some good news???


January 10, 2013, 09:04 PM
Protected" Guns?

The small UT town of Spring City is currently discussing a resolution that
all households must have at least one unspecified "gun" therein and, at
some point, residents thereof must participate in some kind of gun

The whole thing is mostly symbolic, of course, and other municipalities
that have passed similar resolutions in the past made sure anyone who
doesn't want to participate doesn't have to.

However, in a larger sense, it is acknowledgment of the implication of the
Second Amendment that all able-bodied Americans are involuntary members of
a "Militia," whether they know it or not, and are thus subject to
involuntary call-up, when necessary, for the defense of the nation. And,
that they are expected to individually show-up for duty when so called, "bearing
arms," presumptively their own, as neither individual state governments,
nor the federal government, will be able, nor obligated, nor likely, to arm
individual militia members. And, arms they "bear" must be able to
complete, on equal footing, with those currently in use by evil forces, foreign or
domestic, they're obligated to oppose.

Thus, current, common military weapons, designed and intended to be
operated by a single individual, particularly rifles in existing military
service, are the ones the Second Amendment is most intended to protect, and
of which to insure individual (at least voluntary) possession by all American
adults. Modern, military rifles trace their ancestry directly back to the
American Revolution.

In the Miller Case, argued before the US Supreme Court in 1939, the
government contended that a particular kind of shortened shotgun was not a
"common military individual weapon," and thus not protected by the Second
Amendment. The clear implication is that all individual weapons (guns)
that are currently in, or have ever been in, common military service-- handguns,
shotguns, and particularly rifles, are indeed protected by the Second

As a non-lawyer, my conclusion is that modern, military rifles are the most
protected of all guns protected by the Second Amendment. What leftist
politicians and their media lackeys call, with an arrogant sneer, "weapons
of war."

Well, of course they're weapons of war! So is the Benelli M4 shotgun, the
Beretta 92F pistol, various S&W revolvers, M1 Carbines, M1 Garands,
Kalashnikovs, FALs, and a host of others. They're all in current, or
previous, common military usage and thus are protected.

In my opinion, we real Americans need to stop apologizing to leftist
Constitutional criminals, who think there is, and should be, no limit to
their power, and that individual rights of Americans are really "privileges,"
arbitrarily granted, and withdrawn, at their whim!
Our individual rights and liberties, most especially the right to
individually, unilaterally possess military guns, were conferred upon us by
our Creator, and He apparently didn't think He needed the concurrence/approval
of any earthly potentate. Thus, no apology is necessary, nor appropriate!

If you enjoyed reading about "some good news???" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
January 11, 2013, 02:22 AM
Don't forget Mausers, 1903 springfields, Mosin-Nagants, and Remington 700 rifles as well. Either way, we all know their goal isn't guns, its control. For them guns are a big hinderence to them exerting full control

If you enjoyed reading about "some good news???" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!