Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tweetr" data-source="post: 2134582" data-attributes="member: 5183"><p>To carry this discussion a step further: I think it is intellectually lazy of free citizens to defer to black-robed specialists on matters of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is in no way so difficult as to require special education to interpret. A normal, literate education will suffice. It is not even written in legalese. It is written in the ordinary lay language of the day (albeit in a day in which the ordinary American was educated considerably better in the liberal arts than today.)</p><p></p><p>There is absolutely nothing difficult or obscure about "Congress shall make no law." When the subject is establishing religion or prohibiting the free practice of religion, Congress shall make no law. When the subject is abridging the freedom of speech, press, assembly, or petition, Congress shall make no law. Period. Nothing difficult about that.</p><p></p><p>There is nothing difficult or obscure about "shall not be infringed." Now the subject is no longer Congress, it is the right itself. Now the activity is no longer making laws, it is infringing in any way (by laws or by any other means.) How much infringement is permissible? None. What kind of infringement is permissible? None. "Shall not be infringed." Nothing difficult about that.</p><p></p><p>There is nothing difficult or obscure about "shall not be violated" in the Fourth Amendment. What shall not be violated? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Much liberty has been taken over the word "reasonable", and I'll grant that word is an unfortunate bit of legal weasel-wording thrown in, but - the question of reasonability comes in only after all other provisions of the Fourth Amendment are satisfied! No warrant containing all of the specificity required by the Fourth - no search. Period. Yet we are "violated" without a warrant of any kind, without probable cause of any kind, in our persons (x-ray, pat-down), our papers (show ID, show boarding pass), and our effects (search our luggage by x-ray and physical search) every time we fly. This manifestly and inarguably violates our right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, and there is nothing difficult or obscure about it. Meanwhile, there is a sign in the security line advising us that any of a number of prohibited jokes uttered in the hearing of a federal blue-gloved officer will result in our summary arrest. Congress made the law authorizing the TSA and its ability to write regulations. How therefore can it brazenly abridge the freedom of speech?</p><p></p><p>So why are all three of these very basic, unambiguous prohibitions ignored every day? Because we permit it. We permit our legislatures to write laws that violate our own sovereign liberty. We permit our courts to amend the Constitution notwithstanding that the Judiciary has, under other ordinary, unambiguous language of the Constitution, no power to amend. We the People are the ultimate authority granting certain limited powers to our government. We alone are the guardians of our liberty. We alone are to blame when we permit our unique government, unopposed, to do what all governments by their nature always do: arrogate ever more power and wealth to themselves at our expense.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tweetr, post: 2134582, member: 5183"] To carry this discussion a step further: I think it is intellectually lazy of free citizens to defer to black-robed specialists on matters of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is in no way so difficult as to require special education to interpret. A normal, literate education will suffice. It is not even written in legalese. It is written in the ordinary lay language of the day (albeit in a day in which the ordinary American was educated considerably better in the liberal arts than today.) There is absolutely nothing difficult or obscure about "Congress shall make no law." When the subject is establishing religion or prohibiting the free practice of religion, Congress shall make no law. When the subject is abridging the freedom of speech, press, assembly, or petition, Congress shall make no law. Period. Nothing difficult about that. There is nothing difficult or obscure about "shall not be infringed." Now the subject is no longer Congress, it is the right itself. Now the activity is no longer making laws, it is infringing in any way (by laws or by any other means.) How much infringement is permissible? None. What kind of infringement is permissible? None. "Shall not be infringed." Nothing difficult about that. There is nothing difficult or obscure about "shall not be violated" in the Fourth Amendment. What shall not be violated? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Much liberty has been taken over the word "reasonable", and I'll grant that word is an unfortunate bit of legal weasel-wording thrown in, but - the question of reasonability comes in only after all other provisions of the Fourth Amendment are satisfied! No warrant containing all of the specificity required by the Fourth - no search. Period. Yet we are "violated" without a warrant of any kind, without probable cause of any kind, in our persons (x-ray, pat-down), our papers (show ID, show boarding pass), and our effects (search our luggage by x-ray and physical search) every time we fly. This manifestly and inarguably violates our right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, and there is nothing difficult or obscure about it. Meanwhile, there is a sign in the security line advising us that any of a number of prohibited jokes uttered in the hearing of a federal blue-gloved officer will result in our summary arrest. Congress made the law authorizing the TSA and its ability to write regulations. How therefore can it brazenly abridge the freedom of speech? So why are all three of these very basic, unambiguous prohibitions ignored every day? Because we permit it. We permit our legislatures to write laws that violate our own sovereign liberty. We permit our courts to amend the Constitution notwithstanding that the Judiciary has, under other ordinary, unambiguous language of the Constitution, no power to amend. We the People are the ultimate authority granting certain limited powers to our government. We alone are the guardians of our liberty. We alone are to blame when we permit our unique government, unopposed, to do what all governments by their nature always do: arrogate ever more power and wealth to themselves at our expense. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom