H.R.45

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Alpha_Magnum

 

look the only reason I reported your post was because you called me a liar, I might be an idiot, but I am not a liar.

Anywho, if you just take the time to read the existing law, your gonna find plenty to be pissed about and for good reason.

This bill does nothing and I mean absolutely nothing to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. A licence is not infringement. They don't specify who is able to obtain a licence, (That's because it's already in the existing law who can and cannot have a gun.) If you bother to calm down a little and actually read the existing law in place already you will see who can and cannot legally own a firearm in this country.

I haven't fabricated anything in any response in this thread. Not one thing. I am just pointing out the obvious.

You are a LIAR! You stated...

This AMENDMENT simply changes a few words, this does NOTHING to take anyone's gun away from them.

The BILL HR45 INFRINGES on the 2nd Amendment by converting a PREEXISTING RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE like DRIVING. There is more but your malfunction is one of 2 things...
1) You foolishly believe that converting a RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE is "NOT INFRINGEMENT" by the government.
2) You are fulfilling your role here as an "AGENT PROVOCATEUR"

I never asserted that HR45 takes my guns away and that is the LIE on your part since my assertion is that these ENCROACHING REGULATIONS by Government ARE direct infringements on MY CIVIL LIBERTIES. You continually argue the point that GUN OWNERSHIP REGULATIONS according to YOU do not INFRINGE the 2nd AMENDMENT when they CLEARLY DO.

Agreeing to the terms of said "GUN LICENSE" forces the licensee to WAIVE or GIVE UP his/her 4th and 5th Amendment Protections. More importantly that upon obtaining said "LICENSE" one's 2nd Amendment Right becomes a mere GRANT that can be regulated, suspended or completely stripped away.

Infringement

In*fringe"ment\, n. 1. The act of infringing; breach; violation; nonfulfillment; as, the infringement of a treaty, compact, law, or constitution.

The punishing of this infringement is proper to that jurisdiction against which the contempt is. --Clarendon.

2. An encroachment on a patent, copyright, or other special privilege; a trespass.

CLEARLY HR 45 IS AN INFRINGEMENT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT CONVERTS A PREEXISTING RIGHT INTO A PRIVLAGE

[size=10]
NOTICE



Please remain focused on the topic, and not each other.



Civility and Decorum are Required on AboveTopSecret.com

Ronald Regan on Socialism & Governmental Infringement



The 2nd Amendment explicitly states that the Government may not infringe on the 2nd Amendment. This is a Preexisting Right of the People and so this explicit statement, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" clearly limits and in this case prevents the Government from doing anything about it whatsoever. Our government officers in the election process have all sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Why is gun licensing an infringement of the Second Amendment, when the bill in question clearly allows us to continue to bear arms?

1. Requiring a license to own a firearm effectively solidifies gun ownership as a privilege instead of a right. Turning rights (Freedoms which you are inherently born with) into privileges (Freedoms which you are only granted conditionally) is the first step to the full abolition of that freedom.
   
2. As has been stated before, firearm licensing requirements have been effectively used to enact an illegal ban on weapons. By simply limiting the number of forms available to obtain the license, people can be prohibited from owning guns. Other members have reported this as actually happening, and I trust them far more than the liberals when it comes to the gun control agenda.
   
3. By requiring us to submit ourselves to a list of registered, licensed gun owners, the government is giving themselves the ability to know who has guns, and what guns they have. This bill would make it easier to perform a full-out gun confiscation by giving the government knowledge that they are not entitled to have. For all we know, we could be effectively signing our name on somebody's hit list.
   

How is this bill an infringement, when it is merely an amendment to a law that is already in place?

1. The gun control laws that are already in place are, for the most part, an infringement themselves. It is not legal to hit a man simply because you've already been beating him for the last ten minutes.
   
2. This bill strengthens the existing unconstitutional laws, thereby further empowering the government's efforts to infringe on our Right to Bear Arms. By analogy; the government has limited the First Amendment with "Free Speech Zones," This bill is equivalent to requiring "Free Speech Licensing" as well. Before you argue that guns are more dangerous than speech, remember that "The pen is mightier than the sword."
   
3. Each amendment to the current gun laws takes us one step closer to banning guns completely. The grabbers know that they could never pull off a cold turkey firearms ban, so instead they are passing one minor infraction at at time. By all reasonable observation, they will not be satisfied until they have made guns all but impossible to own.
   

How are existing gun laws an infringement of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, when we are clearly allowed to own guns today?

1. Concealed Carry laws are an abomination. The Constitution clearly gives us two rights concerning guns: The right to keep them - in other words ownership, and the right to bear them - in other words, have them on our person. There is no constitutional grounds to prohibit me from carrying a firearm, nor is there any reason why I should have to carry that firearm in a way that displays my armament to those who wish to do me harm.
   
2. Assault Weapons Bans, and other bans on specific types of arms, are unconstitutional. They are a clear, unhidden banishment of the right of the people to bear specific arms. The Constitution makes no exception for the government to ban arms that they think are too scary.
   
3. Background Checks are illegal. Insane people should always be under the care of licensed medical practitioners, not roaming freely in gun stores. People who commit violent crimes should simply never see the light of day again. Furthermore, there are many convicted felons today who, while they may have been criminals at one point, have never committed a violent crime and have never done anything to indicate that they would. There is no reason to prohibit those people from owning guns.
   

If we do not establish some form of gun control and registration, how do we ensure that people will be safe from gun crime?

1. If a person is not fit, by reason of mental deficiency or criminal tendency, to own a firearm then it is futile to attempt to regulate what that person can and cannot own. If they cannot be trusted with a gun, then they should not be allowed to be integrated into innocent populations at all. By removing or sequestering them from society, you can be assured that they will not shoot anyone. Also, they won't stab, rape, rob, or assault innocents in any other way either. If this were the current policy, there would be no reason at all to require firearms licensing. Plus, violent crime would drop drastically because repeat offenses would be prevented.
   
2. An armed population is the strongest possible deterrent against violent crime. An armed police officer is, at best, minutes away from the scene of a violent crime. An armed victim can respond immediately, and even criminals fear this. Requiring the victim to hold a license merely gives them red tape to go through to protect themselves. Requiring a criminal to hold a firearms license is a waste of time.
   
3. A disarmed population invites those who prey on the weak. Gun registration helps to disarm the population by making it more costly and confusing to obtain a gun. Some people who wish not to be on a registry will surrender their guns. Criminals will know this, and they will be emboldened with the knowledge that the odds have been tipped in their favor. Registration will not protect us, it will put is in even more danger.
   

[edit on 28-1-2009 by mattifikation]

I've just recently stumbled upon this discussion as a result of it appearing quite often on the recent threads page. If I may be so bold as to "jump in";

Originally posted by Alpha_Magnum
The 2nd Amendment explicitly states that the Government may not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

Could you please, in your own words, help me understand what you believe to be the purpose of the second amendment?

This is a Preexisting Right of the People

In the context of people keeping armaments, could you explain what you mean by "preexisting"?


Thank you.

reply to post by mister.old.school


"Shall not infringe" explicitly prevents the government from regulating the RIGHT in question. The 2nd Amendment is not about deer hunting or target shooting. It is about what George Washington called the Peoples, "LIBERTY TEETH" our last defense in the face of TYRANNY!

The Bill of Rights contains many rights that like life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all "natural rights" or put in another way are "God Given" and these LIBERTIES preexisted the laws of man.



[edit on 28-1-2009 by Alpha_Magnum]

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment

Second Amendment - Bearing Arms

Amendment Text | Annotations

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.

reply to post by mattifikation


We must also remember that simply agreeing to this Federal License is an automatic waiver of the 4th & 5th Amendment protections. Supplying to the government an accurate inventory of your personal property tosses away the fifth by requiring one to testify against himself. Later if some information is inaccurate or wrong for whatever reason that would be deemed as perjury. Finally, the government may decide that it will "investigate" your information by demanding to inspect your property and naturally you waived the 4th as well.

Since the SCOTUS determined that the 2nd was in fact an individual civil liberty the Government will now have you believe that this allows them to REGULATE at will. Justice Antonin Scalia skipped directly over the non-infringement clause and then cited Schenck v. United States that was a 1st Amendment case (yelling fire). And that is how slick the government has become.

We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the
ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box

[edit on 28-1-2009 by Alpha_Magnum]

Alpha_Magnum,
Really, quit entertaining these anit-americans on here. If they want to give away there rights and they out number us, so be it. When everything unwinds, you can come join us in the states in the middle that will not put up with having to get permission for any right.
If these people have not got the message of the big picture by now they never will until well afte the fact that they have lost it all.
I am sure they are the one's that want the Govt. to take care of them in life as well. They are also the ones that probably bought a house they could not pay for either. (well maybe that last one was too far, but I am getting pissed at the whole system as they pass that polished turd they call a stimulus plan)

reply to post by j2000


I read an article called...

Israel recruits 'army of bloggers' to combat anti-Zionist Web sites

and what I believe is that these agent provocateurs are similar to the treason loving sort we are watching and reading who denounce freedom through acceptance of a "privilege." The sides are being shaped for what will come.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by Alpha_Magnum]

I really don't think the opposing viewpoint is here solely as some kind of disinformation group, or anything like that. I think we do ATS a grave disservice when we accuse those who don't agree with us of having some alternative agenda.

There really is a large percentage of the population that thinks the country is better off without guns. There are many people who fall, every time, for the frog-in-the-pot scheme, and the vast majority of people who argue in favor of these silly gun control laws are those people.

I'd say most of these people have bad information, not bad intent.

Originally posted by mattifikation
I really don't think the opposing viewpoint is here solely as some kind of disinformation group, or anything like that. I think we do ATS a grave disservice when we accuse those who don't agree with us of having some alternative agenda.

There really is a large percentage of the population that thinks the country is better off without guns. There are many people who fall, every time, for the frog-in-the-pot scheme, and the vast majority of people who argue in favor of these silly gun control laws are those people.

I'd say most of these people have bad information, not bad intent.

Your point is valid however it is a fact that there is a massive propaganda engine that now resides on the Internet. I will admit that there is also a great deal of ignorance and more likely mass hypnosis that borderlines insanity. Now if someone wants to argue that infringement of the 2nd Amendment is only a "Full Gun Ban" while converting a right into a privilege, or charging additional taxes or regular fees is not infringing the same well we have an issue.

There are 2 possibilities to describe the willingness to take that stance. The first is pure ignorance and the second would be a provocateur hard at work. To say something like, "This Amendment to the Brady Bill only changes a few words and is no big deal and is good for gun owners" is basically the work of the Devil (if there was one).

reply to post by Alpha_Magnum


A topic like this one can be like basketball.

You have to play hard, and if they know they can't beat you, they'll try to foul you out of the game.





edit for punctuation:



[edit on 28-1-2009 by lernmore]

reply to post by Alpha_Magnum


Either way, a lot of opinions on guns will change as soon as violence and crime comes to their neck of the woods and the police show up too late. once they realize that the police cannot protect them, they ALWAYS come around to self defense or go the way of the dinosaur.

Some will find out the hard way that there is no sense to senseless crime. Either you get it or you don't. Some will never understand it.

A sad reality.

reply to post by lernmore


The ones I just don't understand are the ones who state that they don't need to protect themselves because they are real men. They have never had firearms and will never need them because they have no need to posture and become so uncivilized. They are the ones crying when they become civilized victims.

Criminals (wolves) like nice unarmed civilized people (sheep). Always have and always will.

reply to post by lernmore


I can relate to that analogy completely and appreciate those that have followed along. Ignorance of the law is simply no excuse. I realize that nothing today is that much different than back in the 1700's. People still think that "things are so much different today" no they are not. "Matters are so much more complicated today than they were in the past with space exploration, plastics and all of that" no they are not.

History is repeating itself and some people are content to ride the lightning. There are always those people that are susceptible to the power of the "Big Lie" and there is no hope for them. You can lead a horse to the water but if he falls down dead in it don't drink that water too. We can post links to every action Hitler took with guns and point out how our present course parallels exactly to those tactics and so many rush to DEFEND the government.

I guess the truth is so humbling and painful that living the lie becomes more secure. They must realize that the Founding Fathers were not kidding when many of them envisioned that we would literally have to FIGHT every so many decades since all of the governments no matter how honestly intentioned become corrupt. They fear the government and choose to serve it rather than facing what they fear. They too are corrupt with the 7 deadly sins.

They do know what is wrong but are complicit and will not yield to history, common sense and truth. They become nothing more than zombies that parrot the government's position that is at this point contrary to the will of the people. We followed Bush to Iraq and when there were no WMDs found "Mission Accomplished" When a terrorist that the USA created was hiding in Afghanistan we followed Bush there to ensure a pipeline was built and protected.

Police now shoot people in the back while laying prone and hand cuffed and there is no mass outrage. Instead people talk about the criminal that caused the Cop to have to shoot him. These same people blame guns for murder but then get in their cars and don't even bother to slow down when someone is in a cross walk. We know what the 2nd Amendment means and we I hope will take it back or do something better. Driving is a privilege along with hunting and fishing hence the licenses. The 2nd Amendment is not some weak governmental privilege, it is a RIGHT so Don't Tread on Me!

To begin, I'm going to offer an apology for the length of this post...It was already 17 pages long before I saw it. Some of it may look like re-hashing something already covered by someone else, but that's only because I was composing this as I read through the thread...So bear with me folks!

So, in a nutshell, I firmly believe that the more that the government either adds regulations or "clarifies" pre-existing regulation with the intent to enforce them on the ordinary, every-day private Citizen, the deeper that the US Government itself dives into abject criminality & criminal behavior. In my own research into the Laws & the structure/intent of the Laws, the more I come to understand that the very government that creates these regulations, the more they actually violate the very same Law that they're legally obligated to uphold.

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst
Last time I checked, automobiles aren't a protected right under the constitution, not that I agree with having to register them.

From a ruling made by the US Supreme Court & upheld in various State Supreme Courts in well over 100 separate cases over the time of several decades is that people have the Inherent, Inalienable Right to Travel Freely on public roads and to transport personal belongings.

DoT & DMV regulations are just that: Regulations with an enforceable jurisdiction over only official (government) & commercial traffic. As a private citizen going about your private affairs, the only thing that the Feds & the States have been doing is to unlawfully extend commercial jurisdiction through deception to include the Common Law private citizen.

The true key to uncovering all of this deception is locked up in the official definitions of the terminology used in the writing of the Statutory regulations: They specify a limited & precise definition of words used by the common public in order to misdirect the fact that these very definitions expressly limit their enforceable jurisdiction. Some good examples in this particular circumstance would be if you look into a Law Dictionary & learn the precise differences between the terms "automobile" & "motor vehicle," "traveler" & "driver/operator," "guest" & "passenger." In these examples, the first term describes an ordinary, everyday private Citizen of the Common Law, whereas the second term specifies a government employee or commercial personnel engaged in official or corporate interests: As a private Citizen, you are a Traveler with an invited Guest in your Automobile...As commercial personnel or government office-holder, you would be a Driver with a Passenger in your Motor Vehicle.

In direct reference to your statement that I quoted above, automobiles are a protected Right...Motor Vehicles are a regulated privilege: Being a law-abiding Citizen making use of public roads is not a privilege, but engaging in commerce or public service through government authority is. Although automobiles weren't even invented early enough to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights), the actual Right to Travel covers "conveyances in common use for the time," so at that time, horse & buggy was the "common conveyance." This certainly does cover automobiles in modern times.

Then also look at the definition of "traffic." The regulations specify that "traffic" is caused only by the commercial or official use of public roads...The Public making use of public roads isn't included in the officially-used legal definition of "traffic." The Statutes can regulate "traffic," but not the Public that exercises their Inherent Right to use public roads.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
So what if you have to buy a license? Big deal I gotta buy one to drive my car.

Also take a close look at the legal definitions of such words, like "person" to get a good idea that they don't think of you as a flesh-n-blood human being with Inherent Rights under Law, but rather as a "corporate entity" or some kind of "government office holder" subject to arbitrary regulation. It's through the specialized re-defining of the terms used in legislation that they deceive you. The Supreme Court has ruled that Inherent Rights are not subject to taxation or any other such Infringements, simply due to the fact that if the government had any Lawful authority to do so, then they would quickly try to tax or regulate them out of existence! This is what they've led you to believe about "licensing" for your car! They've literally tricked you into a contract that treats you like a corporation so they can tax or regulate away your Inherent Right to Travel Freely! That contract is literally your signing a waiver of your Rights & allowing them to replace them with privileges!

It's the same concept when dealing with any gun-regulations...They are just that: Regulations enforcable only over those who don't fully understand their Rights under Law & have instead entered into a commercial contract to allow the government to regulate their Rights out of existence. In truth, you are law-abiding if you decide to keep your firearms (& knowledge of them) to yourself...But you've become a regulated corporate entity (or government officer) if you abide by any of the licensing, fee structures or any other such Infringement.

Originally posted by THELONIO
hi all, just a small question, i am neither for or against as i am english, do you think that when the constitution was written, regarding rights to bear arms, that they intended people to be running around with the sort of weaponry that is available today?, machine guns?, a lot of what is available today is vastly different to when the constitution was written, possibly out of there comprehension. twas just a thought.

Actually, yes. If you know anything about the Prohibition Era in America both gangsters & police were sporting Tommy Guns. However, setting aside that little piece of history, what of the Right to Travel Freely that Ive mentioned elsewhere in my post? Court ruled that it applied to any conveyance contemporary of the time & that would also applies to Arms. One of the other Supreme Court rulings also upholds that "if it's not specifically included in the Law, then it must be excluded." This is why the "law-writers" go to such pains to specifically & precisely re-define words for specific context & definitions within the Statutes. In short, this means that since the type or style of firearms is not specifically specifically included in the Constitution, therefore any attempts to legislate Statutory classification into the Law itself is forbidden. This overall ruling applies not only to the Constitution & all Amendments, but also the entire body of Common Law as well.

This also means that if any officer, group/committee, agency, branch or level of the government takes any action, as individuals or in any grouping, that is not specifically included in the Constitution, then they are in Breech of Oath of Office as well as committing a felony offense against the Law & the People as a whole. This is probably why there's so much in ATS about how the government must be subjected to accountability, because they steadfastly refuse, block, sidetrack or simply outright deny that accountability exists for them...One good example would be Bush's consistent use of "Executive Privilege," when IT DOESN'T EXIST WITHIN THE LAW! The major problem is that they like to hold themselves above the very same law that they swear/affirm a legally-binding Oath to obey!

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I guess I am dumb then, I did not realize that owning a gun was a constitutionally protected right. If that is true then there would not be a need for gun laws would there? I mean I have the right to free speech with no limits, correct? So you are saying that's just like the right to own a gun, the same thing, or maybe I still dont understand.

If you weren't aware that ownning a gun is a Constitutionally-protected Right, then perhaps you need to become more familiar with the Constitution itself...After all, it's the Supreme Law of the Land & part of your own civic responsibility to help defend it. The Constitution can't stand alone...The only defense the Constitution has against tyranny is We the People ourselves. If we don't stand up for it, then you can bet that it can't help us either. The 1st Amendment defines the peaceful methods we have to steer government back on course...The 2nd Amendment is in case they refuse to listen...That's the keystone for the "Right to Petition for Redress of Grievences." If we give up our 2nd Amendment, then We the People have no defense of any of our other Rights.

Another US Supreme Court ruling that's interesting...No Lawful exercise of Inherent Rights can be converted into a crime. Note that it's the use of the word "lawful" here: It is not Lawful to exercise a Right in such a way as to violate someone else's Rights...Such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded area where there is no fire & creating a panic in which people get hurt: By doing so, you've violated the Rights of others. The key here is that each Right has it's own corresponding personal responsibility to not abuse it. This is where all of these "special interest groups" get their leverage...They lobby the government to regulate away the Rights so that the individuals don't have to accept the proper responsibility for them. The people in these special interest groups themselves can't handle the personal responsibility for their Rights, so they seek to remove those Rights from everyone. If such regulations are enforced to their limits (& beyond), it makes society as a whole steer towards a widespread attitude of irresponsibility.

----------Continued Below---------

---------Continued From Above--------------------

The 2nd Amendment defines one of your Inherent Rights, just as does the whole Bill of Rights! The Common Law jurisdiction is a natural extension of the Constitution, being derived directly from the Constitution in its inherent intent as well as from the context of its wording.

Originally posted by Alpha_Magnum
Oh, you didn't read about it in our ‘free’ press? That's cause it never appeared.

That's because the press really ain't free, no matter how much they themselves may believe they are...And still even the press does a lot of harping against gin Rights, as expressed here by Charlton Heston when he was addressing the National Press Club in 1997 (excerpted here, in full at link):

Today I want to talk to you about guns: Why we have them, why the Bill of Rights guarantees that we can have them, and why my right to have a gun is more important than your right to rail against it in the press.

I believe every good journalist needs to know why the Second Amendment must be considered more essential than the First Amendment. This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the right to keep and bear arms is not archaic. It's not an outdated, dusty idea some old dead white guys dreamed up in fear of the Redcoats. No, it is just as essential to liberty today as it was in 1776.
---------------------------------
I agree wholeheartedly ... a free press is vital to a free society. But I wonder: How many of you will agree with me that the right to keep and bear arms is not just equally vital, but the most vital to protect all the other rights we enjoy?

I say that the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America's First Freedom, the one right that protects all the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows "rights" to exist at all.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by imd12c4funn

 

Only problem is that this bill doesn't attempt to outlaw guns.
Only control them.
Now some people believe it's important for them to be able to personally own a .50 caliber machine gun.
I don't.
However I don't have any problems with handguns or or rifles.
I don't however want my neighbor stockpiling hand grenades.
No one here is talking about outlawing guns.

Then what you choose to own or not own is your own choice. But no one has the Right or authority to remove that same choice when Rights are concerned. That's what "inalienable" (or "unalienable") means (Court rules that both words meant the same thing & are interchangable without altering meaning or context). The Rights exist as-is & cannot be tampered with to the detriment of anyone. Whenever anyone loses Rights, no one has any.

US Constitution: Article IV, Section 4
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.

The nature of a Republican form of government...Somewhat democratic in practice, but set firmly with core laws that no government authority or public opinion can remove. Supreme Power held by the People & Governed by Law, not Public Opinion or Arbitrary Legislature.

republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government.

Originally posted by WSPfan
Funny how all of you right-wing gun nuts overlook the WELL REGULATED portion of the amendment.

How about a closer look at the 2nd Amendment & what the US Supreme Court has ruled over its actual meaning of the term "well-regulated."

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.

As ruled by the Supreme Court, Militias are to be well-regulated, but the part about the "right of the people" to keep & bear Arms is different from the Militia...That is to say that Militias are required to be sponsored & regulated by the State, but also that each & every individual person has their own Inherent Right to keep & bear Arms & organize into Militias with no government interference from State or Fed as well. Regulations designed for the State-sponsored Militia are not applicable to the individual person or the group making up a private militia!

Please note that the Bill of Rights (The first 10 Amendments) never refers specifically to a US citizen or even a Citizen in general (Yes, there is difference of legal status between "Citizen" spelled with a capital "C" & a "US citizen" as defined by the 14th Amendment)...It refers to "people," not "Americans" or "Citizens." Okay, I give up...How would my expression of the Truth in Law, based firmly in the Law & Supreme Court rulings, make me a "right wing gun nut?" ATS policies on "civility & decorum" I think may apply...

The Bill of Rights refers to the Inherent Rights human beings as a species, not restricted to any specific race or nationality. By looking at the legalized definition of the term "person," you may notice (if you actually look up the term as I suggested above) that "human beings" are not included! So by using the term "person" to describe your status in relation to the Regulations, they basically declare that you're not a human being & don't have to treat you like one!

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
He may have citizenship, (he does, I was wrong) but he ain't working to better the country thats for sure!!!LOL

I suppose a better question would be: "Does he still retain his old nation's citizenship status?"
If he does, then the Constitution has something to say about denying any kind of Office to people who exhibit the trait of divided loyalties at the section known as the "Titles & Nobility Clause," in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8. Considering that the current "government" operates entirely under foreign sanction & support, I'd say that "divided loyalties" is pretty much universal already, with or without dual-citizenships.

Originally posted by Beaux
Abolitionists fear the weapon, have seen the havoc created by just one armed person, and recognize that many criminals simply steal the weapons from other citizens to use against them. They want more regulation and trust the Law to protect them (cops and the legal system).

And this is precisely where the abolitionists' reasoning fails utterly: Quoted & excerpted from here, written by a serious Law Student:

Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.
----------------------------------------------
It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.
---------------------------------------------
In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the FBI's annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he will be in an auto accident. Despite this, most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim of a crime.

Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.

------------Continued Below-----------

-----------Continued From Above------------

Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone. Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to show up. Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls are responded to within five minutes. The idea that protection is a service people can call to have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, "Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first."

So when (not if!) decides to commit a crime on you personally, what will you do? After all, massacres such as Tinanen Square, Hitler's Holocost & Lenin's Purges only happen (as history shows time & again) that government's are all too willing to mass-execute its own people on any pretext whatsoever...But they usually accomplish this much better after the people have been disarmed! First, guns are regulated, then confiscated, then the massacre starts...Anybody remember Waco? This has been consistently repeated down throughout human history. That's why I phrased my question to include "NOT IF."

Originally posted by Alpha_Magnum
The original idea is that everyone would be armed and there is no better deterrent to crime.

That's absolutely right...How much of a deterrent exists for a burglar to attempt breaking into a house that stands even a chance that the owner is well-armed?
Police presence in any given area works well as a deterrent to crime because criminals go to great pains to commit crimes only where police aren't. One of the major reasons for this is because police are openly armed, plus they also have efficient communications open for calling backup & the support of the entire police force. I don't remember the source for this quote, but it's very true that "An armed society is a polite society."

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
They are simply saying that given the numbers in which we live today, the only way to enable the populace to keep and bear arms while at the same time not requiring it of others is to make people responsible for the use of those arms, through licensing.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to let people be responsible for their own actions, not fostered off to a government that will remove the Rights as well as the inherent responsibilities that go with those Rights. The government is not allowed any infringements whatsoever, because any time the government can infringe at all, they'll always seek to increase it gradually until the Rights disappear. Only when someone acts irresponsibly & violates someone else's Rights is the government allowed to step in & enforce the Law.

By imposing small infringements here & there over the course of time, the government is indeed slowly labeling you as a potential criminal, even though you've done nothing criminal...Simply by keeping your personal info on their databases about your guns, they can always find some "potential" to use that info against you & brand you as criminal. In truth & by Law, the government has no authority to demand any information from you that's not required census for taxing purposes: Everything else is your private life, not subject to official scrutiny.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
You must understand that in Reality (outside of the Matrix), there is no real Government because we the people are the Government! You just need to start becoming a responsible Human Being and stop letting some government take care of you!

Truer words never spoken: The whole premise behind the Constitutional Republic of America is that it is the Law of Nature that all political power originates from the People. The constitution is a collective contract ordained & established by the People to hire a form of government to exercise certain Sovereign Powers on behalf of the People. In short, We the People gave them the Power & We the People can take it away from them. This is a truth that has been born out all throughout human history...(quoted from the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence):
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
How do your think every nation throughout history has solved the problem of an out-of-control government? The People take back their political power, usually with violent methods. One of the points about the Constitution that made the US different is that it also established peaceful methods to be used first, before it comes to violence...Hence comes the Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances. Yet, when We the People have been petitioning our arses off & the government claims that they have no obligation to even answer petitions, let alone any reason to honor them (or even claim to waive their Right to answer, as if it were a Right or privilege & not an obligation), that's when peace fails & violence becomes necessary. Well, check out here to see far too many examples of how the government treats Lawful Petitions (& the People who present them) these days.

Originally posted by OS EXYCEUS
The selection of guns at your local gunstore is hardly enough to stop the military grade weapons that will be aimed at us if martial law is forced upon us.

