Every Responsible Citizen Should be Armed **Powerful and Chilling**

[citizenx]

I never said I agreed with Lefty's point-of-view.  I'm pretty sure I know what I would do.

God forgive me for even thinking about it, but it would make "enhanced interrogation" look quite tame by comparison.

[Freeski]

Yeah, I appreciate Lefty's take on stuff, along with other Bible Thumpers' input (just kidding! ), because our family was raised as Christians so it's good to learn/be reminded of the Christian take on things. We were Catholics, but my mom went Pentecostal. Freaky world!

[JT Coyoté]

Freeski,

If somebody really sees the Crucifixion as "suicide by (Roman) cop", I think they are missing part of the story.

What with Christmas coming up and all...

And, jwest, I don't think there's anything in the bible against defending yourself from wolves.  Good point.

Lefty,

My initial question is the only question given your stance that it is love for your enemy as well as your friend, that's your reason for self disarming.

CX,

Where are you getting this slant... Christ lives!

I made no reference nor implication to Jesus' crucifixion nor did I seek it as y'all's inference... at all...

His point in Luke was that not to stand would be foolish... yet each disciple was to play his part in order to bring God's plan/word to the world.

This is not a plan for the way we should deal with tyranny however... My point is JESUS ALREADY DID THE WORK and made the supreme sacrifice FOR THE WORLD! That is what his sacrifice was for. It is to wake up the people... a call to vigilance... A call To LIBERTY, lest Matthew 24 come to pass.... again.

 "Suicide by thine enemies" is what the unarmed compliant Jews and minorities of Europe did under Hitler and Stalin, and what will happen to us if we disarm! Abject Slavery at best -- genocidal death at worst.

JTCoyoté

“6) But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give
us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
7) And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice
of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not
rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign
over them.”  ~1st Samuel, Ch. 8, v. 6-7, (KJV)

[citizenx]

All right.  Fair enough, JT, I was taking what you said too far.  I realize that and I'm sorry, truly.

But, I can definitely see where people like Lefty or Quakers get the idea that (maybe) Christ didn't want his followers to meet violence with violence -- no matter what.

It is diffcult for me as a human being, parent and husband to understand this, and I'm not sure it is a reasonable standard of conduct.  However, arugably what these people are saying is in accord with the teachings of the New Testament and undoubtedly do raise some very disturbing questions.

As I have said repeatedly, I do not necessarily agree with this extreme view of what I consider "non-resistance" to evil.  I think it sufficient if we avoid retribution in favor of real justice and, of course, we as human beings have the right to defend oursleves, our loved ones and anyone else who is the victim or potential victim of violence by whatever suitable means are available.

Personally, I have not owned a gun in many years now.  If I returned to the U.S. and I was able (legally) I might indeed purchase one to protect myself and my family, but I don't think it is irresponsible of people to not own one -- period.

[Chicago]

jesus christ! 

What about the Bible where it says: "And he who thrust his sword shall in sinking mimic that of creation, but for mortality not thee or those escape?" Something like that I think it was on History Channel.

HEY LEFTYLEO.... hello.
I didn't catch your answering an earlier question that was posed to you by Freeski. Also I have another.

So what would you do if a crazed man burst into your home and rushed you or your family?

Not to answer for you, but I'm thinking you MIGHT say God wouldn't put YOU in that situation. Or perhaps you'd stop the crazed man with your lovin.

And if you watched the youtube video this thread is the topic of, did you enjoy the utterly distinct horror in that elderly woman's voice at the start of the video? Hmm If this isn't too many questions for you, what did that woman do or not do to end up in that situation... besides not have a gun. Even though it sounded 50-50 at best that she would've been any better off if she had had access to one.

For the record here, I am not attempting to be overly sarcastic toward you or your views/opinions/knowings/relationships with the great divine or whatever. I've got better things to do with my time than attack your views, besides I do respect your right to keep them to yourself... I mean hold them to yourself.

Oh an acquaintance of mine was impressed with the book 'The Shack'. Perhaps that's along the lines of your faith. Hey God bless ya brother. Maybe I missed your point if it's just let thee be slain, and celebrate your loving tears of joys as they stream out with your blood. I'm not being truly sarcastic, especially since you have not had a chance to respond.... if you choose.

BTT: Considering guns are a current fact of life, and that criminals UNDOUBTABLY GET THEM regardless of laws, and will do nasty things using them, I am without hesitation in favor of being grateful for any respect the LAW has for 'allowing' folks to have/carry them. Even if NOT to use a gun in their criminal act, the defense a 'law abiding' person can gain from having one can mean life or death. I mean for god's sakes! lol


Wow that video was pretty intense..... That will stick with me for awhile....

[Kilika]

jesus christ! 

What about the Bible where it says: "And he who thrust his sword shall in sinking mimic that of creation, but for mortality not thee or those escape?" Something like that I think it was on History Channel.

HEY LEFTYLEO.... hello.
I didn't catch your answering an earlier question that was posed to you by Freeski. Also I have another.

Not to answer for you, but I'm thinking you MIGHT say God wouldn't put YOU in that situation. Or perhaps you'd stop the crazed man with your lovin.

And if you watched the youtube video this thread is the topic of, did you enjoy the utterly distinct horror in that elderly woman's voice at the start of the video? Hmm If this isn't too many questions for you, what did that woman do or not do to end up in that situation... besides not have a gun. Even though it sounded 50-50 at best that she would've been any better off if she had had access to one.

For the record here, I am not attempting to be overly sarcastic toward you or your views/opinions/knowings/relationships with the great divine or whatever. I've got better things to do with my time than attack your views, besides I do respect your right to keep them to yourself... I mean hold them to yourself.

Oh an acquaintance of mine was impressed with the book 'The Shack'. Perhaps that's along the lines of your faith. Hey God bless ya brother. Maybe I missed your point if it's just let thee be slain, and celebrate your loving tears of joys as they stream out with your blood. I'm not being truly sarcastic, especially since you have not had a chance to respond.... if you choose.

BTT: Considering guns are a current fact of life, and that criminals UNDOUBTABLY GET THEM regardless of laws, and will do nasty things using them, I am without hesitation in favor of being grateful for any respect the LAW has for 'allowing' folks to have/carry them. Even if NOT to use a gun in their criminal act, the defense a 'law abiding' person can gain from having one can mean life or death. I mean for god's sakes! lol


Wow that video was pretty intense..... That will stick with me for awhile....

No, not too many questions. God willing I'll answer honestly. And no, there is no joy in seeing anyone, including the unbelieving, experience pain and suffering of any type.

So what would you do if a crazed man burst into your home and rushed you or your family?

Short answer...That's fear of what might be, and lack of faith. I think I can say there are no hypotheticals with God. God is, and He says this about fear...


"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." 1 John 4:18 (KJB)


Your basically correct, that I trust that God will not put anyone, me or anyone else that puts their trust in Him, in a situation that we cannot "bear it".


"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it]." 1 Corinthians 10:13 (KJB)


With all my heart, I truly believe that. And I can tell you that it brings an amazing amount of comfort and confidence, because I do know there are people out there motivated by Satan himself, that want nothing but evil to come to those of Christ. No biggie. I'll gladly step aside and let God take'em to the woodshed for all eternity. It's between them anyway. Satan didn't give me the finger or try to make himself greater than me. He did that to God, and God indeed will deal with it, in God's time.

Spoiler Alert!...


Satan and his minions lose in the end! We've already won the war those idiots are still trying to fight.


Consider this...


16   I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little. 
17   That which I speak, I speak [it] not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. 
18   Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also. 
19   For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye [yourselves] are wise. 
20   For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour [you], if a man take [of you], if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face. 
21   I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also. 
22 ¶ Are they Hebrews? so [am] I. Are they Israelites? so [am] I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so [am] I. 
23   Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I [am] more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. 
24   Of the Jews five times received I forty [stripes] save one. 
25   Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; 
26   [In] journeyings often, [in] perils of waters, [in] perils of robbers, [in] perils by [mine own] countrymen, [in] perils by the heathen, [in] perils in the city, [in] perils in the wilderness, [in] perils in the sea, [in] perils among false brethren; 
27   In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. 
28   Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. 
29   Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? 
30   If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities. 
31   The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. 
2 Corinthians 11:16-31 (KJB)


Remember what Jesus told them when His mother and brothers were trying to see Jesus? Consider this when the question arises as possed, "What about your family? You have to protect them from robbers and rapists..."


46   While he yet talked to the people, behold, [his] mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 
47   Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 
48   But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 
49   And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 
50   For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. 
Matthew 12:46-50 (KJB)


I believe that unbelievers are on their own so long as they reject Jesus, so they must do whatever their unbelieving mind comes up with to survive in this evil world. But what point I think Jesus was making is that we cannot ultimately worry about those type people, family or not, because they each have to answer to God for their actions. Who am I to question God when He chastens His own? Do you think a person that is murdered doesn't go to heaven? If born-again, yes they do go to heaven because that is what God promised would happen if they believe Him. If a person doesn't believe, that's on them, family member or not. I answer to my God first, above all. God knows each person's heart. I don't.


Besides, I even consider it possible that if I experience some violence from another man, it may well be that God is allowing that person to convict themselves by their actions and is using me because I'm protected already. It may well be about the person doing the violence than about the one receiving the violence. Makes sense? Do what you want to me, you can't touch my soul!


"My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand." John 10:29 (KJB)

[JT Coyoté]

jesus christ!  

What about the Bible where it says: "And he who thrust his sword shall in sinking mimic that of creation, but for mortality not thee or those escape?" Something like that I think it was on History Channel.

[...]

BTT: Considering guns are a current fact of life, and that criminals UNDOUBTABLY GET THEM regardless of laws, and will do nasty things using them, I am without hesitation in favor of being grateful for any respect the LAW has for 'allowing' folks to have/carry them. Even if NOT to use a gun in their criminal act, the defense a 'law abiding' person can gain from having one can mean life or death. I mean for god's sakes! lol


Wow that video was pretty intense..... That will stick with me for awhile....

I do believe that somewhere in that vast volume called The Bible, you may find the words, ' ...And he that trusts in his word shall in seeking mimic creation...' However that would be just me removing the Freudian word spin from your quote above, if you catch my drift.

The history channel is where I go to gather truth and real info...yeah... NOT!

Guns have been a fact of life since their innovation almost 800 years ago. For most of that time the only ones who could afford to have them were the very rich and powerful...

It wasn't until the advent of America that the average man was allowed to have more than maybe a hunting knife. In America owning and bearing ARMS was and is a right. Any American could provide himself with the latest technology to survive and thrive in the vast American wilderness... Prior to this, swords, bows, axes, and muskets were off limits to the average man anywhere in the world, and was the case throughout most of human history. The most innovative armament technologies were only allowed among the military classes and others in the service of the king or ruling class.

History teaches us that the kings, queens, and the ruling classes in virtually all cases whatsoever, clear back to ancient Sumeria, were "centralized powers." The power elite have always been an exclusive group comprised of the most successful criminals and crooks, nothing has changed to this day. Their greatest enemy as always, is a free People, thriving in the light of liberty.

These control freaks always go after the ARMS, with the goal of instituting and maintaining the old order of tyranny and serfdom under their rule. Whether overtly like king George at Lexington and Concord, or by demonizing ARMS slowly, portraying arms as the tools of criminals, while they foster "statutes" coddle the criminals who use them. The elite then enlarge and militarize the police forces in their employ with state of the art armament, yet all the while they demonize and even criminalize the constitutional law abiding individual for merely owning firearms...

"When only cops have guns,
it's called a "police state".
~Claire Wolfe

In a fully armed society, where the politeness of the Rights of Man rule, criminals are few, police are largely ceremonial, and tyrants are non-existent. jtc.

Oldyoti

"What we meant, in going for
those redcoats was this -- we
had always governed ourselves,
and always meant to -- they,
didn't mean we should."
~An old New England militia captain,
after the battles of Lexington and
Concord April 19, 1775

[JT Coyoté]

The problem with concealed carry laws is they extend to government ever more control over private ownership and use of firearms. These laws allow government to register arms, issue licenses to carry them, and then reserve to government alone the power to revoke the right. ALL because the unwitting individual signed over his right to government in exchange for the privilege to carry his pistol concealed.

There are already 50 laws covering modifications of the right to keep and bear arms at the state level. These are spelled out as defined by the state government within the state constitutions.  

Charles de Montesquieu, a powerful influence and some would say mentor of Thomas Jefferson, made a very simple statement regarding the constant practice of governments to overlay specific amendments, ang revisions to the wholesome laws of necessity, (e.g. the laws spelled out in the Bill of Rights, and protected and extended to the people in all necessity by the 9th and 10th Amendments). His statement was this: "Useless laws weaken the necessary laws."

States have amended their constitutional provisions many times, and have weakened the individual right to arms to the point where it barely protects the individual yet always protects the state ... what if the state becomes tyrannical, or the state becomes criminal.  I think Montesquieu's statement can be held as true with regard to government encroachment on the Second Amendment.  The founding fathers got it right ... and so did Alaska in 1959 when it first became a state.

What follows is the listing of State constitutional provisions protecting the individual right, as well as amendments to these state constitutions regarding these protections, many to the detriment of the People's unalienable right to keep and bear arms.  You will notice that many states already allow only for "personal" protection and if and when the state calls the people to arms.  

Many states already have provisions against the carrying of concealed weapons ... these states by law must issue licenses for people to carry concealed, or they must amend their constitutions removing the anti concealed carry clauses. Don't hold your breath on the last part though.

Here are the provisions in the order of date adopted, state by state from 1776 to 1998:

*******************

 
1776 North Carolina:  That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1776 Pennsylvania:  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont:  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

1780 Massachusetts:  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.  And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

1790 Pennsylvania:  The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1792 Kentucky:  That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1796 Tennessee:  That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

1799 Kentucky:  That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1802 Ohio:  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power.

