Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,961 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 23,721
Pageviews Today: 37,657Threads Today: 5Posts Today: 224
12:20 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

OBAMA WANTS TO TAKE OUR WEAPONS AND OUR LIBERTIES.....PERIOD!!!!! HERE IS A GOOD READ...

 
0311INFANTRYSIR

User ID: 969484
United States
01/07/2013 04:58 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
OBAMA WANTS TO TAKE OUR WEAPONS AND OUR LIBERTIES.....PERIOD!!!!! HERE IS A GOOD READ...
Here is a link to a great article:

[link to www.law.cornell.edu]

Here is an interpretation of the right to bear arms:

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.

The above statement comes in two parts, to be analyzed in tandem. With respect to the first portion of the statement, emphasis must be put on “being necessary to the Security of a free State, “. This, taken alone, by itself, is a declaration that individual States need to be able to secure their freedom by use of force when necessary. This defense can only be from on of two threats commonly. Either one State in defense of itself from another State, or one or multiple States in defense of themselves from the Federal Government. With the first portion of this statement discerned, we move on to the second portion.
The second portion states “ the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”. Now, this portion is where all the debate truly comes from, although most would say it is the first portion. The reason that debate rages is because of the statement “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE”. This, is clear in its meaning, there is no question as to whom this portion is speaking of, simply put, the People. This must be taken to mean any person of legal age, with the second portion of this statement “TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” as well as “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.
Taking this one statement and breaking it down into separate pieces makes the understanding of the statement much more clear. For example, the framers clearly were providing for the defense of the individual state and secondly, providing the inalienable right of the people, to keep and bear arms.
Some like to say that this is not intended for normal people because it is intended for a well regulated militia, however, these militia men, were not the only PEOPLE and in order to allow for a militia all people had the right to keep and bear arms, without infringement. We do, in this day and age, have a National Guard. The State Militia, and the National Guard, are not the same thing. During a time of extreme duress, the National Guard would be assumed to be guarding the National Defense, not the State defense. At this point, a well armed, well maintained Militia would be called upon, even in this day and age, to defend the State.
Even without the previous argument, the statement that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is a statement within the statement, separated by a comma not simply for grammatical reasons, but for emphatically purposed reasons as well. The statement separates this sentence to put dramatic emphasis on both portions of the sentence. With this in mind, it is obvious that the framers intended for the PEOPLE, to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, and that right shall not be infringed upon.
"Democracy is two
wolves and a lamb
voting on what to
have for lunch.
Liberty is a
well-armed lamb
contesting the vote"
~ Benjamin Franklin.
GodHatesLabs

User ID: 31697695
United States
01/07/2013 05:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OBAMA WANTS TO TAKE OUR WEAPONS AND OUR LIBERTIES.....PERIOD!!!!! HERE IS A GOOD READ...
yup, gun sales through the roof;
more psyop trolls than ever;


must be true.

You go on with yo bad assed self then Mr O.
Gold Everything;
[link to www.youtube.com]
Bone collector

User ID: 24588258
United States
01/07/2013 05:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OBAMA WANTS TO TAKE OUR WEAPONS AND OUR LIBERTIES.....PERIOD!!!!! HERE IS A GOOD READ...
Yupp Ya Gotta RESPECT Fear Driven gun Sales. I makes em fly off the shelves5a
0311INFANTRYSIR (OP)

User ID: 969484
United States
01/16/2013 10:18 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OBAMA WANTS TO TAKE OUR WEAPONS AND OUR LIBERTIES.....PERIOD!!!!! HERE IS A GOOD READ...
The, there is the Efficiency of Militia Bill HR 11654 which clearly proves, "beyond any reasonable doubt" that the right to keep and bear arms, of ANY TYPE, is 110% protected by the constitution and is not simply a guns for hunting annotation as some like to believe.
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917
"Democracy is two
wolves and a lamb
voting on what to
have for lunch.
Liberty is a
well-armed lamb
contesting the vote"
~ Benjamin Franklin.

News