Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,889
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    So, Who Guards Our Liberties Now?
    By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano - 25 March 2021
    https://www.newsmax.com/judgeandrewp...25/id/1015116/

    ==================================================
    What if liberty and democracy are opposites?

    What if the principle underlying liberty is to restrain the government to maximize individual autonomy?

    What if the principle underlying democracy is to unleash the government to give the people whatever they want?

    What if personal liberty is an individual birthright because we are created in the image and likeness of God?

    What if just as God is perfectly free, we are perfectly free?

    What if our personal liberties are integral to our humanity? What if personal freedom - which we are free to abuse - is God's greatest gift, after life itself?

    What if, without freedom, we would not be fully human but subservient to whomever or whatever took our freedoms away or persuaded us to surrender them?

    What if government is essentially the negation of liberty?

    What if some liberties should be negated?

    What if those liberties that should be negated consist of the liberty to violate the natural rights of others by taking their lives, liberties and properties?

    What if government does this every day because it wants to tell us how to live?

    What if no one consented to a government that takes property and freedom from the people it governs?

    What if the right to worship or not, to think as you wish, say what you think, to publish what you say, to associate - or not - with whomever you choose, to defend yourself using the same means as the government and bad guys, to enjoy the right to privacy, to keep the government off your property and back and out of your face, to travel wherever and whenever, to engage in commercial intercourse on private property freely and without the need for government permission are natural, personal rights that no government - whether by edict, legislation or referendum - can morally dismiss or discard?

    What if democracy offers the government tools to take our personal liberty and private property? What if, under a democracy, the government grows and liberty shrinks?

    What if that's because the democratic government desperately wants to stay in power, and in order to do so, it takes wealth from some and gives it to others? What if those from whom it takes wealth never consented to the takings?

    What if, in a democracy, the public treasury has turned into a public trough?

    What if, in a democracy, those in power find ways around laws intended to limit their power? What if the government is essentially the judge of its own powers?

    What if no matter which party is in power, the government acts as if it can right any wrong, regulate any behavior, tax any event, and insinuate itself into any controversy - whether authorized by the Constitution or not?

    What if the Constitution is the supreme law of the land?

    What if it was written to establish the government and to limit it?

    What if its amendments expressly guarantee that the government shall not interfere with the exercise of natural rights?

    What if the government does so anyway?

    What if the government's excuse is always emergency or safety?

    What if it promises during "an emergency" that it will bring safety in return for a surrender of liberty? What if the Ninth Amendment commands that the government may not deny or disparage natural rights, no matter the emergency?

    What if this liberty-for-safety-in-an-emergency offer is the Devil's bargain? What if surrendering liberty does not lead to safety but only more government?

    What if - since liberty is a personal birthright - you can surrender your own liberty but you cannot your neighbor's?

    What if the government takes liberty whether voluntarily surrendered or not?

    What if the theory of the Constitution is that the states voluntarily surrendered some of their sovereign powers to the federal government so that it can address federal issues that are spelled out in the Constitution?

    What if the theory of state sovereignty is that the people in each state voluntarily surrendered some personal liberty in return for the protection of natural rights?

    What if the only liberty surrendered is the liberty to impair the natural rights of others?

    What if no rational person has surrendered to government the liberty to walk the streets, to go to work, to operate and patronize lawful businesses and to control absolutely one's own face?

    What if the Fifth Amendment commands that the government cannot take property rights without paying the owner their fair market value?

    What if the government and its friends in the media have scared the daylights out of hundreds of millions of Americans so that they will peacefully surrender their rights and livelihoods during the government's emergency, and thus bring about the government's version of safety?

    What if there are no emergency powers in the Constitution?

    What if, during the War Between the States, the Supreme Court later ruled there was no emergency power to deny basic civil liberties?

    What if state legislatures are utterly without power to interfere with our daily choices in the name of emergency and safety? What if those same state legislatures cannot give to governors powers that they do not have?

    What if all the COVID-19 restrictions on personal autonomy directly defy the Constitution? What if the government doesn't care?

    What if millions who lost personal autonomy don't care because they have accepted the Devil's bargain that somehow voluntary servitude will bring them temporary health and safety?

    What if they have forgotten about the safety of their personal liberties?

    What if democracy and liberty can only co-exist when the government is faithful to the Constitution?

    What if the history of American government is its infidelity to the Constitution?

    What if liberty taken or surrendered is not returned? What will we do about it?
    ==================================================

    ...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,889
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    Biden's Campaign Against Guns Profoundly Unconstitutional
    By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano - 15 April 2021
    https://www.newsmax.com/judgeandrewp.../15/id/1017700

    ===============================================
    "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." — Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    President Joseph R. Biden Jr. recently announced his determination to use his powers as the chief executive of the federal government to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. This is a profound violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution.

    It also perpetuates an attitude about the Second Amendment that was prevalent in state and federal officeholders in both major political parties from the FDR to the George W. Bush eras. That attitude was based on a misreading of the Second Amendment, which characterized the right to own a gun as a collective and not an individual, personal right. In 2008, the Supreme Court corrected that misreading.

    Here is the backstory.

    In the mid-1930s, Jack Miller reduced the size of his shotgun by three inches and transported it in his automobile from Oklahoma to Arkansas. The FBI got wind of his travels and stopped his car and searched it. When they saw Miller's sawed-off shotgun, they arrested him and charged him with violating a 1934 federal statute that prohibited the transportation of shotguns across state lines with a barrel below certain lengths.

    The shotgun was lawful in Oklahoma and Arkansas. The offense consisted only in its interstate transportation.

    Miller acknowledged having done what the government accused him of doing, but he challenged the constitutionality of the statute under which he was indicted. A federal trial judge in Arkansas agreed with Miller and invalidated the portion of the 1934 federal statute that prohibited transporting otherwise legal weapons from one state to another.

    The judge ruled that Congress had infringed upon Miller's individual right to keep and bear his lawfully owned sawed-off shotgun.

    The feds appealed this decision directly to the Supreme Court. By the time the lawyers' briefs were due at the court, Miller himself was nowhere to be found and the lawyer who represented him in Arkansas was no longer on the case.

    So, the Supreme Court, with only the brief of the federal government in hand and only federal prosecutors present at oral argument, unanimously ruled in 1939 that the statute was constitutional because the Second Amendment protected only the collective rights of state militias to keep and bear arms — not the rights of individual persons to do so.

    Since Miller's weapon was not state-issued and since Miller was not in any state militia, the feds — and the states for that matter — were free to regulate and infringe upon this right.

    This dreadful decision of one-sided origin opened the floodgates for Congress and state legislatures to enact all sorts of regulations of firearms, both rifles and handguns. The decision gave carte blanche to all levels of government to enact any anti-Second Amendment regulations for which there was political support, so long as the regulations did not interfere with state militias — today the National Guard.

    There the law stood while the states and the feds enacted infringement upon infringement — including one championed by then-Sen. Joe Biden — with abandon.

    Then, in the early 2000s, Dick Anthony Heller, a Washington, D.C., police officer who was authorized to carry his service revolver in public while on duty, applied for a permit to purchase and carry a privately owned handgun in his home for self-protection. The District of Columbia licensing authorities denied Heller's request because D.C. law prohibited handguns in homes.

    Heller sued in federal court arguing that he had a personal right to own and carry a handgun in his home.

    In a landmark 2008 decision, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the court reversed the Miller case. Scalia wrote that the right protected by the Second Amendment is the ancient personal right to self-defense. Just as you have the right to punch someone in the nose who has punched you or is about to do so, you have the right, the court ruled, to protect yourself and your home using the same means as your potential attackers.

    The court was not afraid of addressing our history, and it recognized that the United States was born in a bloody revolution in which the original 13 colonies fought a war to secede from Great Britain. Thus, the court held that the framers of the Second Amendment recognized that a second ancient purpose served by this right is resistance to tyrants when they take over the government.

    The court called the origin of this right "pre-political." That is a secular phrase for a natural right. Whatever one wishes to call it, the right does not originate with the government.

    Like all rights protected in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment offers a negative right. The amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms; rather, it negates the government from infringing upon this right that has existed in all adults — predating the government.

    The law today is not what it was when Joe Biden came of age. Today, the right to keep and bear arms is recognized unambiguously as a personal, fundamental, pre-political, natural right.

    This is not academic hairsplitting. If a right is personal or fundamental or pre-political or natural, then the government — state or federal — may not interfere with it absent due process.

    Stated differently, the government cannot constitutionally interfere with gun ownership by executive order or even legislation. It can only do so if the owner of the gun has used it to harm someone else, and then only after a fair jury trial.

    Scalia also offered a practical observation: Can the government argue with a straight face that its armed police can protect us better than we can protect ourselves when armed?

    The answer is obvious.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Nowhere Land, Pennsylvania
    (Westmoreland County)
    Posts
    4,954
    Rep Power
    5723755

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    We the people no longer control our elected officials. Money from Corporate America's deep pockets have usurped our power.

    IMO, three things need to happen.

    1. Reverse the impact of the SCOTUS Citizens United decision and get the dark money out of politics by passing the requisite legislation.

    2. Term limits for the House and Senate. Public service was never intended to be a career. Much like the decay and rot that has infected the NRA by La Pierre holding onto power as EVP for some four decades, so it is with our legislators in congress. For those old enough to remember, the Newt Gingrich "contract with America" was a 10 point plan of commitments Gingrich said that as Speaker he would work to enact if republicans took control of the House. Well, in the 1994 election cycle, for the first time in decades the democrats lost control of the House and Gingrich made good on 9 of the 10 promises. The one that didn't pass ... term limits. Big surprise.

    3. All cabinet secretaries, under-secretaries, members of congress and high level bureaucrats are prohibited from seeking employment on K street for a period of 10 years after leaving government service.

    What needs to be done is simple. The hard part is "how" because we're literally up against "all the money in the world".

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Bucks Cty, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Age
    70
    Posts
    6,011
    Rep Power
    21474859

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyF View Post
    We the people no longer control our elected officials. Money from Corporate America's deep pockets have usurped our power.

    IMO, three things need to happen.

    1. Reverse the impact of the SCOTUS Citizens United decision and get the dark money out of politics by passing the requisite legislation.

    2. Term limits for the House and Senate. Public service was never intended to be a career. Much like the decay and rot that has infected the NRA by La Pierre holding onto power as EVP for some four decades, so it is with our legislators in congress. For those old enough to remember, the Newt Gingrich "contract with America" was a 10 point plan of commitments Gingrich said that as Speaker he would work to enact if republicans took control of the House. Well, in the 1994 election cycle, for the first time in decades the democrats lost control of the House and Gingrich made good on 9 of the 10 promises. The one that didn't pass ... term limits. Big surprise.

    3. All cabinet secretaries, under-secretaries, members of congress and high level bureaucrats are prohibited from seeking employment on K street for a period of 10 years after leaving government service.

    What needs to be done is simple. The hard part is "how" because we're literally up against "all the money in the world".
    A. They*ll not legislate themselves out of a job.
    B. They will obey legislation just like they obey The Constitution
    Last edited by PocketProtector; April 16th, 2021 at 09:22 AM.
    Its easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled....Mark Twain

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,889
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    Character is at the root of the problems of government that we have. The real solution is to have wide spread demand, by The People, of quality character, to have quality-character politicians to vote upon.

    The problem has developed due to the character of the people elected.

    The people chosen to be elected is determined by the system by which they get elected & the character of the people who elect them.

    If The People do not demand and implement election systems that are based on truthfulness and openly conducted, while demanding the candidates have morality & a quality character, then the politician who is the BEST LIAR & the BEST CONNIVING SOB will get elected.

    To a great extent, the character of enough of the general population has deteriorated to a crass and self-serving outlook such that they, like the politicians they elect, will resist changes to a system from which they benefit. As we've seen, where there is significant disagreement over what government should be, it only takes a few % of the population to sway the elections one direction on the other. But both party systems have been corrupted and both need major character reforms.

    WE THE PEOPLE need to reestablish this country on the Principles upon which it was founded by electing politicians who believe in those principles. But that takes people of strong character to become politicians at all levels of our country. Those that are truthful, true public servants, willing to put their best effort into reducing the size of government (as the Constitution intended) and making what is rightfully remaining of the government actually serve The People.

    That's a very difficult goal. The character of the population, and therefore, of the politicians, has been sliding downward for more than 50 years. It will require a herculean effort to stop the slide, and even more effort & determination to reverse the tide, if that can even happen.

    True Morality and Quality Character CANNOT BE IMPOSED - it must be self-chosen. And it must spread in order to become effective in the society. I'm doubtful that there are enough incubators of those traits to really counteract the self-serving chaos of the decline we are seeing. Laws that propose they can create morality or character have all been demonstrated to simply be oppressive means of imposing one set of opinion-based preferences onto the opposing opinions, which never really accomplishes True Morality or Quality Character. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

    Only time will tell whether THE GAME OF POLITICS can be cancelled in favor of CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM, or whether THE GAME will continue to consume this country with even more chaotic and drastic actions by the contending parties.

    In the meantime, we are constantly working to select the LESSER OF MANY EVILS - Which is not a real solution, but rather acts as somewhat weak brakes on the current defective system that is heading over the cliff in the future.

    ...

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Nowhere Land, Pennsylvania
    (Westmoreland County)
    Posts
    4,954
    Rep Power
    5723755

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    Quote Originally Posted by ImminentDanger View Post
    Character is at the root of the problems of government that we have. The real solution is to have wide spread demand, by The People, of quality character, to have quality-character politicians to vote upon.

    The problem has developed due to the character of the people elected.

    The people chosen to be elected is determined by the system by which they get elected & the character of the people who elect them.

    If The People do not demand and implement election systems that are based on truthfulness and openly conducted, while demanding the candidates have morality & a quality character, then the politician who is the BEST LIAR & the BEST CONNIVING SOB will get elected.

    To a great extent, the character of enough of the general population has deteriorated to a crass and self-serving outlook such that they, like the politicians they elect, will resist changes to a system from which they benefit. As we've seen, where there is significant disagreement over what government should be, it only takes a few % of the population to sway the elections one direction on the other. But both party systems have been corrupted and both need major character reforms.

    WE THE PEOPLE need to reestablish this country on the Principles upon which it was founded by electing politicians who believe in those principles. But that takes people of strong character to become politicians at all levels of our country. Those that are truthful, true public servants, willing to put their best effort into reducing the size of government (as the Constitution intended) and making what is rightfully remaining of the government actually serve The People.

    That's a very difficult goal. The character of the population, and therefore, of the politicians, has been sliding downward for more than 50 years. It will require a herculean effort to stop the slide, and even more effort & determination to reverse the tide, if that can even happen.

    True Morality and Quality Character CANNOT BE IMPOSED - it must be self-chosen. And it must spread in order to become effective in the society. I'm doubtful that there are enough incubators of those traits to really counteract the self-serving chaos of the decline we are seeing. Laws that propose they can create morality or character have all been demonstrated to simply be oppressive means of imposing one set of opinion-based preferences onto the opposing opinions, which never really accomplishes True Morality or Quality Character. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

    Only time will tell whether THE GAME OF POLITICS can be cancelled in favor of CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM, or whether THE GAME will continue to consume this country with even more chaotic and drastic actions by the contending parties.

    In the meantime, we are constantly working to select the LESSER OF MANY EVILS - Which is not a real solution, but rather acts as somewhat weak brakes on the current defective system that is heading over the cliff in the future.

