It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103292 comments on the Truthdig story from Apr 20, 2007, titled It's the Guns, Stupid. In it, Truthdig reports that:

“And that's the end of the issue”

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing? Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent ... via Truthdig

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Truthdig.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#108030 May 23, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
NCPA...HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Violent Crime
Usa 2250/100K
UK 2050/100K
Aust 1050/100K
I believe you are just making numbers up because you provide no links for your numbers.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#108031 May 23, 2013
deep calming breaths wrote:
<quoted text>An American kidnaps 3 women; keeps them as sex slaves for over a decade. But another American helped rescue them.
Moral : there are good and bad Americans, it is not a competition.
Your next point is?(some current references would be appreciated - and some references to the majority of gun crime atm, being committed by people of the Islam religion, and sexual assault against Australian women by people of Asian origin - they are abundant atm, but you'd know that right, because they are being reported in the American media? Apologies for the sarcasm, it couldn't be helped!).
Question : How often do you hear of shooting massacres in Australia?
Don't run down all Australians because of one person, I implore you!
Thank you for your time!
No I am not running down all Australians because of one person on Topix here which I think I know who you are referring to and its just like here in the US which we got them here too and I know there is a lot of Australians with commonsense and sees the affects of the gun ban already because the City of Chicago banned guns way before Australia did and Chicago has proved to be a big failure for the Radical Left and their gun grabbers in Chicago who have turned Chicago into nothing but a gang land paradise for the Criminals and just give Australia 30 years like Chicago and Australia will be like Chicago on a national level and it wont be good.

Man arrested after being shot four times in back

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-23/four-me...

Gun crackdown too late for two victims

Criminals in Australia are now possessing Automatic Pistols

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/gun...

Two charged over Sydney shooting

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-new...

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#108032 May 23, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>No I am not running down all Australians because of one person on Topix here which I think I know who you are referring to and its just like here in the US which we got them here too and I know there is a lot of Australians with commonsense and sees the affects of the gun ban already because the City of Chicago banned guns way before Australia did and Chicago has proved to be a big failure for the Radical Left and their gun grabbers in Chicago who have turned Chicago into nothing but a gang land paradise for the Criminals and just give Australia 30 years like Chicago and Australia will be like Chicago on a national level and it wont be good.
Man arrested after being shot four times in back
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-23/four-me...
Gun crackdown too late for two victims
Criminals in Australia are now possessing Automatic Pistols
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/gun...
Two charged over Sydney shooting
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-new...
Chicago has "gun control" not a ban, a ban would mean all guns. Where do Chicagoans still get all their guns?
Gun control works that is obvious, but this is not about gun control it is about gun smuggling...find the source(and we know they don't get them IN Chicago) and their gun control (like ours) would be more effective...NO? Yes!

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108033 May 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The only Supreme Court to rule otherwise is the present court, or more precisely, the five conservative wingnuz members of the court. It’s the court that gave us Citizens United which said a corporation is a person and money is speech, who much to the consternation of many true conservative judges, overturned 224 years of Supreme Court precedent which said the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun and last year ruled that it did. You would be surprised to learn that they invoked, not the constitution of the United States or the second amendment itself, but Blackstone's Rights of Englishmen, a document not only not the constitution, but a document not even American in origin which was written 100 years before the United States was created.
Imagine the hue and cry of conservatives in and out of congress if five liberal justices had ruled the same way and based their decision on something other than the constitution. Conservatives in and out of congress would be screaming for the justice’s impeachment since conservatives are always complaining about "activist" judges who find rights in the constitution that aren't there. That is exactly what the five current conservative and loony Supreme Court justices did with their decision.
From the poster: downhill246 Boca Raton, FL

Really? How many SCOTUS cases would that be?

In Cummings v. Missouri (1866), the court ruled a deprivation or suspension of a person’s civil rights, including the right to bear arms,is a form of punishment.

In US v Cruikshank(1875) the court said the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

In Logan v. United States( 1892) the court ruled the 2nd Amendment guarantee a preexisting right recognized by the Constitution, and not a right created by the Constitution

In Brown v. Walker (1896) the court ruled that the object of the first eight amendments to the Constitution was to incorporate into the fundamental law of the land certain principles of natural justice.

In US v Miller(1939) the court determined that the Second Amendment does not allow law-abiding citizens to legally own sawed-off shotguns with a barrel less than 18 inches long. That is all the court decided.

In Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), the court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is one of the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution.

In Moore v. E. Cleveland(1976) the court ruled the right to keep and bear arms is among the type of individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights

In US v Verdugo-Urquidez,(1990) the court ruled “the people” used in the 2nd Amendment refers to individual members of the American society, the same as it does in the Constitution’s preamble, and its 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments

In District of Columbia v Heller(2008) the court ruled the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right.

In McDonald v Chicago(2010) the court affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right,
http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TMIEMJ8QASNGV...

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#108034 May 23, 2013
deep calming breaths wrote:
<quoted text>An American kidnaps 3 women; keeps them as sex slaves for over a decade. But another American helped rescue them.
Moral : there are good and bad Americans, it is not a competition.
Your next point is?(some current references would be appreciated - and some references to the majority of gun crime atm, being committed by people of the Islam religion, and sexual assault against Australian women by people of Asian origin - they are abundant atm, but you'd know that right, because they are being reported in the American media? Apologies for the sarcasm, it couldn't be helped!).
Question : How often do you hear of shooting massacres in Australia?
Don't run down all Australians because of one person, I implore you!
Thank you for your time!
Stop making ridiculous claims, you are as ignorant as the person you are posting to...and for god sake stop begging you pathetic little piss ant troll, that is so not Australian.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108035 May 23, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Chicago has "gun control" not a ban, a ban would mean all guns. Where do Chicagoans still get all their guns?
Gun control works that is obvious, but this is not about gun control it is about gun smuggling...find the source(and we know they don't get them IN Chicago) and their gun control (like ours) would be more effective...NO? Yes!
Not that it's ANY of your business, but:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

That includes ALL the people across EVERY SQUARE INCH of the United States of America.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108036 May 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The only Supreme Court to rule otherwise is the present court, or more precisely, the five conservative wingnuz members of the court. It’s the court that gave us Citizens United which said a corporation is a person and money is speech, who much to the consternation of many true conservative judges, overturned 224 years of Supreme Court precedent which said the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun and last year ruled that it did. You would be surprised to learn that they invoked, not the constitution of the United States or the second amendment itself, but Blackstone's Rights of Englishmen, a document not only not the constitution, but a document not even American in origin which was written 100 years before the United States was created.
Imagine the hue and cry of conservatives in and out of congress if five liberal justices had ruled the same way and based their decision on something other than the constitution. Conservatives in and out of congress would be screaming for the justice’s impeachment since conservatives are always complaining about "activist" judges who find rights in the constitution that aren't there. That is exactly what the five current conservative and loony Supreme Court justices did with their decision.
Then explain why Massachusetts would enact the following in 1786, followed by Maine Act, ch. 17. and Ken. Act, Dec. 19, 1801?-

"ART. 2. Massachusetts statute.
"ss 1. This enacts "that if any persons to the number of twelve or more, being armed with clubs or other weapons, or if any number of persons, consisting of thirty or more, shall be unlawfully, routously, riotously, or tumultuously assembled, any justice of the peace, sheriff, or deputy sheriff of the county, or constable of the town, shall, among the rioters, or as near to them as he can safely come, command silence while proclamation is making, and shall openly make proclamation in these or like words;" then follows the form of the proclamation; and if they disperse not in one hour after proclamation made or attempted to be made, the officer may command sufficient aid and shall seize, them who shall be had before a justice of the peace, and such officer may require a sufficient number of people in arms, if the rioters or any of them appeared armed, and if any of the rioters by their resistance be killed the officers and assistants are held guiltless.{Side Note: Mass. Act. 0ct. 28, 1786.--Maine Act, ch. 17.--Ken. Act, Dec. 19, 1801, s.32.}
"ss 2. Also enacts, that if any person refuses such assistance he forfeits not more than 10, nor less than 2, to the Commonwealth, which may be recovered on indictment or information as it is to the Commonwealth...."
[A GENERAL ABRIDGMENT AND DIGEST OF AMERICAN LAW, WITH OCCASIONAL Notes and Comments BY NATHAN DANE LL.D. COUNSELLOR AT LAW. IN EIGHT VOLUMES. VOL. VII. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY CUMMINGS, HILLIARD & CO. 1824.]

You traitor-trolls just can't seem to win, huh? Which of course makes you LOSERS.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#108037 May 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not that it's ANY of your business, but:
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
That includes ALL the people across EVERY SQUARE INCH of the United States of America.
I know that the Chicagoans get their guns outside their borders silly noong, that was my point, but you might tell Indy that, he seems somewhat lagging behind in that logical assumption.

Since: Feb 11

Chatteris, UK

#108038 May 23, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>instead of worrying about bushmasters or assault weapons and I can bet more people today have gotten killed by an automobile than a bushmaster or assault weapon beside for one I am not for a Police state like you are which I prefer to be able to defend myself vs be a victim like the Soldier in UK who was a Law abiding and couldn't carry a gun for personal protection and was murdered in daylight while everybody else stood there and watch the soldier be victimized because no body was to be armed except the criminals with the knives & gun and why they did it because there was no threat and I am not the one that claimed that the soldier was beheaded that was in the news article that I posted & News Media claiming that which here is a different article claiming the same thing too that the soldier was beheaded and like I told with that article Murder in America you posted from the Wall Street Journal confirms that the states here in the US that have strict gun control laws and lean to the Radical Left have the highest homicide & crime rates just like why there has been explosion in violent crime in Australia & UK after the guns bans.
In wake of soldier’s beheading, UK authorities on alert for anti-Muslim backlash
Beheading puts UK on alert for anti-Islam backlash
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mosq...
England’s Crime Rate Nearly Four Times Higher than United States
http://capoliticalnews.com/2013/01/14/england...
U.K., New Zealand & Australia: higher rates of violent crime than the U.S.
http://blog.uritraining.com/...
The reports at present suggest that the terroists were laying in wait. The squaddie left the barracks and he was run down with a car that mounted the pavement to get at him, crushing him against a road sign, the two terrorists then got out of the car and set about him with knives and a clever, the attempt was made to decapitate him ( the threat has been made before by others). Passers by at first thought that the terrorists had gone to the aid of the soildier following their accident. The pair of them apparently originate from Uganda, but have lived in the UK for some tme and went to school here. their parents are apparently of the christian faith and still are.

Ban cars.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#108039 May 24, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that the Chicagoans get their guns outside their borders silly noong, that was my point, but you might tell Indy that, he seems somewhat lagging behind in that logical assumption.
you mean the Chicagoan Criminals get their guns outside their borders not law abiding citizens and I like how you place the law abiding citizens and criminals in the same group but according to NY times of the 50,000 stolen guns recovered 22,051 or 44% of the stolen guns recovered were from Illinois and just think in 30 years Australia is going to look just like modern day gang land Chicago on a National level.

Where 50,000 Guns Recovered in Chicago Came From

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29...

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#108040 May 24, 2013
spider1954 wrote:
<quoted text>
The reports at present suggest that the terroists were laying in wait. The squaddie left the barracks and he was run down with a car that mounted the pavement to get at him, crushing him against a road sign, the two terrorists then got out of the car and set about him with knives and a clever, the attempt was made to decapitate him ( the threat has been made before by others). Passers by at first thought that the terrorists had gone to the aid of the soildier following their accident. The pair of them apparently originate from Uganda, but have lived in the UK for some tme and went to school here. their parents are apparently of the christian faith and still are.
Ban cars.
Ban terrorists. It should be open season in those a**holes.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#108041 May 24, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
Gary Kleck
Kleck is hilarious.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#108042 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
Not that it's ANY of your business, but:
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
{click}

Not part of the US Constitution, GayDavy.

If you don't like the Second Amendment the way it is, GayDavy, why don't you try to change it to your version?
spocko

Oakland, CA

#108043 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
From the poster: downhill246 Boca Raton, FL
Really? How many SCOTUS cases would that be?
In Cummings v. Missouri (1866), the court ruled a deprivation or suspension of a person’s civil rights, including the right to bear arms,is a form of punishment.
In US v Cruikshank(1875) the court said the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.
In Logan v. United States( 1892) the court ruled the 2nd Amendment guarantee a preexisting right recognized by the Constitution, and not a right created by the Constitution
In Brown v. Walker (1896) the court ruled that the object of the first eight amendments to the Constitution was to incorporate into the fundamental law of the land certain principles of natural justice.
In US v Miller(1939) the court determined that the Second Amendment does not allow law-abiding citizens to legally own sawed-off shotguns with a barrel less than 18 inches long. That is all the court decided.
In Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), the court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is one of the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution.
In Moore v. E. Cleveland(1976) the court ruled the right to keep and bear arms is among the type of individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights
In US v Verdugo-Urquidez,(1990) the court ruled “the people” used in the 2nd Amendment refers to individual members of the American society, the same as it does in the Constitution’s preamble, and its 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments
In District of Columbia v Heller(2008) the court ruled the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right.
In McDonald v Chicago(2010) the court affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right,
http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TMIEMJ8QASNGV...
Like I said you don't have a clue ye friggen moron!
The only Supreme Court to rule otherwise is the present court, or more precisely, the five conservative wingnuz members of the court. Who much to the consternation of many true conservative judges, overturned 224 years of Supreme Court precedent which said the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun and ruled that it did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...
spocko

Oakland, CA

#108044 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then explain why Massachusetts would enact the following in 1786, followed by Maine Act, ch. 17. and Ken. Act, Dec. 19, 1801?-
"ART. 2. Massachusetts statute.
"ss 1. This enacts "that if any persons to the number of twelve or more, being armed with clubs or other weapons, or if any number of persons, consisting of thirty or more, shall be unlawfully, routously, riotously, or tumultuously assembled, any justice of the peace, sheriff, or deputy sheriff of the county, or constable of the town, shall, among the rioters, or as near to them as he can safely come, command silence while proclamation is making, and shall openly make proclamation in these or like words;" then follows the form of the proclamation; and if they disperse not in one hour after proclamation made or attempted to be made, the officer may command sufficient aid and shall seize, them who shall be had before a justice of the peace, and such officer may require a sufficient number of people in arms, if the rioters or any of them appeared armed, and if any of the rioters by their resistance be killed the officers and assistants are held guiltless.{Side Note: Mass. Act. 0ct. 28, 1786.--Maine Act, ch. 17.--Ken. Act, Dec. 19, 1801, s.32.}
"ss 2. Also enacts, that if any person refuses such assistance he forfeits not more than 10, nor less than 2, to the Commonwealth, which may be recovered on indictment or information as it is to the Commonwealth...."
[A GENERAL ABRIDGMENT AND DIGEST OF AMERICAN LAW, WITH OCCASIONAL Notes and Comments BY NATHAN DANE LL.D. COUNSELLOR AT LAW. IN EIGHT VOLUMES. VOL. VII. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY CUMMINGS, HILLIARD & CO. 1824.]
You traitor-trolls just can't seem to win, huh? Which of course makes you LOSERS.
You are a certifiable f-ing moron!
The only Supreme Court to rule otherwise is the present court, or more precisely, the five conservative wingnuz members of the court. Who much to the consternation of many true conservative judges, overturned 224 years of Supreme Court precedent which said the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun and ruled that it did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#108045 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said you don't have a clue ye friggen moron!
The only Supreme Court to rule otherwise is the present court, or more precisely, the five conservative wingnuz members of the court. Who much to the consternation of many true conservative judges, overturned 224 years of Supreme Court precedent which said the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun and ruled that it did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...
These decisions upheld the state's right to limit or regulate firearms indicating the bill of rights pertained to the federal government. The first amendment starts with,[Congress] shall make no law....

The decision pertaining to the constitution not granting 2nd amendment rights upholds the principle the rights are preexisting and not "granted". The government can't take away a preexisting right.

Incorporation of rights to the states began with civil rights or equal protection when some states denied blacks gun ownership. That's how the federal government became involved with the [people] having the right to keep and bear arms.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108046 May 24, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that the Chicagoans get their guns outside their borders silly noong, that was my point, but you might tell Indy that, he seems somewhat lagging behind in that logical assumption.
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed"

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108047 May 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
{click}
Not part of the US Constitution, GayDavy.
If you don't like the Second Amendment the way it is, GayDavy, why don't you try to change it to your version?
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the court ruled the following:

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."

And, although many parts of Cruikshank have been overturned by later decisions, it is still relied upon with some authority in portions. Cruikshank was also reaffirmed in Presser v. Illinois in 1886.

That being the case concerning the view of the court concerning the second amendment at that time. And for more than 100 years thereafter. Then how can the court reconcile the following?:

1934 National Firearms Act

1938 Federal Firearms Act

1968 Gun Control Act

1972 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created

1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act

1990 Crime Control Act

1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Did not the federal government totally disregard the ruling of the court? Not to mention the express prohibition found within the “Restrictive clause” of the Second Article of Amendment to the United State Constitution itself:

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I contend it can be firmly held that the federal government has indeed disregarded the prior ruling of the court. In addition to the clear restriction found within the second amendment itself.

Why? Has the court joined in a long running conspiracy with the other branches of the federal government. And this in order to deprive part or all of We The People of our preexisting Constitutionally secured right? It certainly appears that way, does it not? Especially after considering that the right to keep and bear arms was intended as the final checkpoint in our system of checks and balances.

What has happened to our intended system of “checks and balances”?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108048 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a certifiable f-ing moron!
The only Supreme Court to rule otherwise is the present court, or more precisely, the five conservative wingnuz members of the court. Who much to the consternation of many true conservative judges, overturned 224 years of Supreme Court precedent which said the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun and ruled that it did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...
"...Jack was the property of the plaintiff, who had a right to possess and protect his slave or servant, whom he had a right to seize and take away to his residence in New Jersey by force, if force was necessary, he had a right to secure him from escape, or rescue by any means not cruel or wantonly severe--he had a right to carry arms in defence of his property or person, and to use them, if either were assailed with such force, numbers or violence as made it necessary the protection or safety of either; he had a right to come into state and take Jack on Sunday, the act of taking him up and conveying him to the Billet was no breach of the peace, if not done by noise and disorder, occasioned by himself or his party--and their peaceable entry into the house of Mrs. Kenderdine was lawful and justifiable, for this purpose in doing these acts they were supported by laws which no human authority could shake or question...."[pg. 598]

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice BALDWIN, Circuit Court of The United States,[PENNSYLVANIA APRIL TERM 1833 BEFORE Hon. HENRY BALDWIN, Associate Justice of the [U.S.] Supreme Court, Hon JOSEPH HOPKINSON District Judge, Johnson v Tompkins,(13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others. REPORTS OF CASES DETERMINED IN The Circuit Court United States, IN AND FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, COMPRISING THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. BY HENRY BALDWIN One of the Judges of that Court. "Sed melius et tatius est, petere fontes quam sectari rivulos.", 10 Coke 41 a; 117, b. VOL. I. PHILADELPHIA: JAMES KAY, JUN. & BROTHER, 122 CHESTNUT STREET. PITTSBURGH: JOHN I. KAY & CO. 1837.]

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108049 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said you don't have a clue ye friggen moron!
The only Supreme Court to rule otherwise is the present court, or more precisely, the five conservative wingnuz members of the court. Who much to the consternation of many true conservative judges, overturned 224 years of Supreme Court precedent which said the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun and ruled that it did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...
United States Circuit Court,

DISTRICT OF MISSOURI,

SPECIAL JULY TERM, 1861.

PRESENT:

HON. JOHN CATRON,
An Associate Justice of Supreme Court of United States.

HON. ROB'T W. WELLS,
District Judge of United States for Western District of Missouri.

HON. SAMUEL TREAT,
District Judge of United States for Eastern District of Missouri.

CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY
BY THE COURT,
JULY 10, 1861.

ST. LOUIS:

PRINTED AT THE DEMOCRAT BOOK AND JOB OFFICE

1861.

"The Constitution and laws of the United States "are the supreme law of the land," anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding." Their supremacy is thus declared in express terms: "Whatever conflicts therewith has no operative or obligatory force. Allegiance to the United States, and loyalty to the United States Constitution and laws, are the paramount duty of every citizen. Within their legitimate sphere, they command the obedience of all, and no State Constitution or statute can absolve any one therefrom...."

"...Inasmuch as the Constitution provides a peaceable and regular mode whereby it or the U. S. laws may be amended, there can be no other rightful mode of effecting that end known either to the Constitution or law. As it is both the right and duty of every citizen to become fully informed upon all governmental affairs, so as to discharge his many political obligations intelligently at the ballot-box, and in other legitimate ways; and the freedom of the press and of speech are guaranteed to him for that as well as other essential purposes; and as the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances, and to keep and bear arms, cannot be lawfully abridged or infringed...."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Texas mass shooting Nov 11 Canlendyou 13
News Massachusetts 1st to ban bump stocks since Vega... Nov 11 Watchdog 3
News Existing laws should have stopped shooter Nov 10 payme 1
News Texas Attorney General: The way to stop mass sh... Nov 9 Brenda Lasley 16
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) Nov 7 Charlie 122
News Packing pistols: Is Texas safer with more licen... (Jul '11) Nov 6 Free Farts 12
News Increase hunting safety zone Oct 31 payme 3
More from around the web