Re: [JBirch] RR: Reasonable limits should be placed on the RKBA.
rich...@gmail.com
Dear reader,
What do you think of this? Have an opinion?
Often made point, Louis, but wouldn't you think banning ammo would be
an infringement that only a pol could get away with? The question is:
who is authorzied to make the change, you? Me? The Senate or House.
Maybe the president or 5 partisan black-robed tyrants? Your Gov or
mayor? If one of them, why not all of them? Is there any other
constitutional rights they are authorized to repeal?
None of the above have the legitimate constitutional power bestowed up
them to do so. And the only legitimate way to obtain same is
prescribed in Article V of the constitution. Read it; you'll like it.
Rich Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Louis Charles <lchar...@yahoo.com>
To: JBi...@yahoogroups.com
Cc: nyconstit...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:22 pm
Subject: Re: [JBirch] RR: Reasonable limits should be placed on the RKBA.
Let's assume a constitutionally valid US government. ...who never
placed any restriction on RKBA. The issue becomes not the "guns", per
se, but the ammo they are delivering. Let's say in a competely free
America, I open a gun shop and sell stinger missles with nuclear
warheads. I also have in the walk-in fridge, along with bait for
fishing, cannisters of Anthrax and nerve gas......
Shall we allow this as a nation (and this one can't be left to
individual states, for obvious reasons -- stingers can shoot across
state lines with ease, as can chemical warfare), or stop the unbridled
distribution of WMD? Should Amendments be made to take the Supreme
Court's non-sense out of the pic?
LC
Slick...@aol.com wrote:
RR: Reasonable limits should be placed on the RKBA.
When thinking of the Constitution, most think it of as having 3
branches, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Branch, but
the Constitution in fact distributes the powers to 3 other divisions,
the federal govt, the States and the People, not necessarily in that
order. For instance:
Amendment II
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.
What does the above mean to you? Some say it is or out-dated. This is
how I read it:
1. As per the Founding Fathers, a regulated militia is necessary (and,
right or wrong, the Constitution as not been amended to say other
wise).
2. The fedl govt hasn't got constitutional authority to stop people
from having guns, any people, or any guns. It is patently out of their
jurisdiction! Any USG limitations are an infringement of the rights of
all the people, including Mexicans who won their independence from
Mexico in 1836 and nearly a decade later, petitioned to join the USA..
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/daybyday/03-02-001.html
and as a Republic, joined the United States 9 years later.
http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/annex.htm
3. The Founders condensed all of the above in a simple, unambiguous
single (some would say run-on) sentence, seemingly incomprehensible by
Supreme Court Justices. Those arbitrators of Justice think it gives
them the right not only to infringe (around the edges) but the power
amend or delete as well.
Please note; the Founders did not put any of these limitations on the
states, but neither did they say “the right of the people to keep
and bear arms†could be infringed in anyway. It is not a privilege.
Citizens do not require permission. The Constitution does not limit
the RKBA in any way (e.g., for hunting.) The only way these words can
be ignored is by going through the amendment process delineated in
Article V of the Constitution. Anything less, like the Brady Bill or
labeling them “assault rifles,†even if thought reasonable by 5 or
even 9 black-robed tyrants of the SCOTUS, is a breach of the Great
Contract with the people that created and authorizes the very existent
of the USG in its entirety.
My conclusion is: We are in fact living under the power of an
omniscient all-powerful, unlimited defacto govt, which has no
resemblance to the one authorized. The govt has repeatedly and
willfully, ignored the limitations of their license and granted them
by ratification by the states. They have trampled the Constitution to
death and are an illegal, unconstitutional, outlaw govt which reigns
over US.
What part of this do you not agree?
Rich Martin
--
If you missed Amendment I, go to
http://groups.google.com/group/richsrants/browse_thread/thread/2e8e52bbe7cf30b1
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at
Yahoo! Games. __._,_.___
The opinions expressed on this forum are those of the authors of the
articles posted. The John Birch Society has no responsibility for
anything that is posted in this forum. The OFFICIAL John Birch Society
web page is a www.jbs.org Visit The New American at
www.thenewamerican.com for accurate information.
NEW information portal for the John Birch Society:
www.johnbirchsociety.info
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
nothing." Edmund Burke 1729-1797
What is
The Answer To The Greatest Question?
Click here to find out:
http://1smartest.net/
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to
Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
--
I am Happy to inform that VERIA TV, is now live at channel 9575 on
Dish network. Please inform all your friends and relations. All feed
back will be appreciated.
Have a healthy day.
Rich Martin
Editor, Slick eZine