All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.Learn more here:
All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.Learn more here:
Snopes, a left leaning and probably jew ran operation is arrogantly stating that this is all false:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/dickact.asp
You cannot use the Constitution to defend yourself because you are not a party to it. (Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520) “The People” does not include you and me. (Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243)
ReplyDeleteWhat is this horseshit? An Act of Congress can't be repealed because it would "violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws"? This is utter nonsense.
ReplyDelete-An ex post facto law is one that criminalizes something after it has been done.
-A bill of attainder is a law that is written to punish someone without trial.
If congress writes a law, and it is not violative of the Constitution (and I would add "natural law") then it is law. Congress cannot write a law that cannot be unwritten by another congress. To make such a law would be essentially altering the Constitution outside of the process described by the Constitution, and thus void.
If a law is written that infringes a person's right to keep and bear arms, then it is unconstitutional because it violates the 2nd Amendment. This has nothing to do with ex post facto laws, etc....
ReplyDeleteNo Treason: The Constitution of No Authority | by Lysander Spooner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWESql2dXoc
About "ex post facto" law (Christipher Marlowe):
ReplyDeleteOff the subject but still a burning issue with me (and millions of other men, I presume). In the late 60's, throughout america, men had committed the acts of a) marriage, and b) procreation, under the existing laws which required a party seeking a divorce to SHOW CAUSE. Absent a showing of cause, and proof thereof (to a jury), no divorce could be granted. Then, in the mid to late 60's, every state passed new divorce laws, and applied them to ALL PERSONS who had already committed the two acts, whose prior commission thereof now made them prosecutable by the new law - that is, marriage, and procreation, even though the new law was passed "after the fact", as involves the millions of parents and spouses extant at that time. No provisions for the "grandfathering" of existing guilty (i.e. "prosecutable) parties - those who had committed a) marriage, or b) procreation - was even suggested.
Those "new" no-fault (so-called) divorce laws, as applied to existing spouses and natural parents, was a blatant, IN YOUR FACE, example of ex post facto legislation, AND PROSECUTION by the millions, and I heard not a peep out of those arenas that are supposed to keep our U.S. lawmakers on the up and up. I inquired (to a local top-notch family lawyer) and he allowed as to how I was "strictly" correct in my analysis, but, that he would need $10,000 up front since he expected it would go to the US Supreme court, and, he advised me that I would probably loose there anyway because of the popular wave for no-fault divorces that was sweeping the nation (he said nothing about the "growth" industry so created for lawyers, who, theretofore, had had trouble making a good living since the need for lawyers was so paltry and the supply of lawyers was so plentiful. No-fault divorce laws changed all that and divorce lawyers sprang up overnight all over the place (creepy slime-ball bastards!).
I likened it to luring folks into a public swimming pool and then dumping sharks into the pool after the unsuspecting swimmers were caught in the middle - imagine the frenzy of swimmers rushing for the edge to get out of the water! How many men, back then, contrived and plotted, and schemed, and went nearly berserk trying to figure some way out of the bind they found themselves caught in from those new laws (pay whatever amount of so-called "child support" the judge says, for however long he says, or go to JAIL, for as long as the judge wants to keep you there - I heard of men who spent many years locked up via contempt of court for "failure to pay child support"). Talk about tyranny - you got it in spades!
So, the US constitution, and especially the ex-post-facto prohibition, means NOTHING unless the leaders want to use it for whatever agenda they have afoot.
Live and learn how the real world works - in order to get justice, you must have POWER. Without that, you are just whistling dixie. With that, you can do whatever suits you and your agenda, and it doesn't matter what any fundamental documents say about this or that or about anything.