Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[tonyz]

Sheriffs issue a call to arms: ‘Take advantage of your legal right to carry a firearm’
Washington Post
By Lindsey Bever January 18, 2016

Sheriffs across the country have been calling their citizens “the first line of defense” against crime — a call to arms that some say is a new phenomenon following terrorist attacks at home and abroad.

A sheriff in Wisconsin wants “as many law-abiding citizens to arm themselves in this country as we can get.” One in New York state told people who are licensed to carry a gun to “please do so.” In Florida, one sheriff said: “I can tell you the probability of needing a firearm is remote, but it’s more important to have a gun in your hand than a cop on the phone.”

The proclamations come after suicide bombers and gunmen terrorized Paris, a gunman opened fire at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs and two attackers – since linked to Islamic extremism – gunned down a crowd at a social services center in San Bernardino, Calif.

<snip>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-help-protect/

[tonyz]

Just the facts.

Another record year for background checks - which are a reasonable estimation of firearm transactions/sales.

That's a lot of "iron"...and polymer...

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ni...month_year.pdf

[Ret10Echo]

It's not overturned... it just opens things up for more litigation.

Be thankful O'Malley dropped out of the presidential primary race. He's destroyed every jurisdiction he's touched...

a broad coalition of gun owners, businesses and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and other laws aimed at curbing gun violence.


A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state's prohibition on what the court called "the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens" amounted to a violation of their rights under the Constitution.

"In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment -- the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home," Chief Judge William Traxler wrote in the divided ruling.

Provisions that outlaw these firearms, Traxler wrote, "substantially burden this fundamental right."

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who recently suspended his Democratic presidential campaign, signed Maryland's Firearm Safety Act of 2013 in the wake of the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, which spurred similar initiatives in other Democratic-leaning states.

[tonyz]

A short YouTube video I hadn't seen before.

DEMOCIDE Socialism, Tyranny, Guns And Freedom

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UE5u0l...ature=youtu.be

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by tonyz

A short YouTube video I hadn't seen before.

DEMOCIDE Socialism, Tyranny, Guns And Freedom

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UE5u0l...ature=youtu.be

Good contribution to this thread; remains relevant.

[GratefulCitizen]

This surfaced awhile ago.
Can't believe it's still moving forward.

Maybe they'll they'll start enforcing it on April 19...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/23/th...-confiscation/

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

This surfaced awhile ago.
Can't believe it's still moving forward.

Maybe they'll they'll start enforcing it on April 19...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/23/th...-confiscation/

At the link below is a 2012 clip of the supposed author of that proposed legislation in Lexington, MA - Harvard Professor Robert Rotberg. At approximately the 1:57 mark of the video, the good professor places all his ivory tower naïveté on full display when he completely ignores the value of the 2A with respect to tyrannical leaders. His own words support the unquestioned value of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Just another example of a highly educated tool.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-woq7wcZb8k

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by tonyz

At the link below is a 2012 clip of the supposed author of that proposed legislation in Lexington, MA - Harvard Professor Robert Rotberg. At approximately the 1:57 mark of the video, the good professor places all his ivory tower naïveté on full display when he completely ignores the value of the 2A with respect to tyrannical leaders. His own words support the unquestioned value of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Just another example of a highly educated tool.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-woq7wcZb8k

A tool indeed.

An important difference between how "leaders" are meant to act here as apposed to elsewhere:
Leaders elsewhere are masters, here they are servants.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the people at large retain the means to quash any rebellion on the part of their elected and appointed servants.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

A tool indeed.

An important difference between how "leaders" are meant to act here as apposed to elsewhere:
Leaders elsewhere are masters, here they are servants.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the people at large retain the means to quash any rebellion on the part of their elected and appointed servants.

Thank you. You point out a very important and not so subtle distinction that is sometimes lost on some of our young people today, thank you again.

Moreover, the good Professor also seems to discount the importance of the 2A with respect to a soft (but hardening tyranny) and erosion of the Constitution by our so called political leaders. Incremental steps to tyranny (boiling frog analogy) are steps nonetheless.

The protection of our sacred right of self-defense against terrorists, migrant hordes, petty criminals an oppressive government, or whoever, as the case may be - the right of civilians to keep and bear arms - is a vital and undeniable RIGHT not a privilege in our country.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Thank you. You point out a very important and not so subtle distinction that is sometimes lost on some of our young people today, thank you again.

Moreover, the good Professor also seems to discount the importance of the 2A with respect to a soft (but hardening tyranny) and erosion of the Constitution by our so called political leaders. Incremental steps to tyranny (boiling frog analogy) are steps nonetheless.

The protection of our sacred right of self-defense against terrorists, migrant hordes, petty criminals an oppressive government, or whoever, as the case may be - the right of civilians to keep and bear arms - is a vital and undeniable RIGHT not a privilege in our country.

Most people/sheeple are idiots. And they will continue to vote away their freedoms until most of them become the sheep they were born to be.

[Old Dog New Trick]

After 10-years of silence while sitting on the highest court, Chief Justice Clarence Thomas had a question. And it's in support of the 2A.

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

Justice Thomas breaks 10-year silence in court

http://usat.ly/1oJt3Ip

Why is there a "lifetime ban" for a misdemeanor conviction? Does that happen for any other Constitutionally protected rights? Apparently not!

[Red Flag 1]

I met Justice Thomas at his son's graduation from a private military school in Virginia (FUMA) . Our son was a year behind his son, as he joined my wife and I as we were taking advantage of a large shade tree beside the bleachers. Very few took notice of him until after the graduation was over,and we went in search of our cadet sons. He had just finished his confirmation hearings, and we chatted about that for just a bit before moving on to other things. What he said in his latest statement matches the image I formed of him that hot summer afternoon. I am glad that he is sitting on the Supreme Court.

[tonyz]

NICS background checks for the first two months of 2016 are particularly strong.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ni...month_year.pdf

[tonyz]

A short decision from the Supreme Court regarding the 2A. Full text of decision at link below.

<snip>

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016

A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the conse quences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for self- defense. See Pet. for Cert. 14.

If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.

<snip>

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...10078_aplc.pdf

[Badger52]

Thanks for posting that. The Court takes refreshingly straight language in its slapping of the Kommissars of Massachusetts.