Despite what the MSM tries to tell you the NRA is “The People”. Another important point is that President Trump takes the NRA’s phone call. I am not aware of another group (and many do fine 2A work) that can speak to the POTUS. Anyone who has been a long time member can tell you things are not running smoothly at the NRA right now and I hope they get it together soon.
1 Like
Funny. 24 years military. Far from rich. My tolerance for negotiation ran out long ago.
6 Likes
To understand the Amendment, it must also be understood that it does not grant a right. The Constitution does not grant a right. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, guarantee our rights and government is instituted to secure those rights.
When government becomes detrimental to these ends, it ceases to have legitimacy and becomes tyrannical.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
The First Ten Amendments we know as the Bill of Rights was added because of an agreement between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. They did not grant any new rights, they were simply additional protections of existing rights.
When the Constitution was written and ratified, it was at a time when the American people had as good or in some cases better arms than the military, including the British military, at that time, the greatest military in the world,
While Justice Scalia was an excellent Associate Justice, he did fail regarding the Second Amendment. The idea of ‘common use’. Under that criteria, words that are not in common use today may be prohibited. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants any power to the government to limit, restrict, prohibit or ban any arms regardless of common use or not.
We have a Supreme Court, that many have come to believe is the sole and final arbiter, and that is not exactly accurate and we have found that judges and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court have interpreted the Constitution in ways that it was never intended and have created, modified, and altered it, by those interpretations and once that has been done, it is considered precedent.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a right that preexisted the Second Amendment.
The Amendment has two sections, the introductory or preamble, which mentions one of many reasons for the right, which is states in the second section. There is no prerequisite to be in any militia to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.
It is valid that we, the people, must know the Constitution, and we must be well informed as our founders had stated would be required. We should understand it, we should read and research the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Treaty of Paris, the Northwest Ordinance and the founders words, including Washington’s Farewell Address, and the Federalist Papers and all others.
There is a history in the United States of the understanding that the right to keep and bear arms is and was an individual right, and that we all have a right to defend ourselves. We should have this knowledge, We should jealously guard our rights, and be vigilant against any abridgement.
8 Likes
Usually the ‘how would you address / fix the mass shooting problem?’ remains some form of ‘gun control’ or laws infringing on individual rights.
Two things here. One, if they blame the firearm… do they also blame the car? When a speeder causes a crash and someone is injured or killed, or when someone drives drunk and causes injury or death, do they blame the car or the driver. If they blame the driver, why blame the firearm … when it is the person who ‘drives’ (uses or operates it).
Second, if they are willing to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, are they of the same mind when it comes to their right to ‘Freedom of Movement’, or their right to ‘Freedom of Speech’ or any other right.
Would they be so quick to attack a right if it was to limit or prohibit their free movement, requiring permits to walk or travel across town, or call it ‘Movement Control Laws’, or perhaps they can obtain a permit to speak or attend church, Church Control Laws, or Speech Control Laws.
When the so called gun control laws are applied to the other rights we all have, the absurdity becomes blatantly obvious.
3 Likes
In addition to the NRA, there is the Gun Owners of America, the NSSF, and other groups.
The NRA is and has been good up to a point. They have failed us in the past, as they have been willing to sacrifice some small parts of our rights, to save others.
The problem is, the ‘Overton Window’… as the window moves left, the people lose rights, become accustomed to it, accept it, and the window moves further left and starts again.
If we sacrifice a small percentage of our right to preserve a larger percentage, we have lost that part, and the next time we start with less and when they take another small percentage, … the death by a thousand cuts…
But, we do need the NRA … though Patrick47 is correct, we the people must be well informed, and defend our rights.
4 Likes
my comment was addressing my early post (#3 in this thread). I should have made that clear, sorry.
1 Like
The Supreme Court decided in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), that the courts had the power of judicial review allowing them to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that granted this power to the court. in Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall opined:
If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions – a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.
As far as the Constitution is concerned, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. I agree they have gotten it wrong at times When the Supreme Court gets it wrong, it is the responsibility of the people, the states, the legislature and the President to amend the Constitution to correct the misinterpretation or to present other cases to the Court so that it can correct its own mistakes. McDonald v. Chicago corrected a mistake made in the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1873.
5 Likes
There are two types of people in the world
- Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
5 Likes
You’re right about laws having been ‘technicalitied’ beyond recognition in order to fit the pursuant’s agenda.
3 Likes
Unless I am misremembering… (mistaken), the Marbury v Madison case is not only the case where Chief Justice Marshall concluded there was a power of Judicial Review (and there are hints of that I believe in the Federalist Papers and other documents) it provide the quote I used, ‘A Law Repugnant to the Constitution is Void’.
2 Likes
I read that a while back and did not connect the two. Sorry.
Good post by the way.
2 Likes
You are absolutely right. The question is who determines whether the law is repugnant to the constitution. The legislature that passed the law cannot do it. The President cannot do it whether he allows it to become law or veto it. The only branch left is the judiciary, which is independent from the other branches.
And I am sure everyone has noticed that Court’s issue “opinions.” And we know that opinions differ greatly no matter what you talk about.
I’m not sure that anything has ever been said where everyone agreed with one exception … Epstein did not kill himself!
4 Likes
Indeed.
Things that do not hang themselves.
Christmas Lights
Clothes
Epstein
3 Likes
I loved it myself, learned allot
1 Like
After you learn the Second Amendment, don’t forget to follow up on learning the law on where you will possess a weapon. That includes relevant state constitutions, statutory law (ordinances and statutes), regulations, and the appropriate court’s interpretations and opinions on the laws, regs and Constitutions. It is not an easy task.
5 Likes
I must state, having read ‘The Decline of the American Republic’ ~ John Flynn and rereading ‘The Tempting of America’ ~ Judge Robert Bork…
The expansion of powers has reached a vulgar level… and we must have recourse against the courts… as they abdicate their authority and refuse to do their duty… and in my opinion, becoming illegitimate.
1 Like
Happy 2A Day, today, February 22.
Although I’ve also noticed it’s on April 17.
Either way, I never knew it existed until today, when I received an email from S&W, and Brownells, offering free range uses today, 2/22nd.
1 Like