    ...
    I agree in principle. In a discussion with a friend I stated that we are constantly presented with imperfect candidates. It seems to boil down to ignoring, or better yet, holding your nose and voting for the candidate who indicates they will support legislative initiatives that will advance the agenda of the party or of one of its component constituencies.

    And you're absolutely correct in assessing that much of the electorate has become self-serving and supports candidates who promise to "butter their bread".

    One of the problems I've noted over the years is the extremely light voter turn out for primary elections. IMO, the primary election is as important as the general, if not more so precisely because this is the opportunity to select who will actually run in the general. I believe the "system" as you call it, knows this full well which is why they can get away with funding imperfect, "establishment" candidates.

    Where I disagree with you is that I do feel there is a means to force the issue. Money is the lifeblood of politics and as Tip O'Neil once said "all politics is local". Look at what happened with Sen. Ryan Aument who initially declined Trump's invitation to the Whitehouse and quickly changed his tune on election fraud once his constituents lit up his phone lines and email.

    I still maintain that our votes trump corporate and pac money. That was precisely the mechanism that propelled Trump into the the presidency in 2016. The problem is, how do we form a consistent platform, message and voting block?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Nowhere Land, Pennsylvania
    (Westmoreland County)
    Posts
    4,954
    Rep Power
    5723755

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    Case in point about corporate money.

    I follow these two. She's left and he's right. Don't always agree with either and in spite of their respective biases, they are non-discriminating when it comes to exposing political corruption.

    https://youtu.be/CkIGbvpogis

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,889
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    High Court Punts on 2nd Amendment Cases Challenging Lifetime Ban on Owning Guns
    Monday, 19 April 2021 03:24 PM
    https://www.newsmax.com/us/guns/2021/04/19/id/1018195/

    The Supreme Court on Monday opted not to take up three challenges to a federal ban on gun ownership for people who've been convicted of nonviolent crimes.

    The decision reinforced the apparent inclination by the court to skirt Second Amendment questions. But it also surprised and dismayed some gun advocates who'd hoped the court would whittle away at the lifetime limitation.

    As reported by USA Today, the court's sidestepping the issue let stand a series of lower court rulings that prohibited people convicted of an array of nonviolent offenses -- driving under the influence, making false statements on tax returns, selling counterfeit cassette tapes -- from owning a firearm.

    The decisions Monday were handed down without explanation.

    The news outlet said the last time the nation's highest court issued major gun rights rulings dates back to 2008 and 2010. The court struck down handgun restrictions in the District of Columbia and Chicago.

    USA Today says four justices are needed to take up a case, but five are needed for any majority opinion. There have been, of late, only minority dissenting opinions indicating eagerness to address Second Amendment issues.

    The court was considering the latest gun cases amid a spate of recent mass shootings n places including Georgia, Colorado and Indiana.

    The three gun ownership cases involved varied circumstances: In one, a Pennsylvania man who pleaded guilty to a DUI in 2005 challenged the ban on purchasing or owning a gun. In another, a Pennsylvania woman who pleaded guilty to making a false statement on her tax returns sued over the ban. In a third, involving a man who pleaded guilty in a cassette counterfeiting matter back in the 1980s, there was yet another challenge to the firearms ban.

    As USA Today noted, the court's punting on the cases this time around doesn't prevent it from taking up similar ones in the future.

    ==========================================

    Once again the US Supreme Court has abidicated its responsibility to protect THE PEOPLE from the UNCONSTITUTIONAL OVERREACHING GOVERNMENT.


    ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Round in the chamber "intention to commit a crime"
    By Glyphic83 in forum Open Carry
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: January 25th, 2013, 01:00 AM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 1st, 2011, 11:52 PM
  3. Founders and the Second Amendent
    By NRA Member in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 12th, 2010, 09:53 AM
  4. What the founders went through
    By Jackal in forum General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 9th, 2009, 08:49 PM
  5. The true intention behind the 2A...
    By headcase in forum General
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2008, 05:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •