Author Topic: It’s the Bill of RIGHTS, Not the Bill of Restrictions  (Read 439 times)

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 61052
  • Gender: Male
It’s the Bill of RIGHTS, Not the Bill of Restrictions
« on: October 05, 2017, 08:59:06 AM »
Love that Headline! :thumbsup:

Dear ‘Commonsense’ Gun-Grabbers: It’s the Bill of RIGHTS, Not the Bill of Restrictions


Posted October 04, 2017 02:35 PM by Rob Eno

In the wake of the horrific mass murder in Las Vegas over the weekend, there have been increasingly louder calls for “commonsense gun control.” The notion even has a hashtag on Twitter. When looking through the tweets and other calls, one thing continually comes to mind. If the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms can be “controlled” in a “commonsense” manner, what other rights should get the same treatment?

The Left either fundamentally misunderstands why the Founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution, or they understand it and purposefully mislead others. Either way, a huge number of people do not know that the reason for the Second Amendment is not for hunting or to protect oneself in one’s home. The real reason was clear to the Founders, who had just fought a war for independence. The right to bear arms was enshrined so that it would act as a check on the government, so that the government would fear the populace and would refrain from becoming tyrannical.

When you explain that to people who scream for “commonsense gun control,” it is so far from the worldview they have been taught that they think the notion “extreme.” It is not. The Second Amendment ensures the existence of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights.

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/dear-commonsense-gun-grabbers-its-not-a-bill-of-restrictions
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline s3779m

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
  • Gender: Male
  • Keep looking, it's there
Re: It’s the Bill of RIGHTS, Not the Bill of Restrictions
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2017, 12:07:43 PM »
Love that Headline! :thumbsup:

Dear ‘Commonsense’ Gun-Grabbers: It’s the Bill of RIGHTS, Not the Bill of Restrictions


Posted October 04, 2017 02:35 PM by Rob Eno


The Left either fundamentally misunderstands why the Founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution, or they understand it and purposefully mislead others.

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/dear-commonsense-gun-grabbers-its-not-a-bill-of-restrictions
The left understands that the 1st and 2nd amendments are what is standing in their way from control.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 61052
  • Gender: Male
Re: It’s the Bill of RIGHTS, Not the Bill of Restrictions
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2017, 01:13:42 PM »
The left understands that the 1st and 2nd amendments are what is standing in their way from control.
Exactly!!!
Soros paid a lot of money to get this far, he's not stopping now.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline topside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Gender: Male
  • Work with what is and toward what should be.
Re: It’s the Bill of RIGHTS, Not the Bill of Restrictions
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2017, 03:00:42 PM »
The Marxists will lie about, overlook, shade, misrepresent, or re-interpret any fact to get what they want: control. The intent of the constitution is only valuable to them if it works to their agenda. And legions of leftists will blindly follow the emotional fodder in the aftermath of any shooting right off the cliff - until the people are left with no defense against a government gone awry. The fact is that the Second Amendment:"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." - was and is intended to provide a mechanism to protect our states if the Federal government becomes tyrannical. It also inherently included the right for individuals to protect themselves by bearing arms. But if the left gets there way, who will protect us? Should we rely solely on the government - abdicate our personal independence and freedom to the feds without a fallback plan for if the feds go wrong? Have you watched our inept legislators in action this past 10 years?

I do have to ask ... the Vegas shooter owned a lot of guns. It was reported that he had more than ten but as many as 47 guns in the hotel room (based on casual internet search) and had purchased 33 guns in the past year https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/10/04/las-vegas-shooter-bought-33-guns-last-12-months/730634001/. But he should have had to file a Form 4473 (federal form) when he purchased a gun, right? Or is the form not required in some circumstances? Shouldn't his stockpile have been flagged in a database as suspicious by some three-letter organization like the FBI?

Online mrclose

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2540
Re: It’s the Bill of RIGHTS, Not the Bill of Restrictions
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2017, 03:11:03 PM »
A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army:

Quote
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

(Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?

Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

(Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/t_coxe.htm

A fascinating read on this relatively unknown Secondary Founder at the PDF link below.

https://tinyurl.com/yb43ymbr

Quote
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.

History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.

Adolph Hitler

« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 03:21:18 PM by mrclose »
"When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead.
It is difficult only for the others.

It is the same when you are stupid."

~ Anonymous

Offline TboneAgain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Gender: Male
  • Alex, I'll try "THINGS ONLY I KNOW" for $200.
Re: It’s the Bill of RIGHTS, Not the Bill of Restrictions
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2017, 05:37:02 PM »
The Marxists will lie about, overlook, shade, misrepresent, or re-interpret any fact to get what they want: control. The intent of the constitution is only valuable to them if it works to their agenda. And legions of leftists will blindly follow the emotional fodder in the aftermath of any shooting right off the cliff - until the people are left with no defense against a government gone awry. The fact is that the Second Amendment:"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." - was and is intended to provide a mechanism to protect our states if the Federal government becomes tyrannical. It also inherently included the right for individuals to protect themselves by bearing arms. But if the left gets there way, who will protect us? Should we rely solely on the government - abdicate our personal independence and freedom to the feds without a fallback plan for if the feds go wrong? Have you watched our inept legislators in action this past 10 years?

I do have to ask ... the Vegas shooter owned a lot of guns. It was reported that he had more than ten but as many as 47 guns in the hotel room (based on casual internet search) and had purchased 33 guns in the past year https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/10/04/las-vegas-shooter-bought-33-guns-last-12-months/730634001/. But he should have had to file a Form 4473 (federal form) when he purchased a gun, right? Or is the form not required in some circumstances? Shouldn't his stockpile have been flagged in a database as suspicious by some three-letter organization like the FBI?

Unless things have changed a lot since I was an FFL.....

Yes, he would have to fill out a 4473 for every transaction. But those paper forms generally stay with the dealer in what used to be called a "bound book." That book has to stay on the premises and be available for inspection should the BATF come calling. But the forms and the information on them are not generally communicated to BATF at the time of purchase. Bound books must be surrendered to BATF if an FFL goes out of business.

That being said, now we have NICS, the National Instant Check System, which is supposed to give a thumbs up or down for a prospective buyer within seconds. Most of the info that goes on the 4473 is transmitted to the FBI during an NICS request. That info is supposed to be destroyed immediately after it is used. I repeat, supposed to be....
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

 

Powered by EzPortal