Dems Sit in Silence as Witness Debunks Their 'Assault' Rifle

[AlanM]

Dems Sit in Silence as Witness Debunks Their 'Assault' Rifle Lies

The is just a few days old. Worth the 5 minutes.

[MarcSpaz]

Good video.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[AlanM]

On the same subject:
https://www.westernjournal.com/fbis-lat ... homicides/

[MarcSpaz]

Did you see the report? The trend is less than 300 per year. More people beat to death with hands and feet. Edged weapon deaths are 500% higher than all rifle homicides. It's so obvious that it has nothing to do with homicide and everything to do with power and disarming us.

[Reverenddel]

Gun control has always been about CONTROl, not GUNS!

[wittmeba]

I would love the opportunity to give a test to the dem politicians -- privately so they won't get the benefit of one or two that might have a little knowledge.

Just asking a few questions like what is the propose of the background check. How do you buy a gun? What is done for online purchases? What would you like to see changed? Describe the action of a machine gun or a revolver.

It would not need to go beyond the vocabulary. It could be so much fun.

[possumhunter]

Quite often we hear, "The Law is the Law", and "No one is above the law".

And at the same time we hear all sorts of defense against Gun Control/weapons ban,

but "NEVER" the "LAW" as a defense.

Obviously, not very many understand that the "Supreme Law of the Land"....."PROHIBITS" both State and Federal Government from "LEGISLATING" anywhere outside the "ENUMERATED POWERS" listed in the "CONSTITUTION".

And the "BILL OF RIGHTS" is certainly one of those areas in which either Local, State or Fed Government is prohibited from legislating.

"WANT PROOF"....HERE IT IS.

Exactly what was the intent and purpose behind the framers of the Constitution including
the second Amendment in the Bill of Rights???

The common fear was that government would become like those of Europe, setting up a
King, Emperor or Dictator.

Alexander Hamilton confirmed this in Federalist Papers No. 29, he wrote,

"Since the fear of the people was that the federal army would usurp the people’s liberty,
it makes sense that the intent is for the people to be allowed to keep and bear arms at all
times".

James Madison wrote the bill of rights, and in the Federalist paper 46 he explained the
intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.

Here's a short exert:
"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal
to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the
federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments,
with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of
almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people
are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of
any form can admit of".

Alexander Hamilton also wrote,
"if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any
magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is
a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms,
who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This
appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best
possible security against it, if it should exist."

The right to keep and bear arms was never about Hunting or personal defense,
the Framers of the Constitution envisioned a time when the citizens might have to fight
against their own government in order to keep their liberties.

The Second Amendment is the "Backbone" of a "National Strategy" written within the
Constitution for armed citizens to always be the ultimate "National Defense" of their
Country, Constitution, Government and freedoms, against all enemies, Foreign or
Domestic.

Personal weapons capable of fighting such war are a necessary part of that defense.

At the time the Constitution was being written only 9 states were willing to ratify it
without a Bill of Rights.

Here's why.
When “Rights” are itemized in a document of agreement, such as a labor contract or our
Constitution,

Rights itemized can not be denied, however, If Rights are not itemized, the interpretation
is open as to which party has those rights.

In writing the Constitution, many opposed placing an itemized Bill of Rights in the
Constitution for this very reason.

The Federalists contended that a bill of rights was unnecessary. They responded to those
opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of
fundamental rights by arguing that, inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights, it
would be dangerous to list some and thereby lend support to the argument that
government was unrestrained as to those rights not listed.

James Madison wrote:
“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular
exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not
placed in that enumeration;
and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were
intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were
consequently insecure.
This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission
of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have
attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of...."the fourth
resolution”. (introducing the Bill Of Rights)

It has been said, that it is unnecessary to load the constitution with this provision,
because it was not found effectual in the constitution of the particular States. It is true,
there are a few particular States in which some of the most valuable articles have not, at
one time or other, been violated; but it does not follow but they may have, to a certain
degree, a salutary effect against the abuse of power.

If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against
every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights.
(The Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, First Congress, 1st Session, pp
448-460. )


Madison had written to Jefferson:
“My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as
not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. . . . I have
not viewed it in an important light because I conceive that in a certain degree

. . . "the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers
are granted".

Here was their problem,

If they itemized the Rights/Freedoms of citizens, Government might be free to legislate
every Right/Freedom not itemize in those Rights.

But they didn’t want a government without limitation on it’s powers, so, Madison
explained the solution to the problem was

to limit Government to an areas of “Enumerated” powers granted to it and leaving
Citizens Rights unlimited and Government without authority to legislate in the area of
those Rights.

. “the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are
granted”. (Restricting government to enumerated powers)

“making clear that a (Itemized) Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to
increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated”.

The framers expected Government to be restricted only to the enumerated powers listed
in the Constitution.

And that would prevent Government from legislating any laws concerning the Bill Of
Rights or for that matter anything else that’s outside the powers enumerated to
government.

The Tenth Amendments confirms this interpretation.

Tenth Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

Hamilton, in Federalist Paper 84 ask the question:
“Why even include a Bill of rights/freedom of press, if Government can not legislate
outside the enumeration of powers granted to it”??

The Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation of the Constitution and restriction on
Government in the Miranda vs Arizona decision.

“When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]

Only a Constitutional Amendment can change the Constitution.

This restriction against Government legislating in the area of Rights applies to the States
as well as the Federal Government.

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated
under the name of local practice". [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]”

Article VI
2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of
the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State
shall be bound thereby,

Only an Amendment approved by 3/4 of the States and People can change the
Constitution, legislated law can not.

All of this "Gun Control legislation" is an attempt to legislate where neither State or
Federal governments have any Constitutional authority to legislate,

and failing to use the Amendment process is denying people their Right to approve or
disapprove of the changes their legislation is making to the Constitution.

It isn’t just the rights of Gun owner beiug attacked, but the Authority of the Constitution
to dictate how the government shall function, and that is an attack against the
Constitution it’s self.

And as such, it is the "Right and Duty" of citizens to use those arms against such
governments, as the Framers of the Constitution intended, and, to do so without penalty
or sanction.

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of
Constitutional rights [Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946]”

As Abraham Lincoln said, “The people of these United States are the rightful masters of
both Congresses and Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men
who pervert the Constitution”.

Thomas Jefferson stated this idea clearly in the Declaration of Independence:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty,
to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

It's been said that to interpret the Constitution correctly, one must interpret it in the same
frame of mind that wrote it, Jefferson said the same thing in a letter to William Johnson,
12 June 1823

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or
invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

This Gun Control debate really isn't about the Second amendment, but about the States
and Federal Government usurping the people’s liberties, usurping the authority of the
Constitution and attempting to establish Governments outside the authority and/or
legislative restrictions of the Constitution.

And it is the kind of “TREASON/TYRANNY” the “SECOND AMENDMENT”
empowers citizens to use their guns to prevail against in order to keep their “Form of
Government” and it’s “Rights/Freedoms”.