Perhaps you're not considering the advantage of vastly overwhelming numbers? Even with the current military as beefed up as it is, most of it is thinly spread around the world in more than 130 countries. Even considering the more local National Guard & the increased use of mercenaries (like Blackwater), We the People outnumber them literally millions-to-one. The whole of military & para-military personnel represents less than 5% of this nation's population (we've capped 300 Million before the end of 2008)! Then consider the fact that quite a few people currently in the military would rather go AWOL & join the resistence when they learn how unlawful the orders are given by the government? Are you aware that every soldier in the military also must take an Oath of Office to "defend & uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign & domestic?"

Now if you consider that if even only 1/3 of that is physically & mentally capable of using arms & you consider that these people will be using "covert" or "guerilla" tactics just as the Colonists did against the British, how long do you think these criminal politicos will last? How many People in an armed revolt would even be too poorly equipped (mentally) to consider taking on a modern military head-on? Wouldn't it be more prudent, safer & altogether more likely to avoid unnecessary bloodshed if even only a few-hundred thousand stormed the politicos directly? Were you aware that even the lowly sawed-off shotgun has been officially classified as "military grade weaponry" & has been since WW II?

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Anyway, I intend on moseying up to the flea market over in Bullitt co and pick me up a nice gun. Of course, I am going to bring a couple of guys with me who know their guns, since I dont.

And when you do, remember the flip-side of your Rights is that they also carry your personal responsibility. In this case, the training & practice to be able to store it safely, keep it from theft as best you can & learn how to use it effectively without accidently violating someone else's Rights in the process. That's YOUR responsibility, not the government's! That's what the whole of the Bill of Rights is all about.
If you can't find what you want at a flea market, might I suggest you try a Barter Exchange? If you do, remember to take some hard asset of real value, because they don't accept Federal Reserve Notes...These things are nothing but a counterfeit certificate with no backing of any real value & can't even qualify for any of the defining statements of what "money" really is. They're really nothing more than "monopoly money" as a certificate of debt to the Federal Reserve Bank. Barter exchanges don't work with items of no value...That's why they're called "Barter" Exchanges. Besides, even if Barter Exchanges exist in a very restrictive State, they still bypass most, if not all, regulations over Statutory BS. The primary reason is that nearly all regulations over commerce exist only over use of the FRN's!

Originally posted by Michaeljp86
The reason the US was never invaded is because every american would plug every nazi, russian, jap, whoever was invading. Citizens owning guns has nothing to do with people wanting to shoot each other, its the best military in the world, pretty much a unstopable one.

I don't remember the exact quote or its origin, but during WW II, a Japnese General was quoted as saying that America would be impossible to invade because there would be a gun "behind every blade of grass."

---------------Continued Below-----------------

---------Continued From Above----------

But it also raise another very important question, concerning the invasion that's going on right now & has been going on for about 2 decades? It's much more subtle than a foreign military entering American soil, but it's still an invasion nonetheless...Composed of civilians! Yes, I'm referring to the massive & uncontrolled invasion of illegal aliens swarming in. And the very government itself allows it, abjectly refusing to enforce Immigration Laws. Instead, the government merely sought to impose more regulations & new policies to allow it to continue & nominally make it legal! It just goes to prove that the government is very much unwilling to defend our nation from invasion, whether it be military or civilian. Defense is up to us, people, because our government has spread out our own military forces so thin all around the world that they can't defend our own borders!

Originally posted by Alpha_Magnum
Here I can add the numerous George Washington GUN quotes but google them yourself and read.

Originally posted by Alpha_Magnum
Thanks for building hope by providing quotes by Thomas Jefferson. He and others like George Washington had wisdom beyond their years coupled to selfless courage that we can only hope to ever come again.

This is because they were all well-educated & have learned from human history. This is why the PTB always try to foster ignorance, MSM BS, subsidizing of the schools to indoctrinate rather than educate...You can't effectively rule over free & intelligent thought. Sort of lends valid meaning to the phrase, "deliberate dumbing down," doesn't it? Sort of makes you want to rely more on self-education rather than public education, doesn't it? Teacher, EDUCATE THYSELF!
The greatest "war" down throughout human history has been the War FOR Information...Who has it, who uses it, who controls access to it. I think that, with the internet putting cheap & efficient worldwide communication in the hands of the individual on a widespread scale is what will prove to be the downfall of the so-called NWO.

