HR 47, the "Citizens' Self-Defense Act"

[P95Carry]

http://www.rightmarch.com/011305b.htm

HR 47, the "Citizens' Self-Defense Act", would specifically protect the right of law-abiding citizens to use handguns, rifles and shotguns in defending themselves, their families or their homes. It would also allow people whose self-defense rights have been violated by any government entity to bring legal action in federal court.

A letter to your representative would help to reinforce this. Follow the link.

 

[Brick]

Hello everybody.â„¢

[mumbles]...the 2nd is already self-protecting...allllrigghhhtt...[/mumble]

It won't let me do it. next page won't load after i enter in the zip

 

[P95Carry]

I had one prob myself with the link but it worked all thru 2nd time around.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

So who needs he 2nd or any other law?

Everyone should be allowed any and all freedoms that do not injure others or take away the freedoms of others.

Forget rights as they are legal gifts that can be retracted.

 

[BluesBear]

Forget rights as they are legal gifts that can be retracted.

Are you a politician? Or just dumb?

 

[Brick]

Hello folks.â„¢

Forget rights as they are legal gifts that can be retracted.

he's right...all the anti gun laws are illegal right?

but the prohibition admendemnt was retracted. just think about the 2nd and the other ones

 

[P95Carry]

Forget rights as they are legal gifts that can be retracted.

Guy - a right is ABSOLUTE, only a privelage can be retracted - legally. Interfering with a right is an illegal act... if only that would be remembered.

 

[BluesBear]

but the prohibition admendemnt was retracted

But that was not a RIGHT.

Not all constitutional admendments are rights.

The original amendments also known as the "Bill of Rights" did not bestow those rights upon us, they simply CONFIRMED them.
The Bill of Rights exists only as a reminder all of us.



I do find it interesting that so many that were born in other countries are so aware of what the important documents of this country say and really mean.

It is my personal opinion that every native born American ought to be required to take a citizenship test before they are allowed to vote. Perhaps if more people actually knew more about this Country and what it's supposed to stand for they would actually vote responsibly.

Oh well I can dream can't I?

 

[mainmech48]

IMHO, the main bone of contention here is semantic, and stems from ignoring the difference between an Article and an Amendment.

From "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language' :

article: (2) A particular section of a formal document.

amendment: (1) Improvement, correction, or reformation. (2) A formal alteration of a law.

The "Bill of Rights" are Articles of the Constitution, not Amendments to it.

That a word is commonly misused does not alter the fact that it is incorrect.

The ten Articles are not 'improvements, corrections, or reformations', they are an integral part of the document as it was originally written and adopted. They deliniate the basic tenets of our system of government.

While Amendments may be added or subtracted without altering the basic nature of the document to which they are amended, removing an article
would, by definition.

Don't mean to sound pedantic here, but the difference is real and profound.