Gosh, what do "NO" gun control laws mean down in New Mexico, GayDavy?Why were there NO 'gun control laws' from 1791 all the way up to 1934?
"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.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at KTIV-TV Sioux City.
Since: Feb 11
#189 May 13, 2013
“Shall NOT be infringed!”
Since: Apr 13
San Jose, CA.
#190 May 13, 2013
"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.
Add your comments below
|With Obama leaving, Congressional Republicans l...||Fri||Bow Down||1|
|Officials have duty to Nevadans to make backgro...||Jan 16||duzitreallymatter||2|
|CCW Weekend: The Enduring Concealed Carry Revolver||Jan 15||jimwildrickjr||1|
|Washington attorney general proposes assault we...||Jan 13||justice||2|
|Extend background checks to save lives||Jan 9||duzitreallymatter||3|
|Our own worst enemy||Jan 7||justice||3|
|GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Rec...||Jan 7||jimwildrickjr||9|
Find what you want!
Search Guns Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC