I may not have the right to say anything because I don't belong to a orginization that promotes the use of weapons, but I am a very concientious registered voter.
So here goes.
In my reading it looks like to me that I mixed in something that was from a previos paragraph. Sorry about that. However, This is copied from wiki and if the changes only were made by the printers because of language concerns then I would think that it needs to be ratified to say the exact term and punctuation of the original and not be used to determine if we have the right or not. This clearly shows a double standard of using terminology for the use of the biased use of government control. Since this has not been approved by congress to my knowledge to change the print from the original, the 2nd amendment should stand the test of who has the right no matter who they are.
Quote : The U.S. Government is inconsistent in the use of the comma in publications. The Statutes at Large (the official permanent record of all laws enacted) does not include the comma.[23] The Government Printing Office (GPO) has produced versions both with and without this comma.
A second comma, after the word "State", is generally seen in printed versions. It is not controversial.
The third comma, after the phrase "to keep and bear arms", is also an example of changing customs. It is generally seen in contemporary reprints of the Amendment, but it did not appear if the Amendment had been drafted and enacted recently. End Quote:
I guess what I am asking if any of this was approved and if it has not then by looking upon the 1st amendment our fore fathers were describing and instance where the Congress as a whole or not devided from state authority, because each state votes to accept or not any rule of law, does have the authority to tell the states what to do because the states in majority voted to accept federal law over the state law, thus wiping out the argument that the amendment was directed for the states authority only. Because the first amendment also describes several other events that the congress has control over. The 2nd amendment as first approved was not intended to have all those commas as if it were describing several events like the 1st amendment did.
But because the government or Congress in particular needed control of it's people, for which the amendment does not describe as written and is prohibited from doing so, they decided to use the commas. Even if Hamilton wanted the commas in the amendment, it wasn't passed by Congress that way.
Every one can assume that Congress at the time read the amendment before they voted, meaning that they didn't want to change it any further.
Until the supreme court decides to review and or Congress and or the People decides to vote on the matter then what is on the Bill of Rights must be read as the 2nd amendment as written and no other possibility. Just to guess what was intended is only for use of government control. They must be reasoning if they have people with guns in the country that they too could be taken over.
The government is trying to control something that they decidedly were told they cannot do. This was our protection from corrupt government policy and was provided so we would not end up in a dictorial state like the countries our fore fathers came from.
It looks like to me that the states of the Federal government are violating the constitution of the United States by writing the gun control Laws To thier own purpose of control. This way they can tax the shirt off us as well as control our liberties in front of the Constitution and not behind it or under it as written. Our fore fathers had the vision to give each state the same rights as individuals and to give us the individuals the same rights as the states governed by the Constitution and the Bill of rights.
The independent States were all recognized as subordinates of the United States and not the other way around. The way the court system is it is no wonder they all think they have more rights then the individual. The Federal States had control of the individual states that joined the United States and were humbly asking the Federal States to join in the United States for the protection of the United states. All the states agreed to abide by Federal Law when they joined. But because we start at the bottom of our courts and work up it is assumed that the individual state has more control of the government in their state then the Federal govenment. Even though we ask the Federal goverrnment for clarification it is assumed if there isn't a clarification then the state has the power to do exactly what it wants. This is not how our fore fathers wanted it. They wanted us to live in freedom of fear of being arrested for doing nothing that should bother anybody. The guilty before innocent debate.
Just the fact that the Supreme Court Chooses Cases that it wants to clarify is a sign of government control to benefit what they care about and not the individual. If the Supreme Court is to busy then we need to hire more Judges for the job for a fair representation per capita then what is available now because of some little ignorance that occured some 3 hundred years ago for not realizing how many people would come to live here.
To single out writs is a massive and great prejidicial misjustice to the people. Instead of saying we can't take it anymore and quit their high and mighty position they prefer to discriminate or show no cause to accept a writ based on the political left, right, middle, or any classification like it has too many words or it isn't sufficeintly formatted or they were sick that day or too busy to care, when ever they choose for their best interest.
Did you or I or anyone give the Congress The right to change or be sick the day the Constitution or the bill of Rights was being transcribed to a newer transcription of our language like they have done so many times to the Bible, that no one really knows who is right or wrong anymore.? No, we would get fired that day without an explanation. When and where did we give the federal government or congress the ability to change or guess at what the law of our land says? Oh sure, I know we have created more laws for corporations and the I.R.S and that should be regulated and voted on because we voted to create those laws, but the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States were created to be sure the government could not deny our freedoms with no upper court to defend it's authority, meaning this is the law period. The Congress at the time took the job very serious just like today and by creating those laws it meant that there is not and will not be any exception to these laws. Congress at the time was the upper court and being of sound mine and under no duress or influence from a higher court and in a by partisan vote took aim too create a country of decency. Every word in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was carefully and purposely created and voted on, giving no room for any adjustment. That was and is the Law period that every one must live by whether or not they liked it or not. Our Fore Fathers created the Supreme court to address the issues of a failing or misguided law that Congress might create, however they are too afraid they might loose that life time job that they cower to the Congress instead of defending our rights like our fore fathers were so hopeful would happen. Instead we get, we do not have the time or this will stand as is with no possiblity to go before Congress to explain why the law is wrong. But where does it say the federal government has the right to change our freedoms or guess what was intended? Does it say directly that the Government can change the laws of our Bill Of Rights? No and No. We should all be grateful that the originals of the bill of rights are at least readable and yet the courts keep guessing at or providing commas for what our fore fathers meant to stand in stone and God fearing they were, not some variation of it.
Where did we give Congress the right to vote on anything other than how they spend government money? They are all the time passing bills that should be voted on by the people, but because of the necessity to keep thier jobs they must take our freedoms away without us voting on them directly. That is against our Law and they have no right to do so without our approval by majority vote. That doesn't mean that we have only the rights to vote them into office as so many Congress people think we are here for, but it also means that they have to make certain that the constitution and Bill of Rights stay in tack. By giving them a mile they have taken a hundred and more . If the fancy dancy new bridges need money we will eventially give up one of our freedoms because they will make sure that a little tid bit of freedom taking toll booth will be added to the bridge with a camera in it to make sure eveyone pays the toll. Another invasion of privacy.
Did anyone of you sign the Bady Bill or vote for it or even read it before it went to Congress for a vote? Doesn't the brady bill have to do with the bill of rights that the government is forbidden to change except by voter approval? Did we give the congress the ability to take our freedom away. I thought we were giving them the right to manage our money and that was it..
It cannot be allowed. The lawyers have decided that it is their country and not the individuals country any more. The problem here is even though we had very wise men determining our future the lawyers think it was to mean a general and not a literal meaning of words. Also they think that because we have no other means to cummunicate our greivances to the government that they were there to change the law for what they felt was right for them and or thier rich friends and again we have another influence of corruption and theft of our freedoms.
The people in Congress have only two purposes and that is to protect us from misapropreations and to make sure our freedom isn't taken from us. . All These secret panels must stop. The American public must know what is going on behind closed doors, Period, no excuses, no I'm sick that day, No I have another appointment, no I want to judge you before I do something illegal, no the jet was to late for me to vote your way, no more voting on secret bills that take away our Amendment rights or anything else that might be considered discrimentory or prejeduce or highly questionable contract dealings, no more secrecy period. The more secrecy there is the more the people become suspicious about you and our freedoms.
I better shut up before the moderator thinks I am a Lefty, Righty Or a nut case. Just a joke guys.
