislation of 1903).

No, sir. The militia is quite literally “We the People” at its absolute finest.

http://constitution.org/col/5508_col.htm[/quote]

Okay. I understand you now.

The reference you provide is tautologic. But here is one you might like:
http://www.lawandliberty.org/what_mil.htm

I particularly like the etiolated definitions borrowed from George Mason.

So we citizens should have been perpetually organized into squads of 50 to 200 local citizens. I have not seen this happen. (I can only Imagine what the Beverly Hills-West Hollywood Ready Militia might look like.) Note, too, that The Militia should not be–horrors–a Select Militia. And all, save the State Defense Militias (of which there are only 23), must be subject to Federal authority in times of emergency.
Federal authority? (Yes, because the defining clause is in the US Code, and without delegation to State law.) Hmmm.

This has become so complicated, JP. [/quote]

Oh and I left this part out:
“Choice of words can be indicative. 10 USC 311 lumps the ready and reserve militias into what it calls the “unorganized” militia, with the implication that it is to remain unorganized, since no provisions for organizing and training the ready militia are given, contrary to the intent of the Framers.”

(But is the lack of provision truly contrary to the intent of the Framers? Whereupon the author tries to provide a solution to this “problem” by offering a plan to organize the “unorganized” militia. But is the lack of provision tuly contrary to the intent of the Framers? I don’t see how that comports with a federal law which only names, but does not define or delegate authority, of the entity.)

[thunderbolt23]

I’d also be remiss if I didn’t note that the (uncontroversial) federal militia statute doesn’t prohibit states from passing laws restricting gun ownership.

If a person challenged a state law restricting gun ownership (in whatever capacity) on the basis that it violated the Militia Act of 1903, such a challenge would be DOA.

[JayPierce]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Well, that particular subsection is a definition. What I am asking for is the law by which I must behave. Where do I report? When? How often? What is the command structure? If none exists, to whom was authority delegated? [/quote]
Herein lies the biggest problem with the modern American idea of what the militia is; our media and our government has turned the term ‘militia’ into a synonym for ‘wannabe military nutbag’. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

If your neighbor’s door gets kicked in by some criminal in the middle of the night, and you take up arms to defend them, you are performing your civic militia duty.

If your community is under attack by gang thugs, and you band together to drive them out, you are performing your civic militia duty.

You don’t need a chain of command, and the authority is in the hands of the people.

This duty does not exempt you from law while performing it! Just like the police or the sheriff, you are expected to obey the law while you uphold the law. You are to honor and defend the Constitution at all times, just as any member of the military would and should.

Since I was unaware and did not report, yellow beret in hand, and recognize no one in authority over me, have I not broken the law? Will my attorneys at Dewey, Cheatham and Howe, have to mount a defense in federal court?

No, of course not.

I would softly suggest that this clause is there in much the same way that humans are born with an appendix; once an evolutionary necessity, now a vestige of another age (or, more likely a vestige of superceded laws. e.g., see the enabling legislation of 1903).

No, sir. The militia is quite literally “We the People” at its absolute finest.

http://constitution.org/col/5508_col.htm[/quote]

Okay. I understand you now.

The reference you provide is tautologic. But here is one you might like:
http://www.lawandliberty.org/what_mil.htm

I particularly like the etiolated definitions borrowed from George Mason.

So we citizens should have been perpetually organized into squads of 50 to 200 local citizens. I have not seen this happen. (I can only Imagine what the Beverly Hills-West Hollywood Ready Militia might look like.) Note, too, that The Militia should not be–horrors–a Select Militia. And all, save the State Defense Militias (of which there are only 23), must be subject to Federal authority in times of emergency.
Federal authority? (Yes, because the defining clause is in the US Code, and without delegation to State law.) Hmmm.

This has become so complicated, JP. [/quote]
YES! That’s exactly it! Very good article, I hadn’t seen that. Thanks for posting it.

It gets easier as you get used to the idea of what the militia truly is, as opposed to what ‘they’ want you to believe.

‘They’ like to demonize anything that opposes the idea that only the government can protect you. History has repeatedly proven that this is the most dangerous idea that could occur in the human mind.

[Alpha_F]

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

Do you make words mean whatever suits what you want, or do you look for what was meant?

What, for example, does it mean today to say that a watch is well-regulated, or for that matter, the operation or mechanism of a firearm is well-regulated?

That would not refer to whether the government has written some good regulations: it would refer to the watch or firearm operating smoothly and well. That is so even today.

At the time of the Bill of Rights, the term “well-regulated” was common. It took only a moment to find where others had found from the Oxford English Dictionary how the phrase was used and the meaning:

The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen halonen@csd.uwm.edu

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. [ end of quote ]

Or, Federalist Papers #29 shows clearly how Hamilton used the word. As above, and not in the sense of being under government regulations. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 29

If the 2nd Amendent were referring to good government regulations, wouldn’t it make more sense that it would then have followed with requirements for what sorts of regulations? It certainly doesn’t read, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall regulate…” or anything like that. Well, at least if reading past the first 4 words.

Quite the opposite. Very clearly “well-regulated” does not refer to the qualities of regulations.

So we will see how you treat that, or whether you put on the meaning that suits your purpose.

[/quote]

I understood what the framers meant by use of “well-regulated”.

Perhaps I was too vague and assumed incorrectly that my direction was easily enough to follow without bloating the post to the point of boredom.

In Halonen’s words - “Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected”.

“Well regulated” refers to the working order of a militia. A state militia. THEIR right to keep and bear arms that are functional and well maintained shall not be infringed.

My point was that the unorganized portion of The militia of the United States, simply by definition of unorganized, cannot be what the 2nd Amendment is referring to in it’s first four words. I hope that clears it up for you. [/quote]
Cannot?

Do you have a court decision to support that?

Further, what good would that line of reasoning do for gun control advocates even if it were true? Clearly the founding fathers wanted, and directed, that the people had a right to keep and bear arms and that this shall not be infringed, and a reason for this was, that a well-regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state. They meant the common man as the militia, not a standing army, or governor-controlled organizations. Or do you have a trace of evidence that they meant only organizations controlled by the government?

If not, then other than trying to make arguments about word meaning, and to misquote the Second Amendment as stating a right as being held by state militias when plainly it reads “the people,” what is your point? And what court decision or law do you have to back up what you say?

Not referring to you, but it’s a total time waste to deal with people who quibble words and keep doing so even after the law is provided for them, with them having no actual counterevidence, only counterassertion. I enjoy actual serious conversation on issues I am interested to learn, but endless empty assertions accomplish nothing.

[conservativedog]

Most of these younger agents are so brainwashed they would kill an innocent child on order.

How sophisticated & well bred do you think this current class of “agents” are to get caught in a prostitution scandal because “u da man” and shouldn’t have to pay an extra $20 for some. Gun owners learn to think like the brainwashed agents when it comes down to the constitution being ignored.

What don’t leftists get? …Let’s pretend a government agent that behaves like that is not part of “my” world and instead fixate on IMPORTANT matters such as labeling anyone who thinks differently as RACIST or a HOMOPHOBE. Or let’s rally outside the prison walls at a death sentence to prove that “we don’t kill people to teach people not to kill.” For dumb fucks the death penalty isn’t a “teaching moment.” Let’s protest “greedy” companies by living in tents in the city and shitting in buckets for five months to show we know how to “occupy” and defeat evil.

As far as I can tell from my experience the only difference between leftist one step thinkers and zombies is that there aren’t any gay zombies.

[Alpha_F]

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

Do you make words mean whatever suits what you want, or do you look for what was meant?

What, for example, does it mean today to say that a watch is well-regulated, or for that matter, the operation or mechanism of a firearm is well-regulated?

That would not refer to whether the government has written some good regulations: it would refer to the watch or firearm operating smoothly and well. That is so even today.

At the time of the Bill of Rights, the term “well-regulated” was common. It took only a moment to find where others had found from the Oxford English Dictionary how the phrase was used and the meaning:

The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen halonen@csd.uwm.edu

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. [ end of quote ]

Or, Federalist Papers #29 shows clearly how Hamilton used the word. As above, and not in the sense of being under government regulations. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 29

If the 2nd Amendent were referring to good government regulations, wouldn’t it make more sense that it would then have followed with requirements for what sorts of regulations? It certainly doesn’t read, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall regulate…” or anything like that. Well, at least if reading past the first 4 words.

Quite the opposite. Very clearly “well-regulated” does not refer to the qualities of regulations.

So we will see how you treat that, or whether you put on the meaning that suits your purpose.

[/quote]

I understood what the framers meant by use of “well-regulated”.

Perhaps I was too vague and assumed incorrectly that my direction was easily enough to follow without bloating the post to the point of boredom.

In Halonen’s words - “Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected”.

“Well regulated” refers to the working order of a militia. A state militia. THEIR right to keep and bear arms that are functional and well maintained shall not be infringed.

My point was that the unorganized portion of The militia of the United States, simply by definition of unorganized, cannot be what the 2nd Amendment is referring to in it’s first four words. I hope that clears it up for you.

If you want to get into a full blown discussion specifically regarding the Heller decision and how wrong some of Scalia’s opinion was that will be fine by me.
[/quote]

Correct me if I’m wrong Alpha F, but…

As far as I can tell, that was her WHOLE point…that “well-regulated” has nothing to do with organized/unorganized. It just means, in that context, functional. In existence. There. Did you actually read her post, or just skim, and assume?[/quote]
See above post: either way one argues “well-regulated” it doesn’t help the gun control point. There was also nothing in the post indicating that the line of reasoning was insufficient smoothness of operation versus not being under government regulation.

And in any cases, she seems to be defining “well-regulated” as meaning “run by the state.” It’s an unproven matter of opinion, and many will disagree, that a thing cannot be well-regulated, in the sense of running well and competently, without the state controlling it.

If concerned about whether people read things, which I did, perhaps concern should next go for thinking and writing that the Second Amendment says that “state militias” have the right to keep and bear arms when plainly it reads “the people” ?

[drunkpig]

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

Correct me if I’m wrong Alpha F, but…

As far as I can tell, that was her WHOLE point…that “well-regulated” has nothing to do with organized/unorganized. It just means, in that context, functional. In existence. There. Did you actually read her post, or just skim, and assume?[/quote]

There what? “In existence” is now synonymous with with “well-regulated”? That’s what you gleaned from what Alpha F said either directly or through her citations and links? The following quote is from a link she provided:

…To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss…

• Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers: No. 29.

What was that about “in existence” again?

[MaximusB]

Does anyone notice the change in how this topic is talked about from the White House ?

At first, there were screams for gun control.

Then it went to Executive Order.

Then someone looked at the Constitution and found out Obama is neutered.

Now it’s about gun violence, because who could be against that, right ?

So Obama throws out useless Joe Biden to talk about this issue, because Obama is smart enough to know that nothing will happen. But he can score a political point for bloviating about “how we (Dems) tried.”

Obama knows that this idea is DOA with a Republican House, gun and violent crime has dropped within the past 20 years. That being done without any meaningful gun control, with even more guns in circulation than ever before.

How could this be ? Take a look …

5 Facts About Guns, Schools, & Violence

[drunkpig]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

Cannot?

Do you have a court decision to support that?[/quote]

Yes. Cannot. Do I need to elaborate?

When has the issue ever been before the court as presented in this thread? I don’t think it has been. I am more than willing to admit my mistake if I am wrong.

Further, what good would that line of reasoning do for gun control advocates even if it were true? Clearly the founding fathers wanted, and directed, that the people had a right to keep and bear arms and that this shall not be infringed, and a reason for this was, that a well-regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state. They meant the common man as the militia, not a standing army, or governor-controlled organizations. Or do you have a trace of evidence that they meant only organizations controlled by the government?

I’m not a gun control advocate but, I guess you didn’t read Justice Stevens’ dissent in DC v. Heller, or you would not have asked that question. John Paul Stevens on Gun Control It’s condensed down to his four main points. Easier to read for some of your fans who seem to have trouble with lots of words.

Why include “well-regulated” in the second amendment at all if it refers to an unorganized nation wide mass of male citizenry?

I would rather have a militia controlled by a state government than one controlled by the federal government. But that’s just me.

More word parsing because - well - it irritates you: The word ‘State’ or 'States" appears only in the second, sixth, and tenth amendments. In both the sixth and the tenth amendment, the State, or the States unmistakeably means the individual sovereign States of the Union. But not in the second amendment. I guess they started the Bill of Rights with “the State” meaning the whole nation, then switched their intent four amendments later. Why would they do such a ting?

If not, then other than trying to make arguments about word meaning, and to misquote the Second Amendment as stating a right as being held by state militias when plainly it reads “the people,” what is your point? And what court decision or law do you have to back up what you say?

Words mean things. Especially the words in the Constitution. Making arguments over the meaning and intent and use of those words is kinda part of what the nine Justices in the black robes do. I misquoted nothing from the Constitution - not one word. If you want to accuse me of interpreting parts of it differently than you, that is a fair complaint. As for Court decisions? If there were SCOTUS decisions that clearly defined the subject, this thread would not exist. As for citing law? The United States Code isn’t exactly chopped liver.

Not referring to you, but it’s a total time waste to deal with people who quibble words and keep doing so even after the law is provided for them, with them having no actual counterevidence, only counterassertion. I enjoy actual serious conversation on issues I am interested to learn, but endless empty assertions accomplish nothing.

You have provided nothing. Maybe you think you have provided law and court cases, but since you have engaged me - all you’ve provided has been opinions and links - and one of your links completely contradicts your position.

[drunkpig]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
If concerned about whether people read things, which I did, perhaps concern should next go for thinking and writing that the Second Amendment says that “state militias” have the right to keep and bear arms when plainly it reads “the people” ?[/quote]

I’ve never said that state militias have the right to to keep and bear arms. Maybe that’s what you understood me to say, but that would be a misunderstanding on your side, not mine.

As I’ve been saying all day - “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” refers to state militias, not the militia of the United States as described in the USC.

[SteelyD]

LOL.

Linked from “Drudge”:

Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life

January 11, 2013

Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, President Obama has signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life.

…

http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-bill-giving-him-armed-protection-for-life/

[Tiribulus]

Reminds me of that reprehensible lowlife Ted Kennedy showing up to speak about gun control in a poor DC ghetto in a limousine surrounded by armed guards. LOL!!! These guys are really sumthin else.

[Alpha_F]

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

Cannot?

Do you have a court decision to support that?[/quote]

Yes. Cannot. Do I need to elaborate? [/quote]
There is a difference between a person being unable to see how a thing is possible, versus, it “cannot” be so, let alone as a definitive statement that needs no elaboration though no proof or really even evidence was provided in the first place.

When has the issue ever been before the court as presented in this thread? I don’t think it has been. I am more than willing to admit my mistake if I am wrong.

So you have a theory on key word meaning, that you seem to think vital to the meaning and application of the Second Amendment, but no legal basis you can point to. That can make a legal argument unpersuasive, to those who need more than relying on personal opinion often coming more from emotion and desired outcome than from fact.

[quote]Further, what good would that line of reasoning do for gun control advocates even if it were true? Clearly the founding fathers wanted, and directed, that the people had a right to keep and bear arms and that this shall not be infringed, and a reason for this was, that a well-regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state. They meant the common man as the militia, not a standing army, or governor-controlled organizations. Or do you have a trace of evidence that they meant only organizations controlled by the government?

I’m not a gun control advocate but, I guess you didn’t read Justice Stevens’ dissent in DC v. Heller, or you would not have asked that question. John Paul Stevens on Gun Control It’s condensed down to his four main points. Easier to read for some of your fans who seem to have trouble with lots of words. [/quote]

Dissent opinions carry no legal weight as precedent or to prove meaning. You are relying on the losing argument.

More word parsing because - well - it irritates you: The word ‘State’ or 'States" appears only in the second, sixth, and tenth amendments. In both the sixth and the tenth amendment, the State, or the States unmistakeably means the individual sovereign States of the Union. But not in the second amendment. I guess they started the Bill of Rights with “the State” meaning the whole nation, then switched their intent four amendments later. Why would they do such a ting?

Why don’t you tell us how your word parsing changes gun rights?

