Author Topic: 2nd Amendment stuff - Bill Whittle's take  (Read 1423 times)

Offline Hoofer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4771
  • Gender: Male
  • HAM Radio - the last form of free expression
2nd Amendment stuff - Bill Whittle's take
« on: March 27, 2016, 02:05:37 PM »
There is this and some other great stuff on constitutional rights.  But this one is an eyeopener!
All animals are created equal; Some just take longer to cook.   Survival is keeping an eye on those around you...

Offline daidalos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4215
  • Gender: Male
  • “Democracy is the most vile form of government.”
Re: 2nd Amendment stuff - Bill Whittle's take
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2016, 06:18:23 AM »
What is so shocking about this?

By the way, it's interesting the language expert, came down saying basically the same thing the Supremes have said, when interpreting the second amendment to the Constitution.

Ruling that it is, indeed enumerating what is an inviolable right, reserved to the individual citizen by the Constitution.

When the liberal regressives attempted to argue to the court what Mr. Whittle talks about.

That the second amendment only applies to a state militia.
One of every five Americans you meet has a mental illness of some sort. Many, many, of our veteran's suffer from mental illness like PTSD now also. Help if ya can. :) http://www.projectsemicolon.org/share-your-story.html
And no you won't find my "story" there. They don't allow science fiction. :)

Offline ConstitutionalModerate

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: 2nd Amendment stuff - Bill Whittle's take
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2019, 06:43:09 AM »
Another great video with truth about the Second Amendment:

The Right to Bear Arms Dan Smoot 1960's TV program that is as relevant today as it was then.



« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 06:48:41 AM by ConstitutionalModerate »

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67399
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2nd Amendment stuff - Bill Whittle's take
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2019, 06:48:29 AM »
A state militia is the people.

The Right to Bear Arms Dan Smoot 1960's TV program that is as relevant today as it was then.


I love that guy!!! Thanks for the reminder, because I'm working on an article and Smoot is a perfect example of the country many of us grew up in and want to return to.
Welcome to the forum CM.
#WWG1WGA

Offline ConstitutionalModerate

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: 2nd Amendment stuff - Bill Whittle's take
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2019, 06:53:21 AM »
I love that guy!!! Thanks for the reminder, because I'm working on an article and Smoot is a perfect example of the country many of us grew up in and want to return to.
Welcome to the forum CM.

Thanks for the welcome Solar! I love him too and we need people like this so desperately today. Yes, he is the perfect example of someone trying to educate others to take political action and restore our Constitutional Republic before it falls to democracy. His programs and books are filled with truth and I think it is great you are using him in your article!

Glad I could help with the reminder :)

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67399
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2nd Amendment stuff - Bill Whittle's take
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2019, 06:59:30 AM »
Thanks for the welcome Solar! I love him too and we need people like this so desperately today. Yes, he is the perfect example of someone trying to educate others to take political action and restore our Constitutional Republic before it falls to democracy. His programs and books are filled with truth and I think it is great you are using him in your article!

Glad I could help with the reminder :)
Yes, he is the epitome of what most Americans knew and believed back in the day. McCarthy was Right, and we allowed the left to shame him and his endeavors of purging communists from the country, and look at us today.
Institutions of higher learning hiring these commie scum to corrupt our children. Thank God for Trump!
#WWG1WGA

Offline ConstitutionalModerate

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: 2nd Amendment stuff - Bill Whittle's take
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2019, 07:01:55 AM »
Yes, states can exempt themselves from federal gun laws as well as any other federal regulation per the Constitution.

Case: Printz v. United States

Question
Using the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I as justification, can Congress temporarily require state CLEOs to regulate handgun purchases by performing those duties called for by the Brady Bill's handgun applicant background-checks?

Conclusion
5–4 DECISION FOR PRINTZ
MAJORITY OPINION BY ANTONIN SCALIA

No. The Court constructed its opinion on the old principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. The Court explained that while Congress may require the federal government to regulate commerce directly, in this case by performing background-checks on applicants for handgun ownership, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not empower it to compel state CLEOs to fulfill its federal tasks for it - even temporarily. The Court added that the Brady Bill could not require CLEOs to perform the related tasks of disposing of handgun-application forms or notifying certain applicants of the reasons for their refusal in writing, since the Brady Bill reserved such duties only for those CLEO's who voluntarily accepted them.

It is untrue when anyone claims that the idea that states are not subject to any federal law was "never accepted by the Supreme Court as valid". Printz v United States does exactly that on the Brady Bill. Two sheriff's sued the federal government and the Clinton Administration because they were trying to force states into carrying out federal regulations in their states. Another legacy opinion of Justice Scalia and landmark decision on state rights v federal over states internal affairs, this decision made it clear that the federal government has no power under the constitution to tell the states what to do or make them enforce federal law. States are not under any obligation to follow federal law.

There is a good book on this case by Sheriff Mack, who is the other sheriff that sued the federal government along with Printz. It is called "The County Sheriff America's Last Hope" which details this case and more truth on how the Sheriff of every county should be protecting their people from the federal government.

Sheriff Richard Mack "The power of the country sheriff"

« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 07:22:33 AM by ConstitutionalModerate »

Offline ConstitutionalModerate

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: 2nd Amendment stuff - Bill Whittle's take
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2019, 07:05:43 AM »
Since the OP was about Whittle's take, I am sharing a gun speech he did as "virtual president" but oh how I wish he was really in front of congress because they need to hear this truth!

