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
Stolen elections have consequences
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="ConstitutionCowboy" data-source="post: 3556163" data-attributes="member: 745"><p>Followed shortly with revolution. How quickly and ignorantly they forget/ignore the outcome of the attempted confiscation of arms back in 1776. King George survived the fracas back then but there are no oceans between the RKBA infringers and We the People in this battle to keep our arms. Freedom is at stake.</p><p></p><p>Woody</p><p></p><p><span style="color: brown"> <em> You can live free holding the stock and possibly never have to pull the trigger, or you can try to live free at the muzzle. I prefer to hold the stock and live free. Those at the muzzle never seem to fare quite so well. </em> </span> B.E.Wood </p><p></p><p><span style="color: brown"> <em> A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. </em> </span> B.E.Wood </p><p></p><p><span style="color: brown"> <em> "The Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. </em> </span> B.E.Wood </p><p></p><p><span style="color: brown"> <em> "There is nothing to fear in this country from free people. But, when freedom is usurped, there is something to fear for people will revolt to remain free. To all usurpers, do the math, but don't wonder the outcome when you miscalculate." </em> </span> B.E.Wood</p><p></p><p>As the Court said in Boyd v. United States: [p] <span style="color: brown"> <em> "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." </em> </span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ConstitutionCowboy, post: 3556163, member: 745"] Followed shortly with revolution. How quickly and ignorantly they forget/ignore the outcome of the attempted confiscation of arms back in 1776. King George survived the fracas back then but there are no oceans between the RKBA infringers and We the People in this battle to keep our arms. Freedom is at stake. Woody [color=brown] [i] You can live free holding the stock and possibly never have to pull the trigger, or you can try to live free at the muzzle. I prefer to hold the stock and live free. Those at the muzzle never seem to fare quite so well. [/i] [/color] B.E.Wood [color=brown] [i] A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. [/i] [/color] B.E.Wood [color=brown] [i] "The Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. [/i] [/color] B.E.Wood [color=brown] [i] "There is nothing to fear in this country from free people. But, when freedom is usurped, there is something to fear for people will revolt to remain free. To all usurpers, do the math, but don't wonder the outcome when you miscalculate." [/i] [/color] B.E.Wood As the Court said in Boyd v. United States: [p] [color=brown] [i] "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." [/i] [/color] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Stolen elections have consequences
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom