Thread: Al Hoffman Jr. a RINO donor, to support attack on 2nd Amendment

Many Philadelphia's schools have metal detectors to enter, with a guard - not a heavenly vision but ......

Originally Posted by jtdc

I'm not sure what you think we agree on. I want military style weapons limited to military (and limited police) use. That means John Q Citizen cannot carry, or even own, an AR-15 and the like. Such weapon are primarily, like the M-16, for killing people. They are not the appropriate tool for hunting.

Well, it is now apparent you do not agree the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Regardless of what your personal beliefs are, the Second Amendment was intended to ensure the people would be well armed in order to protect themselves from an oppressive and immoral government, the very kind of government you seem to embrace.

JWK



Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

Originally Posted by johnwk

Well, it is now apparent you do not agree the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Well, now it is apparent that you have a reading comprehension problem. I have several times pointed to the words tying the right to keep and bear arms to the necessity of a "well regulated militia". They were clearly not addressing hunting! But you can't understand that, so you keep trying to wrongly allude that I am claiming the Second Amendment is about the right to use a weapon to hunt!

Originally Posted by johnwk

Regardless of what your personal beliefs are, the Second Amendment was intended to ensure the people would be well armed in order to protect themselves from an oppressive and immoral government, the very kind of government you seem to embrace.

While a state militia might defend against an oppressive federal government, the idea of a "well organized militia" was not about individual taking on every aspect of government. What is this militia for?

Constitution Article 1, Section 8:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Does that sound like it meant our government?

Continuing Constitution Article 1, Section 8:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

From Article 2, Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

The militia in not an individual! And the Second Amendment CLEARLY states that the purpose of allowing the arming of individuals is for the service of the militia, not their individual wars!

Originally Posted by jtdc

Well, now it is apparent that you have a reading comprehension problem. . . . . The militia in not an individual! And the Second Amendment CLEARLY states that the purpose of allowing the arming of individuals is for the service of the militia, not their individual wars!

Talking about a reading comprehension problem, I suggest you read the Second Amendment very, very slowly. While it notes a militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the only guarantee mentioned in the Second Amendment is ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is an established right which preceded the birth of our existing Constitution!


The simple truth is, after creating our federal Constitution which became effective in 1789, ten amendments were quickly adopted [1791] which were intentionally designed “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of “ the new government’s “powers“, and is so stated in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .


Now, in regard to fundamental rights and protections of these rights within the various state borders, let us take a look at what the people, for example, of the State of Pennsylvania, agree upon before our federal government was even created, and did so in their State’s fundamental law otherwise known as Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights, adopted in 1776.


I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

II. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding: And that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent: Nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship: And that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.

III. That the people of this State have the sole, exclusive and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.

IV. That all power being originally inherent in, and consequently derived from, the people; therefore all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants, and at all times accountable to them.

V. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or soft of men, who are a part only of that community, And that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish government in such manner as shall be by that community judged most conducive to the public weal.

VI. That those who are employed in the legislative and executive business of the State, may be restrained from oppression, the people have a right, at such periods as they may think proper, to reduce their public officers to a private station, and supply the vacancies by certain and regular elections.

VII. That all elections ought to be free; and that all free men having a sufficient evident common interest with, and attachment to the community, have a right to elect officers, or to be elected into office.

VIII. That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection, and yield his personal service when necessary, or an equivalent thereto: But no part of a man's property can be justly taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of his legal representatives: Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent, nor are the people bound by any laws, but such as they have in like manner assented to, for their common good.

IX. That in all prosecutions for criminal offences, a man hath a right to be heard by himself and his council, to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses, to call for evidence in his favour, and a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the country, without the unanimous consent of which jury he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; nor can any man be justly deprived of his liberty except by the laws of the land, or the judgment of his peers.

X. That the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers, and possessions free from search and seizure, and therefore warrants without oaths or affirmations first made, affording a sufficient foundation for them, and whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his or their property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right, and ought not to be granted.

XI. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the parties have a right to trial by jury, which ought to be held sacred.

XII. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained.

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

XIV. That a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep a government free: The people ought therefore to pay particular attention to these points in the choice of officers and representatives, and have a right to exact a due and constant regard to them, from their legislatures and magistrates, in the making and executing such laws as are necessary for the good government of the state.

XV. That all men have a natural inherent right to emigrate from one state to another that will receive them, or to form a new state in vacant countries, or in such countries as they can purchase, whenever they think that thereby they may promote their own happiness.

XVI. That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the legislature for redress of grievances, by address, petition, or remonstrance.




So, as it turns out with respect to Pennsylvania, documented history tells us the people therein decided, long before our existing Constitution was adopted, to guarantee a right to bear arms for "defense of themselves", in addition to the defense of the State, and, by the adoption of the 2nd Amendment they went on to specifically forbid the federal government to enter their state and “infringe” upon the people’s already existing right to keep and bear arms established by their state Declaration of Rights.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law, 1858.

Dear John,
You obviously suffer from myopia. Out of all of the Constitution, you can only see the last half of one sentence while ignoring all of the rest.

In the Independence War, many operations were hampered as soldiers came to serve, but the outfits they joined had an insufficient number of weapons and ammunition for all of them. With that in mind, the Founders had the foresight to encourage, and permit, civilians to keep and bear their own weapons so when called into service of the militia, they would have adequate armament. The Second Amendment identified that need and identified that as the purpose of the need for a right to keep and bear arms.

Originally Posted by johnwk

While it notes a militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the only guarantee mentioned in the Second Amendment is

Again, you only look at the Second Amendment in isolation. As I already pointed out, Article 1, Section 8 identifies the need for a militia

to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Dictionary.com
"Insurrection",
an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.

So the purpose, in part, for a militia is to suppress vigilantes like you who feel the Second Amendment was to provide you unlimited fire power to overthrow the government of The United States Of America!

Originally Posted by johnwk

The simple truth is, after creating our federal Constitution which became effective in 1789, ten amendments were quickly adopted [1791] which were intentionally designed “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of “ the new government’s “powers“

But not so vigilantes like you could overthrow this new government. You imagine things that aren't there!

Originally Posted by johnwk

Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights, adopted in 1776.

"Adopted in 1776"! This predated the Constitution which superseded such individual pacts by states.

Originally Posted by johnwk

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;

I have no problem with that. But it doesn't say "unlimited arms".

Originally Posted by johnwk

and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power

That is CLEARLY in opposition to the words of the Constitution which created a "Standing Army"!

Originally Posted by johnwk

So, as it turns out with respect to Pennsylvania, documented history tells us the people therein decided, long before our existing Constitution was adopted, to guarantee a right to bear arms for "defense of themselves"

Yes! "Defense of themselves", not to overthrow their government!

I have said before that you seem to be a savant who can recite every word of many documents, yet not understand what they mean. You demonstrate that same limitation here.

Originally Posted by jtdc

Dear John,
You obviously suffer from myopia. ....

"Adopted in 1776"! This predated the Constitution which superseded such individual pacts by states.

So, now you have to post and insulting remark?

Yes, Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights predates our existing Constitution, just like I said it does. And the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to our existing federal Constitution protects all original powers not delegated to the United States.


Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion, but I prefer to rely upon truth, facts and documentation, just as I posted in The right to keep and bear arms, our Founders' documented intentions


JWK




There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions, including recent abled bodied immigrants, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.

Originally Posted by jtdc

So, as it turns out with respect to Pennsylvania, documented history tells us the people therein decided, long before our existing Constitution was adopted, to guarantee a right to bear arms for "defense of themselves"

Yes! "Defense of themselves", not to overthrow their government!

I have said before that you seem to be a savant who can recite every word of many documents, yet not understand what they mean. You demonstrate that same limitation here.

Leave it to jtdc to quote me out of context and then respond to what he has quoted out of context with an insulting remark.

What I originally posted was:

"So, as it turns out with respect to Pennsylvania, documented history tells us the people therein decided, long before our existing Constitution was adopted, to guarantee a right to bear arms for "defense of themselves", in addition to the defense of the State, and, by the adoption of the 2nd Amendment they went on to specifically forbid the federal government to enter their state and “infringe” upon the people’s already existing right to keep and bear arms established by their state Declaration of Rights."




JWK




Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

Originally Posted by johnwk

So, now you have to post and insulting remark?

I give you the same respect you give me and others!

Originally Posted by johnwk

Yes, Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights predates our existing Constitution, just like I said it does. And the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to our existing federal Constitution protects all original powers not delegated to the United States.

A the pack that you quoted from said: "standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty". The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". The two opinions are contrary. And the Constitution is The Supreme Law Of Our Land!

Originally Posted by johnwk

Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion,

As opposed to your misguided opinion?

Originally Posted by johnwk

but I prefer to rely upon truth, facts and documentation, just as I posted in The right to keep and bear arms, our Founders' documented intentions

Very repetitive! None of that states that an individual has an unrestricted right to keep and bear arms with no limitation. And it certainly doesn't say that the purpose of allowing people to keep and bear arms is to take on the government of the United States!

Originally Posted by jtdc

I . . . <snipped for brevity> ...

Originally Posted by johnwk

Leave it to jtdc to quote me out of context

I quoted exactly what you wrote. I did not include the part I was not referring to.

Originally Posted by johnwk

then respond to what he has quoted out of context with an insulting remark.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Well, it is now apparent you do not agree the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

That is you taking something out of context!

Originally Posted by johnwk

What I originally posted was:

Exactly what I quoted you as posting!

Originally Posted by johnwk

Originally Posted by jtdc
I . . . <snipped for brevity> ...

And this is the mentality I usually expect from John when he doesn't get the praise he desires!