[quote]If not, then other than trying to make arguments about word meaning, and to misquote the Second Amendment as stating a right as being held by state militias when plainly it reads “the people,” what is your point? And what court decision or law do you have to back up what you say?

Words mean things. Especially the words in the Constitution. Making arguments over the meaning and intent and use of those words is kinda part of what the nine Justices in the black robes do. I misquoted nothing from the Constitution - not one word. If you want to accuse me of interpreting parts of it differently than you, that is a fair complaint. As for Court decisions? If there were SCOTUS decisions that clearly defined the subject, this thread would not exist. As for citing law? The United States Code isn’t exactly chopped liver. [/quote]
And the USC defines militia as I and others here have been saying, not as you say.

I see a difference between how Supreme Court justices parse words and how you do. Many differences.

I would have spoken more precisely though in saying that you mis-paraphrased rather than misquoted, though mis-paraphrased is not a word. What you wrote was:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

“Well regulated” refers to the working order of a militia. A state militia. THEIR right to keep and bear arms that are functional and well maintained shall not be infringed.
[/quote]

While what the Constitution actually reads is, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

[quote]You have provided nothing. Maybe you think you have provided law and court cases, but since you have engaged me - all you’ve provided has been opinions and links - and one of your links completely contradicts your position.
[/quote]
More precisely, I’ve provided nothing that suits your argument, and also, rather than being a fact it’s your opinion that any link I provided contradicts my argument at all, let alone “completely.”

[hungry4more]

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

Correct me if I’m wrong Alpha F, but…

As far as I can tell, that was her WHOLE point…that “well-regulated” has nothing to do with organized/unorganized. It just means, in that context, functional. In existence. There. Did you actually read her post, or just skim, and assume?[/quote]

There what? “In existence” is now synonymous with with “well-regulated”? That’s what you gleaned from what Alpha F said either directly or through her citations and links? The following quote is from a link she provided:

…To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss…

• Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers: No. 29.

What was that about “in existence” again?
[/quote]

First off, you’re arguing with the wrong person. I was pointing out what seemed to be her intended meaning.

Secondly, the bigger point you apparently are missing is that, in the time it was written down in the 2nd Amendment, the term “well-regulated” does NOT appear to signify “government regulated”. Maybe because, as so many right-wing types here like to point out, the 2nd Amendment has a LOT to do with RESISTING the government. If the main point of protecting the citizens’ right to bear arms is to allow them to overthrow a tyrannical government, why would the militia intended to overthrow said government by DIRECTED BY IT? That wouldn’t make any sense.

[Alpha_F]

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

That wouldn’t make any sense. [/quote]

Thank you!

[Alpha_F]

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
LOL.

Linked from “Drudge”:

Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life

January 11, 2013

Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, President Obama has signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life.

…

http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-bill-giving-him-armed-protection-for-life/[/quote]

So, he wants to take our right to armed protection away whilst helping himself to our money to give him armed protection for life.

Truly a kick in the teeth.

Edited.

[JayPierce]

- YouTube

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
LOL.

Linked from “Drudge”:

Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life

January 11, 2013

Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, President Obama has signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life.

…

http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-bill-giving-him-armed-protection-for-life/[/quote]

So, he wants to take our right to armed protection away whilst helping himself to our money to give him armed protection for life.

Is that right?
[/quote]It’s the new American way. Get used to it. By the time he’s done with the court there will be no recourse whatsoever. I tried. I really did, to warn people.

[Alpha_F]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
LOL.

Linked from “Drudge”:

Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life

January 11, 2013

Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, President Obama has signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life.

…

http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-bill-giving-him-armed-protection-for-life/[/quote]

So, he wants to take our right to armed protection away whilst helping himself to our money to give him armed protection for life.

Is that right?
[/quote]It’s the new American way. Get used to it. By the time he’s done with the court there will be no recourse whatsoever. I tried. I really did, to warn people.
[/quote]

If you know your Bible you know warning people usually goes this way.

[JayPierce]

And now, some words from the other side of the fence:

Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.

~Sara Brady~
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

The Brady Bill’s only effect will be to desensitize the public to regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

~Charles Krauthammer~
Washington Post, April 5,1996

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police.

~Adolph Hitler~
Edict of March 18, 1938