IMO, The New World Order is nothing of the kind...It's merely the same damn thing that's been suppressing the social evolution of humanity down throughout the ages, so it's really the Old World Order. The reason history keeps repeating itself is because it's primarily the same families & small groups of power-mad idiots still wanting to do everything the same way they always did...Rule by the Elite. They keep making the same mistakes by building empires & then seeing them crumble under the True Law of the Natural World. What made America different was that the Founding Forefathers were well-educated enough to recognize the Natural Law & saw the need to establish a nation that would act in accordance with it. All the while, this Old World Order still keeps trying to do everything the same way over & over again. I've heard that a good description of a fanatic is one who keeps doing the same thing the same way again & again, but expects to somehow achieve different results...Does that sound like the Natural Law to anyone here?

Well, you can also find a whole bunch of useful & wise quotes here, but also check out Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin & more of our Founding Forefathers' wisdom as it pertains to the foundations of the Constitutional Republic of America.

Still, besides the Federalist Papers that you've referred to, I may also suggest looking into the ultimate history of the Constitution & the founding of the USA. Quite probably the Grandfather of the Constitution would be the Magna Carta of 1215, in which the various lesser nobles forced the King of England to afford common Rights for the noble classes. They backed up the Magna Carta with the threat of war & their own fiefdom armies. Then as the New World began to prosper from settlement, the King of that time decided to even violate his own Colonial Charters...This led into the American Revolutionary War, even after the Colonies tried every peaceful means at their disposal before serving up the Declaration of Independence. Between the various Sovereign States & the Journals of the Continental Congress (along with the aforementioned Federalist Papers), they formed the very foundations of the Constitution itself.

Even so, none of the States would ratify the Constitution by itself...As to not lose their own Sovereignty status as to how each State ran itself, the Bill of Rights (State Sovereignty is covered in the 10th Amendment) had to be added, to accord all people with equal Rights enforced by Law & to allow for each State to respect the others (covered in Article IV). To really understand what this nation was meant to be, we really must understand the times & conditions that the Founding Forefathers lived in & how they established a nation like none other on Earth or in history...A nation founded on the the People & the Rule of Law instead of arbitrary Rule by the Elite.

The foundations of America had to resort to war or the threat of war during its entire history...And history itself proves that the 2nd Amendment expresses an Inherent Right to defend oneself with force if necessary. Self defense is an Inherent Right of all lifeforms on this planet...Even plants develop poisons & toxins to defend themselves as well as th natural-born defenses of every creature in the animal kingdom as well, whether it be by claws, raw speed, disguise or even flight.

Originally posted by Alpha_Magnum
Well a bill needs to go through the House (this one started there) then the Senate and then the President and then it is a Law.

Well, this is where most people get it wrong: This makes it a Statute, not a Law. To become Law, it must either be properly ratified by Constitutionally-approved procedure as a new Amendment, or the SCOTUS must make a ruling as a "natural" or "positive" extension derived directly from the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Statues are not equal to Law: Statutes are "regulation," not "ruling."

The modern government is not even really a government...It's a corporation (foreign-controlled privately-owned corporation, no less, a subsidiary department of the International Monetary Fund, along with the Federal Reserve Bank) & it's run like a corporation. They call it a Democracy only through violation of their Oath of Office, because the Constitution demands that the "government" guarantees a Republic form of government under the Supreme Law of the Constitution itself! Merely by overstepping the specified restrictions & limitations contained in the Constitution, they violate the Law! When passing the "bailout bill" last year, they violated Lawful Congressional Procedure when the Senate voted & passed it even after the House of Reps first shot it down! And they ultimately passed it all the way through, even against an overwhelming public-expressed mandate (over 90% !!) to not pass it at all! Some "representative government," huh?

Considering that every official, whether elected or appointed (at least the Constitution does not make any differential between "elected" or "appointed," the Law itself would rule that such differential does not exist), in any of the 3 branches, on State & federal levels must swear/affirm a legally-binidng Oath of Office similar to the President (Article VI, Clause 3) & considering how much they violate the Law & Breech the Oath, I wonder if any of them have even read the damn thing lately (or at all)?

They can only regulate you when you enter into a corporate contract, under the Uniform Commercial Code. That's really the only "law" they uphold (even though it's merely a "code," lesser than but not equal to "Law"), regardless of their official & legally-binding Oath of Office...The Constitution, ordained & established by We the People, acts as a Contract of Employment between the "boss" (The People) & the "employees" (each & every office-holder in government), even though they violate their "contract of employment" on a regular & consistent basis. Learn the actual Law & you'll come to understand how badly & how long we've been getting hosed. It's far past time that We the People actually called them on their criminal activities for what they are & hold them accountable under the Supreme Law of the Land.

I suggest you also look at the thread here to see the myriad ways they employ to deceive us, one & all. The real difference is between what is Law & what is Regulation...You have to understand the Law (ie: Constitution, Bill of Rights & the Common Law under Article III Courts) to be able to defend yourself. A good place to look for learning how to defend yourself (at least in a courtroom) would be here, although we are rapidly approaching a time when your only defense will be in exercising the 2nd Amendment.

-------------Concluded Below----------