Re: real history: what they forget about "the gun law": the revolutionary war
Posted by:
j9pc3
()
Date: February 17, 2018 01:22PM
Right the british at one time had a law against Paupers having weapons, they no doubt had that in mind.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Bear \Bear\ (b[^a]r), v. t. [imp. {Bore} (b[=o]r) (formerly
{Bare} (b[^a]r)); p. p. {Born} (b[^o]rn), {Borne} (b[=o]rn);
p. pr. & vb. n. {Bearing}.] [OE. beren, AS. beran, beoran, to
bear, carry, produce; akin to D. baren to bring forth, G.
geb[aum]ren, Goth. ba['i]ran to bear or carry, Icel. bera,
Sw. b[aum]ra, Dan. b[ae]re, OHG. beran, peran, L. ferre to
bear, carry, produce, Gr. fe`rein, OSlav. brati to take,
carry, OIr. berim I bear, Skr. bh[.r] to bear. [root]92. Cf.
{Fertile}.]
1. To support or sustain; to hold up.
[1913 Webster]
2. To support and remove or carry; to convey.
[1913 Webster]
Bearing is a clear hint that "carrying", owning, storing, is included.
It's good to note hear that ANY such legal passage means "legally bearing" not illegally bearing, and means "born and assumed right" UNLESS previous conviction by law would prohibit.
There's a legal right to association and also motion. Both can be removed but ONLY are to be removed LEGALLY.
Now, to the legal point: politics are not allowed in court. If a democrat run area or state has "overtaken rulings to favor democrats" (they most always do), then any such must not be allowed even before it gets to those courts.
Democrats will use government paid psychiatrists who have in the past accused every trait of being a republican as being a terrorist, openly.
Untrained brats with guns, who are not attenders of shriners and hunters and masons meetings, do not necessarily "legally carry" anymore than "the right to vote won't be infringed" guarantees a vote.
Training however, in democrat's hands, ends up COSTLY, creating government jobs senselessly, and biased toward government workers.
I'm not at all sure that "government" is the answer.
Perhaps instead of studying harriet tubman for a few months of every year to bow a knee to blacks they should study weapons.
Or perhaps the young should ]not have to pay or "pass insidious dmeocrat tests" but rather be well known in their community, attend a lodge (though the lodge may ]have a fee).
It's a good question if age limit should be raised. It's a good question how to insure one is "a real civilian, civilly co-operating" when they bear arms.
What you can believe is that the Constitution prohibits ]government from passing laws assuming guilt or taxing and obstructing ownership by "legal civilians" except for the recording of seri]al numbers, as the FBI would warn.