jandt
12-07-02, 09:03 AM
While the court upheld the ban on assault weapons, the begining of the end of gun ownership has come with the decision that the second ammendment was collective.
Remember, Hitler took everyone's gun before the end came there too...........
On the California Appeals Court ruling on the Second Amendment:
The three judges, who draw their salaries from a government afraid of an armed citizenry, has greatly erred in claiming that the Second Amendment is not an individual right to bear arms. No court has ever challenged the concept that the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights confer individual, not collective rights. INDIVIDUALS have the right to worship as they choose. INDIVIDUALS have a right to freedom of speech. INDIVIDUALS have a protection against self-incrimination. INDIVIDUALS have a right not to be subject to unreasonable search and seizure. INDIVIDUALS have a right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.
In taking the position that the Second Amendment confers only a collective right to gun ownership within the context of a state-organized body, the court has set a precedent that only within such state-organized bodies may the other rights be granted, i.e. only in a state-organized group may there be freedom of speech. This reducto ad absurdum reveals how deeply flawed the California Appeals Court Decision really is.
In addition, these supposedly learned justices have committed a grave historical error in their misuse, probably intentional, of the phrase "well regulated" in the text of the Second amendment. While the judges may be forgiven for the confusion, given their litigious bias, the fact is that "Regulation" was, in addition to a legislative term, a mechanical one. Regulators are mechanical devices, such as the speed governor on a steam engine, or in the case of a musket, the sights. A "Well-regulated" militia, as the term was commonly understood in colonial times, meant a militia whose arms were in good repair and accurate, necessary to defend a free state from the encroachments of an external tyrant.
Let us be clear. The Second Amendment is not about hunting arms. In colonial times, hunting as an essential part of life. Few common people could survive without hunting arms. So dependent was the population on hunting arms that when General Montcalm captured Fort William Henry from Colonel Monroe, the civilian militia were allowed to leave the fort with their arms, since Montcalm knew they would starve to death without them.
Therefore, there would have been no need for the Founding Fathers to add an amendment to the Constitution regarding hunting weapons. The mere suggestion of banning such weapons, upon which the citizens' very lives depended, especially during poor farming years, would have been laughable. Likewise, there would have been no need for an amendment to guarantee arms to a state-governed military force, with the army that had defeated the British (with the help of the civilian militias) , still close at hand. Therefore, the only reason for the Second Amendment, as Jefferson himself stated, was to guarantee an individuals right to weapons equal to those of the government itself, to deter that government from aggressions against the people.
As I alluded to in the first paragraph, the US Government, bankrupt, is broke and intends to squeeze the people for every last cent they can get. Such a government, bent on looting the population as it has looted Social Security, Native Trust Funds, and Federal Pension Funds, naturally fears an angered and armed populace. This same government signs the paychecks of those judges in California, and because of this conflict of interest, I do not consider their ruling to be unbiased, let alone constitutional. Their decision isn't law, it's just typing waved before the masses in the faint hope it will be believed.
The first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution are, "We The People". The Constitution belongs to us, and WE decide what it means. The Constitution exists to place limits on the government, and only a fool would trust a government so limited to decide for them what the Constitution means. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period, end of discussion. Any politician who doesn't like it is free to seek another line of gainful employment and to cease being a burden on the taxpayers.
Remember, Hitler took everyone's gun before the end came there too...........
On the California Appeals Court ruling on the Second Amendment:
The three judges, who draw their salaries from a government afraid of an armed citizenry, has greatly erred in claiming that the Second Amendment is not an individual right to bear arms. No court has ever challenged the concept that the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights confer individual, not collective rights. INDIVIDUALS have the right to worship as they choose. INDIVIDUALS have a right to freedom of speech. INDIVIDUALS have a protection against self-incrimination. INDIVIDUALS have a right not to be subject to unreasonable search and seizure. INDIVIDUALS have a right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.
In taking the position that the Second Amendment confers only a collective right to gun ownership within the context of a state-organized body, the court has set a precedent that only within such state-organized bodies may the other rights be granted, i.e. only in a state-organized group may there be freedom of speech. This reducto ad absurdum reveals how deeply flawed the California Appeals Court Decision really is.
In addition, these supposedly learned justices have committed a grave historical error in their misuse, probably intentional, of the phrase "well regulated" in the text of the Second amendment. While the judges may be forgiven for the confusion, given their litigious bias, the fact is that "Regulation" was, in addition to a legislative term, a mechanical one. Regulators are mechanical devices, such as the speed governor on a steam engine, or in the case of a musket, the sights. A "Well-regulated" militia, as the term was commonly understood in colonial times, meant a militia whose arms were in good repair and accurate, necessary to defend a free state from the encroachments of an external tyrant.
Let us be clear. The Second Amendment is not about hunting arms. In colonial times, hunting as an essential part of life. Few common people could survive without hunting arms. So dependent was the population on hunting arms that when General Montcalm captured Fort William Henry from Colonel Monroe, the civilian militia were allowed to leave the fort with their arms, since Montcalm knew they would starve to death without them.
Therefore, there would have been no need for the Founding Fathers to add an amendment to the Constitution regarding hunting weapons. The mere suggestion of banning such weapons, upon which the citizens' very lives depended, especially during poor farming years, would have been laughable. Likewise, there would have been no need for an amendment to guarantee arms to a state-governed military force, with the army that had defeated the British (with the help of the civilian militias) , still close at hand. Therefore, the only reason for the Second Amendment, as Jefferson himself stated, was to guarantee an individuals right to weapons equal to those of the government itself, to deter that government from aggressions against the people.
As I alluded to in the first paragraph, the US Government, bankrupt, is broke and intends to squeeze the people for every last cent they can get. Such a government, bent on looting the population as it has looted Social Security, Native Trust Funds, and Federal Pension Funds, naturally fears an angered and armed populace. This same government signs the paychecks of those judges in California, and because of this conflict of interest, I do not consider their ruling to be unbiased, let alone constitutional. Their decision isn't law, it's just typing waved before the masses in the faint hope it will be believed.
The first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution are, "We The People". The Constitution belongs to us, and WE decide what it means. The Constitution exists to place limits on the government, and only a fool would trust a government so limited to decide for them what the Constitution means. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period, end of discussion. Any politician who doesn't like it is free to seek another line of gainful employment and to cease being a burden on the taxpayers.