1816 Indiana:  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

1817 Mississippi:  Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State.

1818 Connecticut:  Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

1819 Maine:  Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned.

1819 Alabama:  That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.

1820 Missouri:  That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned.

1832 Mississippi:  Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the State.

1834 Tennessee:  That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

1835 Michigan:  Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State.

1836 Texas:  Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic.  The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power.

1836 Arkansas:  That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

1838 Florida:  That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

1842 Rhode Island:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

1845 Texas:  Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State.

1850 Kentucky:  That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms.

1850 Michigan:  Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

1851 Ohio:  The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

1851 Indiana:  The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State [military subordination clause removed].

1857 Oregon:  The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

1859 Kansas:  The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

1865 Missouri:  That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State cannot be questioned.

1865 Georgia:  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.

1865 Florida:  Clause omitted.

1868 Texas:  Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe.

1868 North Carolina:  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; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1868 Florida:  The people shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State.

1868 South Carolina:  The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.  As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly.  The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

1868 Mississippi:  All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence.

1868 Georgia:  A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne.

1868 Arkansas:  The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.

1870 Tennessee:  That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

1875 Missouri:  That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons.

1875 North Carolina:  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; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.  Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice.

1876 Colorado:  The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

1876 Texas:  Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

1877 Georgia:  [Militia clause deleted.]  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

1879 Louisiana:  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 abridged.  This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed.

1885 Florida:  The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne.

1889 Washington:  The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

1889 Wyoming:  The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

1889 South Dakota:  The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

1889 Montana:  The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

1889 Idaho:  The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.

1890 Mississippi:  The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

1891 Kentucky:  All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:  First:  The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. . . .  Seventh:  The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

1895 South Carolina:  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.  As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly.  The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

1896 Utah:  The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law.

1901 Alabama:  That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

1907 Oklahoma:  The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

1912 Arizona:  The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

1912 New Mexico:  The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

1945 Missouri:  That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

1959 Hawaii:  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.

1959 Alaska:  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.

1963 Michigan:  Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

1968 Florida:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

1970 Illinois:  Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

1971 North Carolina:  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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.  Nothing herein [word omitted] shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

1971 New Mexico:  No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

1971 Virginia:  That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1974 Louisiana:  [Militia clause deleted.]  The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

1978 Idaho:  The people have the right to keep and bear arms [qualifiers omitted], which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm.  No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition.  Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

1982 Nevada:  Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

1982 New Hampshire:  All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

1984 North Dakota:  All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

1984 Utah:  The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

1986 West Virginia:  A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

1986 New Mexico:  No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.  No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

1987 Delaware:  A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

1987 Maine:  Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms [for the common defence omitted] and this right shall never be questioned.

1988 Nebraska:  All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.  To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

1990 Florida:  (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.  (b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun.  For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver.  Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.  (c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.  (d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.

1994 Alaska:  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.  The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

1998 Wisconsin:  The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

******************

JTCoyoté

"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method
of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship
without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration
camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties
taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be
distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or
brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems
to be the final revolution."~Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group,
California Medical School, 1961 Audio - Transcript
 

[Chicago]

JT: Nice post. Noted and appreciated as up to snuff/on target with the topic.

(as if anyone cares) Perhaps I let loose too much sarcasm and was simply misunderstood. However, folks who take god to heart might be better off keeping it there (far as I'm concerned). Touting any number of bible quotes leaves me indifferent to whatever mission to spread the word people are apparently engrossed in, and after all I am not at a bible forum now am I?

On second thought - even as I know this only furthers the annoying waste factor at odds with the actual thread presented here - as I perceive many of the troubles facing the world and especially the US (because I am here), it irks me when someone pops up with their answer to all troubles being that god has it all figured out and so there's so much comfort we can all bask in as everything goes screaming down the crapper.

As politely as I can say this, I call hog wash! Not interested in debating or hearing anymore on the god subject. George Carlin pegged it eloquently http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o. And Peter Joseph did to in basically defining religion as an intangible solace that provides emotional comfort for people who need it.

What ruffles my feathers most is that the idea that it's all in gods knowing hands becomes another doctrine for sheep. The only thing I am going to be happy to hear from a sheep is that they woke up.

Now, kinda back to topic... it'd be nice if instead of having to worry about our pea shooters we were whining about not having hand grenades! 

[Freeski]

"The problem with concealed carry laws is they extend to government ever more control over firearms."

What more need be said? Unless of course you believe/think someone needs control over you.

[Freeski]

"If you aint printen ,,, you aint packen"

I don't get it?

[Chicago]

"If you aint printen ,,, you aint packen"

$5 says they mean those controlling the currency want control of the firepower.

[MonkeyPuppet]

"If you aint printen ,,, you aint packen"

New favorite quote =]


Those that don't get it don't carry.

[JT Coyoté]

"If you aint printen ,,, you aint packen"

In a free state, if you are packin' concealed by license you are not freely packin' whether you are in the black or not.

In an un-free state, like Colorado, where the State Constitution requires you must have a license to carry concealed, then instead, consider wearing it on your hip for all to see and pack free.

Oldyoti

"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to
which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite:
And their safety and interest require that they should
promote such manufactories, as tend to render them
independent on others, for essential, particularly for
military supplies." ~George Washington, January 8, 1790,
First State of the Union Address

[Damascus]

It seems that the concealed carry laws came out of the south after the civil war. I don't believe the government needs to regulate either form of carry. As there is no way to tell if a criminal carries or a citizen carries unless they are stopped and searched. Criminals do not by nature not follow any laws as they intend to do crimes in the first place. If you make concealed carry a "government permission" issue then the criminals will by default get a free pass until they commit a crime and are discovered. This puts the burden of guilt on the law abiding citizen to prove they are not guilty before the fact. There are merits in both open carry and concealed carry, why do we need the governments to regulate either. The criminals only benefit when good people are made to jump through hoops. I really hope this dose not start the open carry vs. concealed carry infighting again.

[MonkeyPuppet]

It seems that the concealed carry laws came out of the south after the civil war. I don't believe the government needs to regulate either form of carry. As there is no way to tell if a criminal carries or a citizen carries unless they are stopped and searched. Criminals do not by nature not follow any laws as they intend to do crimes in the first place. If you make concealed carry a "government permission" issue then the criminals will by default get a free pass until they commit a crime and are discovered. This puts the burden of guilt on the law abiding citizen to prove they are not guilty before the fact. There are merits in both open carry and concealed carry, why do we need the governments to regulate either. The criminals only benefit when good people are made to jump through hoops. I really hope this dose not start the open carry vs. concealed carry infighting again.

QFT+

[JT Coyoté]

It seems that the concealed carry laws came out of the south after the civil war. I don't believe the government needs to regulate either form of carry. As there is no way to tell if a criminal carries or a citizen carries unless they are stopped and searched. Criminals do not by nature not follow any laws as they intend to do crimes in the first place. If you make concealed carry a "government permission" issue then the criminals will by default get a free pass until they commit a crime and are discovered. This puts the burden of guilt on the law abiding citizen to prove they are not guilty before the fact. There are merits in both open carry and concealed carry, why do we need the governments to regulate either. The criminals only benefit when good people are made to jump through hoops. I really hope this dose not start the open carry vs. concealed carry infighting again.

Concealed carry laws have been around for a long time.  Whether or not it was a method by which to harvest criminals by searching folks or not, is in itself a fourth amendment issue.  The fact is that they have turned a perfectly lawful activity into a crime without a crime ever being committed.  Law-enforcement calls this crime prevention when in fact it is criminal creation, as you pointed out.  

Given the last four words of the Second Amendment, (i.e., "Shall not be infringed.") this makes any such law even on the state level a constitutional infringement.  In effect these laws presage the police state.  

Any argument of concealed carry verses open carry on its face is a fallacious waste of time, given the facts and understanding that both have their place and their purpose ... neither are in and of themselves criminal, nor should they be seen as such.

Oldyoti

"As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath
a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right,
which nobody can have a right to."
~John Locke, "Of Civil Government" 1689

[chris jones]

Concealed carry laws have been around for a long time.  Whether or not it was a method by which to harvest criminals by searching folks or not, is in itself a fourth amendment issue.  The fact is that they have turned a perfectly lawful activity into a crime without a crime ever being committed.  Law-enforcement calls this crime prevention when in fact it is criminal creation, as you pointed out.  

Given the last four words of the Second Amendment, (i.e., "Shall not be infringed.") this makes any such law even on the state level a constitutional infringement.  In effect these laws presage the police state.  

Any argument between concealed carry verses open carry, on its face is a fallacious waste of time, given the facts and understanding that both have their place and their purpose ... neither, in and of themselves are criminal nor should they be seen as such.

Oldyoti

"As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath
a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right,
which nobody can have a right to."
~John Locke, "Of Civil Government" 1689

Bumped+++++++++++

[Damascus]

I wasn't trying to put the blame on the south, but It looked like to me the people were worrying about the new "freed men" and the surpluses of revolvers after the war had ended. Before this it was mostly rifles, I thought, and hence no need to worry about concealment. I was just curious about the origins of these laws.

[Damascus]

Ok found it:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/duelinganddeliverance.pdf

[JT Coyoté]

I wasn't trying to put the blame on the south, but It looked like to me the people were worrying about the new "freed men" and the surpluses of revolvers after the war had ended. Before this it was mostly rifles, I thought, and hence no need to worry about concealment. I was just curious about the origins of these laws.

Ok found it:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/duelinganddeliverance.pdf

Damascus,

I didn't mean to imply, nor did I seek inference to any Southern blame in the popularity of implementing concealed carry laws in the decades surrounding the Civil War.  This certainly was not the plan desired by Lincoln and his administration, and would not have been the case had he not been assassinated.  

The history that you link to in your post above illustrates this unconstitutional "rash" of arms infringement as a symptom of the postwar globalist reconstruction scheme, financed by European interests. In the post assassination mayhem, they came marching onto the scene with carpetbaggers, war profiteers, greedy reparation schemes, and all of the unconstitutional machinations of tyrannical occupation.  

Though he made a half-hearted effort to implement Lincoln's plan, (as promised by Lincoln in his second inaugural address just weeks before he was killed,) Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's vice president, was swiftly swept into the presidency and taken under the globalist's wing as their first tool of corporate takeover.  

A quick glance over the Confederate state constitutions in the list which I provided in a prior post here will tell the tale. Check any amendment dates around the time of the Civil War as to whether or not a concealed carry law had been implemented at that state's constitutional level. Most that were enacted were county and local ordinances I suspect.  

Oldyoti

"Study the Constitution. Let it be preached
from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislatures,
and enforced in courts of justice."
~Abraham Lincoln

[jwest]

This is why the 2A exists.

Our Founding Fathers were getting their collective asses shot off, hacked, and starved - makes a big difference when you have to fight and die for something vs. reading it from a history book.

Don't learn history - then you have to relive it. 

I think having Open Carry laws isn't too far away.  Someone wants to be a terrorist - ventilate 'em.  The US citizenry can create the largest standing army in the world.

[JT Coyoté]

This is why the 2A exists.

Our Founding Fathers were getting their collective asses shot off, hacked, and starved - makes a big difference when you have to fight and die for something vs. reading it from a history book.

Don't learn history - then you have to relive it.  

I think having Open Carry laws isn't too far away.  Someone wants to be a terrorist - ventilate 'em.  The US citizenry can create the largest standing army in the world.

Jwest,

It is already the law and has been the law since the Constitution was adopted in 1791. The right is protected by the Constitution for people to carry pistols, long guns, swords, knives, tomahawks, etc. openly.

Local and county ordinances against, and people's fear, driven by media demonization, have created the people's cow-ish herd-think which is what make firearms seem "illegal".... It is all a rumor driven lie... just as Hitler said... "a lie told often enough becomes truth..."  This is only because a majority of the people believe the lie. (sad)

The Honest to God truth is... "...the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms Shall not be infringed."

Oldyoti

"When only cops have guns,
it's called a "police state".
~Claire Wolfe

[Freeski]

Jwest,

It is already the law and has been the law since the Constitution was adopted in 1791. the right is protected by the Constitution for people to carry pistols, long guns, and swords, knives and tomahawks openly.

Local and county ordinances and people's fear, driven by media demonization, create the people's cowish herd-think which is what make firearms seem "illegal".... It is all a rumor driven lie...

The truth is... "...the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms Shall not be infringed."

Oldyoti

"When only cops have guns,
it's called a "police state".
~Claire Wolfe

It's a line in the sand.

[redeux]

As for me and my house we will pack da heat..... praise jesus

[Chicago]

"If you aint printen ,,, you aint packen"

Sooooooooooo everyone get this but me?
Was it typed correctly?
I gauge the author as quite diverse in thought, so I am interested.

[MonkeyPuppet]

Sooooooooooo everyone get this but me?
Was it typed correctly?
I gauge the author as quite diverse in thought, so I am interested.

When you're carrying concealed, if anyone can see the imprint of a gun through your clothes, you're "printing".  So, as the saying goes, if you're not printing, apparently you're carrying a "little" gun.

Just a joke... most 4" and smaller (barrels) firearms shouldn't print when carried properly.  Anyone carrying a 5" for "full-size" pistol daily either tends to leave it at home more often than not or is leaning to one side =P

[JT Coyoté]

When you're carrying concealed, if anyone can see the imprint of a gun through your clothes, you're "printing".  So, as the saying goes, if you're not printing, apparently you're carrying a "little" gun.

Just a joke... most 4" and smaller (barrels) firearms shouldn't print when carried properly.  Anyone carrying a 5" for "full-size" pistol daily either tends to leave it at home more often than not or is leaning to one side =P

The thing is that it doesn't matter if you are printing, not printing, or carry it on your hip. The whole idea of licensing to carry whether concealed or not is unconstitutional and allows the camel's nose under the tent.

They have made carrying a firearm a crime without a license... they have made it a crime to purchase a firearm without a background check, looking for outstanding warrants, restraining orders, and a handful of other "offenses" that will get the cops called to the gun-shop or sporting goods store and you will be hauled away and charged with attempted illegal purchase of a firearm which is a federal felony.

It is a trick, they're foolin' ya... and it is all being done in an incremental fashion. This is all being fostered by the fear-filled unwitting proponents of these new gun licensing laws, along with the help of the NRA.  They are for requiring permits, a license in place of your Right to own and use a firearm... demoting a birthright to a mere privilege controlled by government... they are destroying OUR Second Amendment and the Right it protects.

"The NRA, behind the scenes, has brokered, compromised,
and then endorsed every major anti Second Amendment
federal law passed for the last 30 years..."
~C.E. Lovell, NRA Board Member 1980-93

Oldyoti

"Arbitrary power is most easily established on
the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."
~George Washington, Circular to the States,
May 9, 1753

[MonkeyPuppet]

The thing is that it doesn't matter if you are printing, not printing, or carry it on your hip. The whole idea of licensing to carry whether concealed or not is unconstitutional and allows the camel's nose under the tent.

They have made carrying a firearm a crime without a license... they have made it a crime to purchase a firearm without a background check, looking for outstanding warrants, restraining orders, and a handful of other "offenses" that will get the cops called to the gun-shop or sporting goods store and you will be hauled away and charged with attempted illegal purchase of a firearm which is a federal felony.

It is a trick, they're foolin' ya... and it is all being done in an incremental fashion. This is all being fostered by the fear-filled unwitting proponents of these new gun licensing laws, along with the help of the NRA.  They are for requiring permits, a license in place of your Right to own and use a firearm... demoting a birthright to a mere privilege controlled by government... they are destroying OUR Second Amendment and the Right it protects.

"The NRA, behind the scenes, has brokered, compromised,
and then endorsed every major anti Second Amendment
federal law passed for the last 30 years..."
~C.E. Lovell, NRA Board Member 1980-93

Oldyoti

"Arbitrary power is most easily established on
the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."
~George Washington, Circular to the States,
May 9, 1753

Preaching to the choir (and a great sermon at that!).

I don't particularly care if I'm "printing" or not, and have yet to be hassled by anyone if I have.  However, I did go through all the b.s. unconstitutional nonsense to "legally" (as opposed to lawfully) carry concealed.  I did this because there are only so many battles I can fight... and seemingly alone at times.  Thankfully enough, at least in Texas, there is no record of how many firearms you own or have, or what type and whatnot... not yet anyway.

Most people I know are aware that the NRA is crap.  It's sad, though, that none of them have a dog in any of the battle fronts we discuss here at Prison Planet Forum or elsewhere... firearms, privacy, taxes, the fed, food freedom, state's rights, none of it.

I'm not saying I wouldn't, couldn't or shouldn't do more, but as I would imagine anyone here knows, it can be exhausting and you feel the burn-out at times.

[Damascus]

Well In Indiana you need a permission slip to have a handgun on your person if you even step one foot outside of your residence. This is whether your concealed or not. I have heard so many parrots(mean patriots) say If it weren't fro the NRA you wouldn't have the second amendment now, so much for brainwashing. If you are caught carrying off of your property it is a class A misdemeanor. If you are convicted of domestic battery( this can be literally anything and you don't even have to have the person you were yelling at press charges), have a protective order against you(anyone can do this), or have a felony you cannot carry even if you have a permission slip. All this In my sate and people say we have it so good here, what a crock.... I really hate this state all a bunch of coolaid drinking neocons.

[JT Coyoté]

Well In Indiana you need a permission slip to have a handgun on your person if you even step one foot outside of your residence. This is whether your concealed or not. I have heard so many parrots(mean patriots) say If it weren't fro the NRA you wouldn't have the second amendment now, so much for brainwashing. If you are caught carrying off of your property it is a class A misdemeanor. If you are convicted of domestic battery( this can be literally anything and you don't even have to have the person you were yelling at press charges), have a protective order against you(anyone can do this), or have a felony you cannot carry even if you have a permission slip. All this In my sate and people say we have it so good here, what a crock.... I really hate this state all a bunch of coolaid drinking neocons.

One of the most important aspects of our republican form of self governing "federation," is the primary idea that all power is derived from the individual. It is from this single source that power begins then is gathered together by political processes into a consenting multitude of individuals called "the people."

With our individual Rights and sovereignty secure, as spelled out and protected by the 9th Amendment of the United States Constitution -- and by State Constitutions as well -- by virtue of the fact that in order to become a member US state, the state government must conform to certain foundational standards.

The standards that all states have agreed to are these: The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, by consent of the people in that State, becomes the State's Organic Law. This Law is what enables the State Constitution and thus creates the state government; all patterned directly upon Organic US CONSTITUTIONAL LAW... Keep this in mind.

The Rights of the individual gain power when joined with others in a common cause. This power of the people is collectively brought to bear first at the local and county seats, and then finally at the state level.

Given the understanding of what has been stated here, State sovereignty and independence is governed by the organic US Law, as is the sovereignty of the individual. Through this understanding the feds must remain within the confines of their Constitutionally enumerated powers, which must be respected by the states and the people. Conversely, the Federal agent must respect those powers retained by the states and the people, as well as the restrictions on federal power enumerated in the Constitution.

State sovereignty is powered by the people since the people by consent have created the states which then created the federal government... yet the people nor the state can abridge the federal power spelled out in the Constitution... These checks and balances that reserve and preserve individual Rights as primal, forbid a federal and even a state law that says you can "keep and bear arms only on your property." That's like saying you can only drive your car on your own property...

This law is by definition abridging not only the letter, but the intent of the 2nd Amendment.  Only the people, the individual, has the right to make that decision -- and individual may want to change his mind about his carry habits tomorrow... that is the individual's right to do and is not within the power of either the federal or the state government to decide...

I will decide where and when I take my gun, and whether I will walk or drive. Just like I will decide where and when I will eat or sleep, what books I will read, who I can trust, or when I will take a crap...

I hope I have explained this clearly enough... The Constitution is a contract that protects the people, but only if the people protect the Constitution.

Oldyoti

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species
of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate
exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and
independence to the mind. Games played with the ball
and others of that nature, are too violent for the body
and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun
therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
~Thomas Jefferson

[Kilika]

One of the most important aspects of our republican form of self governing "federation," is the primary idea that all power is derived from the individual. It is from this single source that power begins then is gathered together by political processes into a consenting multitude of individuals called "the people."

With our individual Rights and sovereignty secure, as spelled out and protected by the 9th Amendment of the United States Constitution -- and by State Constitutions as well -- by virtue of the fact that in order to become a member US state, the state government must conform to certain foundational standards.

The standards that all states have agreed to are these: The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, by consent of the people in that State, becomes the State's Organic Law. This Law is what enables the State Constitution and thus creates the state government; all patterned directly upon Organic US CONSTITUTIONAL LAW... Keep this in mind.

The Rights of the individual gain power when joined with others in a common cause. This power of the people is collectively brought to bear first at the local and county seats, and then finally at the state level.

Given the understanding of what has been stated here, State sovereignty and independence is governed by the organic US Law, as is the sovereignty of the individual. Through this understanding the feds must remain within the confines of their Constitutionally enumerated powers, which must be respected by the states and the people. Conversely, the Federal agent must respect those powers retained by the states and the people, as well as the restrictions on federal power enumerated in the Constitution.

State sovereignty is powered by the people since the people by consent have created the states which then created the federal government... yet the people nor the state can abridge the federal power spelled out in the Constitution... These checks and balances that reserve and preserve individual Rights as primal, forbid a federal and even a state law that says you can "keep and bear arms only on your property." That's like saying you can only drive your car on your own property...

This law is by definition abridging not only the letter, but the intent of the 2nd Amendment.  Only the people, the individual, has the right to make that decision -- and individual may want to change his mind about his carry habits tomorrow... that is the individual's right to do and is not within the power of either the federal or the state government to decide...

I will decide where and when I take my gun, and whether I will walk or drive. Just like I will decide where and when I will eat or sleep, what books I will read, who I can trust, or when I will take a crap...

I hope I have explained this clearly enough... The Constitution is a contract that protects the people, but only if the people protect the Constitution.

Oldyoti

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species
of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate
exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and
independence to the mind. Games played with the ball
and others of that nature, are too violent for the body
and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun
therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
~Thomas Jefferson

That's how I understand it. It is a "individual rights" issue at it's core.

Some people think that if a law is passed by the feds, then it is law that the public must follow. The feds even have the nerve to tell a state's citizens that they cannot have certain laws and do so by not recognizing what a state's citizens demand by vote such as medical marijuana. The gun or pot isn't the issue, it's the authority to make law, and ultimately the people say what they want, not government, regardless of state or federal.

About the only thing the federal government can say in regards to being "armed" is that the militia should be armed, and even then that's under the state's governors to manage. The "standing army" is run by the federal government, so really they only have say over the standing army as far as arms go.

The reality is that if government isn't working, the people have a right and duty to change it (see 2nd paragraph of the Dec. of Ind.), even change the process by which things get changed if needed. The people aren't required to sit back and let the very thing that needs fixing(government) tell the public how to fix it. That's like the fox telling the chickens how to protect themselves from the fox!

All levels of government should have only as much power as citizens allow it. It is "We the people..." that tells government how things will be, not government telling the people what to do.

Remember folks, we call them "representatives" for a reason.