Bill Whittle GUNS (Virtual State of the Union 2013)



Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67399
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2nd Amendment stuff - Bill Whittle's take
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2019, 07:12:06 AM »
Yes, states can exempt themselves from federal gun laws as well as any other federal regulation per the Constitution.

Case: Printz v. United States

Question
Using the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I as justification, can Congress temporarily require state CLEOs to regulate handgun purchases by performing those duties called for by the Brady Bill's handgun applicant background-checks?

Conclusion
5–4 DECISION FOR PRINTZ
MAJORITY OPINION BY ANTONIN SCALIA

No. The Court constructed its opinion on the old principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. The Court explained that while Congress may require the federal government to regulate commerce directly, in this case by performing background-checks on applicants for handgun ownership, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not empower it to compel state CLEOs to fulfill its federal tasks for it - even temporarily. The Court added that the Brady Bill could not require CLEOs to perform the related tasks of disposing of handgun-application forms or notifying certain applicants of the reasons for their refusal in writing, since the Brady Bill reserved such duties only for those CLEO's who voluntarily accepted them.

It is untrue when anyone claims that the idea that states are not subject to any federal law was "never accepted by the Supreme Court as valid". Printz v United States does exactly that on the Brady Bill. Two sheriff's sued the federal government and the Clinton Administration because they were trying to force states into carrying out federal regulations in their states. Another legacy opinion of Justice Scalia and landmark decision on state rights v federal over states internal affairs, this decision made it clear that the federal government has no power under the constitution to tell the states what to do or make them enforce federal law. States are not under any obligation to follow federal law.

There is a good book on this case by Sheriff Mack, who is the other sheriff that sued the federal government along with Printz. It is called "The County Sheriff America's Last Hope" which details this case and more truth on how the Sheriff of every county should be protecting their people from the federal government.
Fact is, SCOTUS never had the power to regulate "Arms" in the first place, and by interfering, they set precedent.
Keeping in mind why the Bill of Rights was created in the first place.
Now States run to SCOTUS to further bastardize the meaning of the B of R, further watering its original intent of God granting us Rights, not the govt..

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.
#WWG1WGA

Offline ConstitutionalModerate

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: 2nd Amendment stuff - Bill Whittle's take
« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2019, 08:27:08 AM »
Fact is, SCOTUS never had the power to regulate "Arms" in the first place, and by interfering, they set precedent.
Keeping in mind why the Bill of Rights was created in the first place.
Now States run to SCOTUS to further bastardize the meaning of the B of R, further watering its original intent of God granting us Rights, not the govt..

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.

Agreed, which is why he said he wished he had done what Sheriff Nixon did and just told the federal government no, that this county will not be following that law, instead of filing suit. The Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution or interpret it to mean anything other than what it meant when adopted. Thus meaning changes made for Obamacare to become a tax instead of a penalty are illegal (the whole socialist program is unconstitutional on its face because only states can experiment with social healthcare programs anyway but pointing out that the Supreme Court has no authority over the Constitution because they too are limited by it or supposed to be). Any changes made to the Constitution by the Supreme Court, a popular majority or anyone other than the people by due process are illegal/ INVALID.

My passion for the rule of law and our Constitutional rights has led me back to college and I am studying law to get into government and do my part to help restore our free Republic. Becoming a justice one day is my ultimate goal but as I work my way up I will do all I can as well to put federal government back in it's rightful place constitutionally.

Dan Smoot explains the Constitution very well here including that states are not subject to any federal laws.

Dan Smoot #463 The Constitution of the United States (July 1964)
« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 08:44:45 AM by ConstitutionalModerate »

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67399
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2nd Amendment stuff - Bill Whittle's take
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2019, 09:19:27 AM »
Agreed, which is why he said he wished he had done what Sheriff Nixon did and just told the federal government no, that this county will not be following that law, instead of filing suit. The Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution or interpret it to mean anything other than what it meant when adopted. Thus meaning changes made for Obamacare to become a tax instead of a penalty are illegal (the whole socialist program is unconstitutional on its face because only states can experiment with social healthcare programs anyway but pointing out that the Supreme Court has no authority over the Constitution because they too are limited by it or supposed to be). Any changes made to the Constitution by the Supreme Court, a popular majority or anyone other than the people by due process are illegal/ INVALID.

My passion for the rule of law and our Constitutional rights has led me back to college and I am studying law to get into government and do my part to help restore our free Republic. Becoming a justice one day is my ultimate goal but as I work my way up I will do all I can as well to put federal government back in it's rightful place constitutionally.

Dan Smoot explains the Constitution very well here including that states are not subject to any federal laws.

Dan Smoot #463 The Constitution of the United States (July 1964)

Correct! The only Fed laws the States are subject to is the Compact they signed as signatories to the Constitution. Hell, the constitution states quite clearly, any powers that are not specifically outlined in the Constitution of the US are reserved for the state.
The Constitution has become so bastardized that they even reinterpreted the "Welfare" clause.

And thank you for pursuing the law as our Founders intended.. :thumbup:
#WWG1WGA

 

Powered by EzPortal