Bob Tuke applauds Supreme Court 2nd Amendment decision
Submitted by R. Neal on Thu, 06/26/2008 - 16:59.
Bob Tuke, candidate for U.S. Senate, released the following statement today regarding the United States Supreme Court ruling on the Washington, D.C. gun ban case.
"The Second Amendment provides for a constitutional right of responsible gun ownership, and I support the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the absolute gun ban that had been enacted in our nation's capital. If elected to the U.S. Senate, I will remain vigilant in upholding the right to bear arms of law abiding citizens of the United States."
Question
Why was the Second Amendment put into the Constitution?
Answer
So that we could protect ourselves from the government!
Other measures to protect US from the government were:
1) The fedgov could have no army in peacetime.
2) Fedgov could not quarter troops in our houses
3) Fedgov could send troops into a state only with the consent of the state government or during an insurrection.
Question
Without an army how could the federal government defend the country against invasion and war?
Answer
By calling out the militia: Each state had an organized militia under the control of the state government (the officers were trained by the federal government).
Question
What was to prevent the state government from using the militia against its own citizens?
Answer
To regulate that is to control the militia the Founder’s said “Arm the entire population”
THAT is the Second Amendment.
In the “Federalist Papers” the founders asserted that the combined militias of the states would be stronger than any force the Federal Government could raise, and by the same reasoning an armed population would be stronger than any militia a State Government could use against its citizens.
The Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting, sportsmanship or target shooting:
The claim that it does has been made by people who want to exclude the ordinary citizens.
(Who are not hunters, sportsmen or target shooters) from the debate.
This allows those promoters to agree to a series of compromises which over time will disarm the people and leave US at the mercy of the government.
If you are a gun owner in America.
Vote for Leonard “ Lenny” Ladner for United States Senate.
Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 06/27/2008 - 18:28.
It is not remarkable that the Supreme Court struck down a set of laws that effectively banned the use of all guns by an American in his own home for self defense.
The amazing part is that almost a near majority of the supreme court - 4 against self defense - 5 for self defense - thought there was nothing wrong with a govenment requiring a law abiding citzen to choose between breaking the law & going to prison for up to 5 years on the one hand and letting his family die in his own home.
Apparently, for the 4 justices in favor of no self-defense, any price, even the death of an innocent family, is not to high to pay to keep "evil guns" from being used by law abiding citzens. By definition anyone who used a gun for self defense would be a serious criminal under the law struck down by the court. So, of course, if one actually used a gun for self defense they would no longer be innocent - so it is OK they should die??? And these people are judges??? What planet to these four live on ???
Obmama claims he supports this decision in favor of self defense and the individual right to own a gun. But he would like to get rid of the Supreme Court justices who "agreed" with him and replace them with ones like those who voted against self defense in your own home.
Which Obama will we get if he is elected - pro individual rights - or pro government powers ???
Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 06/28/2008 - 20:25.
If repeat offenders committ the majority of crime, why are they allowed to roam free? Gun Bans only serve to punish those who obey the law. They have done nothing to rid our society of criminals. The Supreme Courts decision on the 2nd Amendment as it relates to D.C. is a step in the right direction. Now that the 2nd Amendment is again considered to be related to the individual and not only the State, maybe we can direct our energies to the cause of firearm violence. We must rid our streets of criminals. First of all, keep repeat offenders in prison where they belong. Might be more effective than the "feel good" legislation to ban guns and other things because they "look" evil.
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 19:24.
6-30-08
The Constitution could not have been ratified without an agreement that there would, follwing ratification, be crafted a Bill of Rights.
A right is not a guarantee from government; it is potential from God for which men are responsible to exercise carefully and thoughtfully for their peace, happpiness, and prosperity. The Bill of Rights is neither inclusive nor exclusive, as our founding fathers understood that each man's relationship with the God who gave to all humanity certain inalienable rights, was unique. How a man would exercise those rights in his life was going to be different from that of his neighbor, and it was not for government to place restrictions on a man's exercise of his God-given rights - this makes government into god - and unless and until a man's overruled his respect for the rights of his neighbors and caused some damage, the federal government was otherwise told by the Constitution to 'keep their hands off'.
IN this wise, the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with 'individual' rights: there was no agreement between the federal, central government and the indivisual people of the Nation States that ratified the Constitution. The Bill of rights was a defining wall of stone between the Nation States which represented within their borders the will of the people, and the federal, central government which acted to join together and protect the people in a nation of 'United States'; this, to prevent federal tyranny. To this day, a State may make laws that are the equal of, but not superior to, the Constitution, in their lawful regulation of rights.
However, by saying that the 2nd Amendment as written was not absolute as a right, this Supreme Court found both for and against regulating firearms, but placed the burden of regulation within the borders of the States, where it rightfully belongs.
I look for many frivolous lawsuits by gun haters who will piously argue that regulation of guns is now as much their right as is the right to own and carry a gun within one's own home for self defense. Who is going to be 'more right' is the can of worms opened by the court, and the gun haters are going to attempt to drain the pond.
Above all, it isn't the right to own guns that is at stake: it's the unfettered right to defend one's life, family and home against tyranny, in whatever form that might take, when only deadly force will win the day, which can only be accomplished when the weapons of tyranny are matched or exceeded in killing power by the weapons freely available to fearless patriots.
Waco. Ruby Ridge. Our schools. Our homes.
9-11. The ongoing border wars where the Mexican army is routinely crossing our borders protecting drug mules, led by Communist Chinese Army 'advisors'...
Bearonvonursa
Lenny Ladner
The Purpose Of The Second Amendment
Question
Why was the Second Amendment put into the Constitution?
Answer
So that we could protect ourselves from the government!
Other measures to protect US from the government were:
1) The fedgov could have no army in peacetime.
2) Fedgov could not quarter troops in our houses
3) Fedgov could send troops into a state only with the consent of the state government or during an insurrection.
Question
Without an army how could the federal government defend the country against invasion and war?
Answer
By calling out the militia: Each state had an organized militia under the control of the state government (the officers were trained by the federal government).
Question
What was to prevent the state government from using the militia against its own citizens?
Answer
To regulate that is to control the militia the Founder’s said “Arm the entire population”
THAT is the Second Amendment.
In the “Federalist Papers” the founders asserted that the combined militias of the states would be stronger than any force the Federal Government could raise, and by the same reasoning an armed population would be stronger than any militia a State Government could use against its citizens.
The Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting, sportsmanship or target shooting:
The claim that it does has been made by people who want to exclude the ordinary citizens.
(Who are not hunters, sportsmen or target shooters) from the debate.
This allows those promoters to agree to a series of compromises which over time will disarm the people and leave US at the mercy of the government.
If you are a gun owner in America.
Vote for Leonard “ Lenny” Ladner for United States Senate.
Please visit me on the web at Link....
I would appreciate it if you could duplicate this message.
It is not remarkable that the Supreme Court struck down a set of laws that effectively banned the use of all guns by an American in his own home for self defense.
The amazing part is that almost a near majority of the supreme court - 4 against self defense - 5 for self defense - thought there was nothing wrong with a govenment requiring a law abiding citzen to choose between breaking the law & going to prison for up to 5 years on the one hand and letting his family die in his own home.
Apparently, for the 4 justices in favor of no self-defense, any price, even the death of an innocent family, is not to high to pay to keep "evil guns" from being used by law abiding citzens. By definition anyone who used a gun for self defense would be a serious criminal under the law struck down by the court. So, of course, if one actually used a gun for self defense they would no longer be innocent - so it is OK they should die??? And these people are judges??? What planet to these four live on ???
Obmama claims he supports this decision in favor of self defense and the individual right to own a gun. But he would like to get rid of the Supreme Court justices who "agreed" with him and replace them with ones like those who voted against self defense in your own home.
Which Obama will we get if he is elected - pro individual rights - or pro government powers ???
If repeat offenders committ the majority of crime, why are they allowed to roam free? Gun Bans only serve to punish those who obey the law. They have done nothing to rid our society of criminals. The Supreme Courts decision on the 2nd Amendment as it relates to D.C. is a step in the right direction. Now that the 2nd Amendment is again considered to be related to the individual and not only the State, maybe we can direct our energies to the cause of firearm violence. We must rid our streets of criminals. First of all, keep repeat offenders in prison where they belong. Might be more effective than the "feel good" legislation to ban guns and other things because they "look" evil.
6-30-08
The Constitution could not have been ratified without an agreement that there would, follwing ratification, be crafted a Bill of Rights.
A right is not a guarantee from government; it is potential from God for which men are responsible to exercise carefully and thoughtfully for their peace, happpiness, and prosperity. The Bill of Rights is neither inclusive nor exclusive, as our founding fathers understood that each man's relationship with the God who gave to all humanity certain inalienable rights, was unique. How a man would exercise those rights in his life was going to be different from that of his neighbor, and it was not for government to place restrictions on a man's exercise of his God-given rights - this makes government into god - and unless and until a man's overruled his respect for the rights of his neighbors and caused some damage, the federal government was otherwise told by the Constitution to 'keep their hands off'.
IN this wise, the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with 'individual' rights: there was no agreement between the federal, central government and the indivisual people of the Nation States that ratified the Constitution. The Bill of rights was a defining wall of stone between the Nation States which represented within their borders the will of the people, and the federal, central government which acted to join together and protect the people in a nation of 'United States'; this, to prevent federal tyranny. To this day, a State may make laws that are the equal of, but not superior to, the Constitution, in their lawful regulation of rights.
However, by saying that the 2nd Amendment as written was not absolute as a right, this Supreme Court found both for and against regulating firearms, but placed the burden of regulation within the borders of the States, where it rightfully belongs.
I look for many frivolous lawsuits by gun haters who will piously argue that regulation of guns is now as much their right as is the right to own and carry a gun within one's own home for self defense. Who is going to be 'more right' is the can of worms opened by the court, and the gun haters are going to attempt to drain the pond.
Above all, it isn't the right to own guns that is at stake: it's the unfettered right to defend one's life, family and home against tyranny, in whatever form that might take, when only deadly force will win the day, which can only be accomplished when the weapons of tyranny are matched or exceeded in killing power by the weapons freely available to fearless patriots.
Waco. Ruby Ridge. Our schools. Our homes.
9-11. The ongoing border wars where the Mexican army is routinely crossing our borders protecting drug mules, led by Communist Chinese Army 'advisors'...
Bearonvonursa
Post new comment