A new front for gun background checks: the ballot

Apr 28, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: KTIV-TV Sioux City

"Iron Man 3" is the heavy-lifter at theaters with a colossal overseas debut that overshadows a sleepy pre-summer weekend at the domestic box office.

Comments
181 - 182 of 182 Comments Last updated May 13, 2013
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#189
May 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

.
GunShow1 wrote:
Why were there NO 'gun control laws' from 1791 all the way up to 1934?
Gosh, what do "NO" gun control laws mean down in New Mexico, GayDavy?

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190
May 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
.
<quoted text>
Gosh?
"87. Right of Self-defence.(a)

"There are some injuries which, once committed, cannot be adequately redressed. The taking of life is an extreme case of this kind. Against the commission of such injuries, therefore, every person should not only have the protection of government, when practicable, but should also have a right to defend himself. The right of self-defence would of course exist in a state of nature, and the social compact does not take it away; but the right of avenging an injury already committed is taken away. This is a fundamental distinction. You may prevent an injury from being done, by all proper means; but when done, you may not take redress in your own hands. The social compact provides a tribunal to which you are bound to resort; and abundant provision is made for securing the redress to which you may be entitled. Thus the right of self-defence and the right of redress are two distinct things; but both are equally guaranteed by the constitution. We have already seen that "the enjoying and defending life and liberty," is declared to be an inalienable right. Also, "that the people have a right to bear arms for their defence and security." (b) In England, this right is qualified by the condition, that the arms must be suitable to the condition and degree of the bearer; but here, there is no qualification."

(a) See 2 Story, Const. 1896; 1 Black. Com. 148.[A party may use reasonable force to defend the possession of his property, but he cannot use force against the person in regaining or obtaining the possession of property to which he is entitled. 3 Black. Com. 4, 179; Sampson v. Henry, 11 Pick. 387; 1 Bishop, Crim. Law, 397; 1 Hilliard on Torts, ch. v. ss 12, pp 196, 197.]
(b)[This provision is not infringed by a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. State v. Jumel, 13 La. An. 399.]

- Timothy Walker, LL.D,[INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW. DESIGNED AS A FIRST BOOK FOR STUDENTS. BY TIMOTHY WALKER LL.D. LATE PROFESSOR OF LAW IN THE CINCINATTI COLLEGE. FIFTH EDITION, REVISED BY J. BRYANT WALKER, OF THE CINCINNATI BAR. BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY 1869.]

It is self-evident that the right to arms is corollary to the Right to Self-Defense. Which of course is a natural right that can NEVER be surrendered, even after entering into society. It is a retained right that NO person can be deprived of by ANY law of man. Thus making the RESTRICTIVE clause found in the 2nd amendment; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed" abundantly clear in meaning.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 10
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••