11 votes

The Following Are Infringements On The Second Amendment - Do You Support Them?

Concealed Carry Permits (Being required to get them)
Background Checks
Doctors coerced by "govt" to ask gun related questions
Mental Health exceptions
Full Automatics (being illegal)
Felons (no longer can bear FIREarms legally)

Please keep in mind. These are not laws. You give your consent by signing a form, applying for a license or by voluntarily giving out your private information. They ARE NOT LAWS. The EPIDEMIC we face is that so many people now THINK they are laws that men with guns who believe they are laws will shoot you if you do not obey them.

We are FAST running out of time before the VEIL will come down and one way or the other you're going to be FORCED to do it... or they are going to be hanging from the gallows... This whole gun-grab is the lead up to the END GAME. There is still a chance to peacefully pull the plug on this murderous nightmare of a machine...

It's about time we actually started looking up these words in the constitution we think we know so well. If we the people created the government... enumerated it's powers (which had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING that would have ANY adverse affect on the people - ABSENT a non-government witness) and SPECIFICALLY pointed out as a matter of #2 priority (many think it should have been first) the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS - WITHOUT infringement... then by WHAT authority are they doing what they are doing TO us?

BY YOUR AUTHORITY.

PLEASE - WITHDRAW your PARTICIPATION... please stop feeding the machine... it's killing us.

What I'm trying to say here is that YOU have the KEYS to freedom... but not you alone. We ALL MUST de-fund this insanity before it's too late. You're educated. You're up on the issues. You know what makes them tick. You know how they are financed... you know how they are managing to stockpile guns, tanks and ammunition. With these FRAUDULENT FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES that WE ALL GIVE VALUE TOO.

We can fix this... but we all gotta put our noses to the grindstone and FORGET being part of the solution... FIRST everyone needs to stop FUNDING THE PROBLEM! It is nearly impossible to manage life without somehow utilizing their system... but it's not hard to unplug a good 95% of your energy from the matrix. CHANGE YOUR LIFE and we will change the "government."

Do you want it to SHRINK? Then let's shrink this puppy down to a manageable size. Can we do it? I'm hoping beyond what seems like all hope that we can...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The 900 lb. Gorilla

That people have been prone to ignore:

"The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

These categories include any person:....

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;"

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-perso...

There are a bunch of other categories, all problematic in one way or the
other, but this one is huge, because they definitely mean to include marijuana
in the definition - which by estimates I've seen is over 40 million adults in
the US. And - of course - they make no distinction about whether someone's
marijuana consumption may be perfectly legal according to their state and
local laws.

Since there is a provision which has shielded gun dealers from prosecution for
"unknowing" sales to prohibited persons and since the government has not been
actively checking and prosecuting people who lie on the background check form,
a defacto "don't ask (and check), don't tell" situation has evolved.

But what happens if the Feds decide to stop ignoring it and go after the (in all
likelihood) tens of millions of gun owners whose consumption of marijuana
or other substances make them "felons"?

Now we have S.443 which has been passed out of the Judiciary Committee and
which provides sentences of up to 15 years for even negligently transferring
a gun to a prohibited person.

From the GOA's analysis of the bill:

"You don’t need to know the person is a prohibited person under either example. The recipient doesn’t need to know they’re a prohibited person. You don’t need to do anything more than plan (“conspire”) to procure the gun. The recipient doesn’t need to be on the NICS list to be a prohibited person...

In fact, under section 4, if you even “intend” to sell a firearm to a person who turns out to be a marijuana smoker -- or one of the prohibited military veterans suffering from PTSD -- you become a prohibited person yourself."

http://www.gunowners.org/congress03062013.htm

The best defense in this case may be to quit pretending this situation doesn't exist and instead to on the offensive against it.

Actually I ignore it on purpose because I'm one of the people.

That Act only applies to public servants. Also I'm not a "person" I may have a person however I'm not always using it (and rarely use it lately).

You are confusing "persons" with "people" and they are absolutely not the same.

ANY limits, regulations, controls on guns, AND the People's

access to them, are all Infringements. Thus UnConstitutional.

I'm 2A for EVERYONE, just like Ernie Hancock.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/S.A.F.E.-Second_Amendment_is_...

And, I mean it; for ANYONE and EVERYONE: Young, Old, Legal, Illegal, 'sane', and 'crazy.' Yeah, you read that correctly: even the 'crazy.'

Sure, if you got a 'mentally ill' family member, visitor, friend in your house, of course you can voluntarily choose to bar them from coming near it, or you, but with laws? NO F'ng WAY!

Second Amendment for EVERYONE.

Everyone is innocent in my book, until you actually move to violate someone else's rights and/or PHYSICAL well being; once you attempt to physically violate someone, the assailants are certainly deserved what's coming to them.

Besides, most 'crazies' are harmless anyway. Your govt servants and local cops present a much higher level of clear and present danger to any American than a local town drunk or schizo on the loose will ever pose to you.

Now, of course I 'get' the natural impulse to prevent and bar those whom you may consider 'mentally ill' from getting a gun. But, for the sake of argument, let's set aside the arbitrary nature of adjudicating who is or is not 'crazy' under the current status quo legal and medical doctrine. But let's discuss the underlying rationale claimed by the statist politicos and medical tyrants for wanting to ban the 'crazies' from coming near a gun: they are more likely to harm someone or oneself.

Well, to the liberty folks here, harming oneself should NEVER be a disqualifier for anything, not to mention the fact that the State has no inherent 'rights,' other than what we the People LEND them, temporarily, as delegated powers. And, despite how many times you hear it on the TV, the State has no 'right' or obligation to ensure public health; just ask the SCOTUS if cops have legal obligation to protect and serve you; the power rationale from the statists POV is the same one that they argue they 'need' a police force: for public safety. So, we all know that both 'ensuring public health and public safety' are non-existent obligations and pure Statist UNCONSTITUTIONAL BS.

So then the simple question, by their 'logic' one must inquire: WHO is really insane, and are more likely to harm others?

A murderous politician who can casually vote to murder MILLIONS via words and armies that follow their arbitrary whims?

Or, a stray screwloose who may kill 10's of people with ill acquired guns?

I'd submit that ANYONE in govt and the institutionalized bureaucracies and the political class, are far more likely to, and are far more easily capable of, MURDER.

Sure, both type of crazies should be stopped when they rear their heads to do harm, but if their basis for banning guns to the 'crazy' is solely based on the childish knee-jerk rationale that because they're more likely to hurt themselves and others, then, why shouldn't all CEO's, Doctors, Scientists, Cops, and Politicians be PRE-banned from owning guns?

Statistically, that latter group of 'professionals' have killed FAR more people than any other 'type' of people, in human history!

I can't think of anyone 'more crazy' than waging illegal wars, making money off insider contracts & trading, while playing compassionate asshole on TV and raise money for your PAC: that description would apply to about 99% of CONgress & EVERY POTUS from Lincoln (and prior, too).

Second Amendment for EVERYONE.

As for 'illegals,' the minarchist vs AnCap divide on borders, citizenship, naturalization and deportation aside, this is the only applicable question in terms of guns used in self-defense: would it be legal for an illegal female Mexican national to defend her life against a legal American citizen would-be rapist/killer?

I'd assume 99% of DailyPaul members would say yes, well at least I hope y'all do.

If she can defend her life, would it matter what she does it with?

It's not like a videogame where she can look through her 'Resident Evil inventory box' to choose between a .357magnum, Scissors, or a Brick, or a broken beer bottle, at the moment of the attack; she can only use what's around or on her at the time of the attack. So if it's lawful to defend her life, regardless of her immigration status, why should she be only limited to a pen, or a rock, or a broken beer bottle, etc?

Second Amendment for EVERYONE.

Then, try this: would a NON-US Citizen Supermodel from Paris, France working the runway on a temporary working visa for a few days at the famed NY Fashion Week in Bryant Park, NYC, be within her rights to lethally defend herself against an armed rapist/killer?

Yes? Y'all agree?

Then, say... she had a friend who happen to be an NYPD detective (more common than you think). Say, they were walking downtown together headed toward an ATM. And, the cop was distracted for a moment (hey, a hot French chick: usually eyes are locked on her), and got jumped and got knocked out unconscious by two thugs (one armed, and one not), from behind.

Then, say... the French Supermodel saw a chance to escape from the unarmed thug while the armed one was busy celebrating the prospect of emasculating/knocking out a dude walking next to a hotchick, but the girl ain't all looks, reaches for the cop friend's Snubbie from his ankle holster. She drops three .357 JHP center mass into her would be rapist killer. The other one scurries off.

Now, would Bloomberg charge her?

Second Amendment for EVERYONE.

Now, say if that Parisian Supermodel was a Mexican-American model who came here illegally at age 10 with her parents. The scenario played out exactly the same.

Now... would Bloomberg charge her?

So my question is, if it's legal, now, for those same non-US Citizen women to defend themselves with a rock, a pen, a broken beer bottle, a letter opener, a kitchen knife, or scissors against a would be rapist/killer, why SHOULDN'T they be allowed to defend themselves with a gun?

Second Amendment FOR EVERYONE.

Just a few things to consider, IMHO.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Maybe to get the ball rolling..

Knowing that the financial onus is on each of us, hire a Constitutional attorney and arm yourself and him with this:

http://www.dailypaul.com/263868/constitution-know-your-argum...

Then spread it like wildfire via fb/twitter and see where it goes from there.

There is a point when we have to stand on our own.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

There are no constitutional Attorneys.

If there were the Daily Paul would probably not even exist. The solution is for YOU to learn LAW. Americans need to become lawyers again (not attorneys).

Attorn To turn over; to transfer to another money or goods; to assign to some particular use or service. To consent to the transfer of a rent or reversion. To agree to become tenant to one as owner or landlord of an estate previously held of another, or to agree to recognize a new owner of a property or estate and promise payment of rent to him.

(from black's 5th)

Here I go again..

I learned something new.

And people wonder why I vist the Daily Paul so much :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Awesome brother :)

Now check this out - good stuff:

http://www.dailypaul.com/278436/karl-lentz-do-you-know-the-d...

Karl Lentz is breaking down the common law for the layman.

Thanks, Domestic Terrorist

I will check out your good stuff, but only if you check out mine :-)

http://www.dailypaul.com/277499/publius-huldah-on-the-origin...

Please give it a good bump and a vote up.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

You're welcome.

(It's vince btw :)

felons...and long arms

Didn't this just take effect around 1994???

Check out proposed bills in CT

Gun owners should be aware of many changes that may take effect very soon under pending bill 1076. There is a public hearing on 3/14/13 at the Capital regarding this bill.

Persons who do not possess a pistol permit or eligibility certificate must obtain a rifle permit to purchase a rifle / shotgun. The permit will cost you $140 ($10 goes to maintain the permitting process, $130 goes to general fund) and will take months to obtain, so plan ahead. The assault weapon description has been vastly expanded and requires special registration. All firearms owned , yes ALL, must be registered with the state on an annual basis and are subject to an undetermined fee. The registration card must be stored with the firearm and carried with the firearm if it leaves your house for whatever reason. Persons can buy one gun per month. Ammunition purchases out of state (internet or what have you) cannot be made by persons who are not a federally licensed dealer / manufacturer. Persons must present ID and their firearm registration card for a firearm listed as using the same ammunition which they are wishing to purchase. You may not possess ammunition for a firearm that you do have a registration card for. The bill also addresses a gun offender registry and addresses body armor and a few other topics.

Colchester, New London County, Connecticut

I Support...

...no government infringement or involvement reference the sale, purchase, carry, barter, trade, possession or use firearms.....none at all.

Government's role comes into play when an individual commits an individual 'bad-act' that harms or infringes another, regardless of their being in possession of or committing while using an object or a 'tool'.

Malum in se -vs- malum prohibitum.

Guns are not in any way in the 'malum in se' category. Period.

I would add

that "govt" cannot TOUCH YOU without a non-government witness.

Magna Carta is still in effect.

scawarren's picture

No those are all wrong and I

No those are all wrong and I don't support any of them! The NRA does though and that's why I dropped their arses two years ago and joined GOA.

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain

Bravo

anyone who supports the NRA is just not doing their homework.

GOA all the way! Larry Pratt is the no compromise guy we want advocating for the right to bear arms.

I'm against all of the things

I'm against all of the things you listed.

So, let me ask you; if a cop

So, let me ask you; if a cop pulls you over and you don't have a drivers license and then he finds a handgun in a holster at your side and you don't have a CCW and the gun is unregistered, are you going to jail? You know damn well, you'll be going to jail. When you go to court, you can make all the claims you want -they can even be 100% legitimate- and it still wont matter; they will still imprison you and give you a fine, and there is nothing you can do about it. The reason this will happen is because not only do they have the guys with guns -who are perceived to be legitimate- to enforce their decree, but the population at-large believes that those things are laws,and that the judge has the authority to imprison you and fine you.

Until the vast majority of a population just quits listening to those Judges, Lawyers, and Police Officers and other politicians and such, and those people just quit abiding by those 'laws' then and only then will those 'laws' become illegitimate. Until such time, they are laws whether legal or otherwise.

It's thinking like this

and there is nothing you can do about it.

that defeats us. If this is what you think there is no sense in attempting to educate you otherwise. You've made up your mind and have consented to tyranny "until the vast majority of [the population wakes up]."

Very little hope for you and since we are in triage mode I can't spend a lot of time telling you stuff you just don't wanna hear. Feel free to browse my posts if you would like to begin to believe there may be be a chance to restore the republic.

Exactly

and if you refuse to acquiesce to the officer? Because obviously if you opt out of obeying their "laws" your going to opt out of being arrested by their agents and going to their jail right? If you're dead you can't very well win now, can you?

I agree with civil disobedience, but I also believe like Ron Paul that the best way to change the system is to actually change it by inspiring people and working from within.

I disagree with everything on your list. That doesn't mean I'm going to go to prison or die in a shoot out over it, because then who will be left to fight within the system? To illustrate that people can indeed live free.

I'll conform to their laws for now, while fighting long and hard to change the country and the minds of the people until such time as we can no longer fight peacefully or there are enough of us to create real change.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Fear fear fear...

you WREAK of it. If you're afraid of a few days in jail what could make anyone here believe that you're prepared to defend your rights with your very LIFE?

You're just one of the ones who will accept the total communist takeover - I'd advise you stop complaining since you consent to, accept and enable your own tyranny... as well as anyone else in here that was scared out of standing up for their rights due to your comment.

You wreak of ignorance

Again I ask If you won't obey the laws why are you obeying agents of the law? Why do you not get into a shoot out over an unpaid traffic ticket? It's because you pick your battles. Those who live and run away live to fight another day.

You'll be to busy in a fucking gulag or a FEMA camp when it happens to help in any battle, because of your arrogance.

I do not doubt your sincerity but your words betray you. For if you truly believed in what you are saying, you wouldn't be able to post on the Daily Paul, because you'd be in prison!

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

You will be a speed bump

You can throw yourself on the treads of the tank, you can go out in a blaze of glory, you can martyr yourself as your motives a spun and corrupted by a compliant press and your memory is lost to all but those your inspire. That is your choice...it leads to an early death, though in the meantime you may live fully and freely.

When the government was smaller and less intrusive, when the people had the opportunity to fight government overreach and win, the People were silent and accepting. That time is long gone. Today, with the government reaching into every nook and cranny of our lives, with overwhelming force at its' disposal, and a cowed populace unwilling to even admit they are cowed, a full defiance of government power will not result in the rolling back of their intrusions.

Your decision to confront and defy is admirable. But if you believe that you will win anything in the process, then you are mistaken. You will be a speed bump. You may inspire, but you won't win. That's just reality.

We are all grappling with the best way to stop the State. Some propose that we work within. Some say we need to live in the shadows. Some, like you, say we must rise up and defy, defy, defy. We each have our own approach, none of which is guaranteed to succeed. Nothing good can come from disparaging remarks about the paths that different people choose to follow to reach a freer country. They only serve to undermine effort.

Rising up when there is certainty of failure is the action of a person without hope, and who has given up on the future. I do not condemn such a move, and I hope I never become so jaded that I see no choice but self immolation. I realize that day may come.

Ron Johnson

The senator? Probably not... but the reason I felt compelled to ask is because I've been wanting to speak with you (if you are the senator) regarding right to travel and taking a position on it.

Prob a 1% chance or so that you are... but sure would be great to have that debate on the DP if it's true :)

I sometimes define myself by who I'm not

I'm not an ex-NFL player; I'm not the CEO of JC Penny; I'm not the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, though I live here.

After listening to and reading about the 'other' Ron Johnson, I'm glad to wake up and just be me.

No.7's picture

How you gonna stop participating vince?

The Government knows everything about all of us. We can't quit participating......

We must change the system by participating in the system.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Changing a rigged system is

Changing a rigged system is like winning a rigged game; how do you plan on doing that? You can only participate if they allow you to. Most positions of real power will be denied to you; but you'll be participating in the rigged system.

No.7's picture

I pulled a Ron Paul and joined the GOP

How are you not participating?

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

I'm not participating.

I don't use banks. I rarely go anywhere so I hardly ever use gas. I go out of my way to avoid the grocery store with self-sustaining alternatives to getting food. I don't consent to any code enforcement or any harrasment by public servants.

The key to dealing with public servants is just that: ASK them if they are a public servant. If they are then ask them if they believe you are a public servant. If they say no then you're still a master. Inform them of that fact and tell them to act accordingly.

If stopped by a cop you are supposed to be asking them what is the probable cause for the stop. Traffic violations are not crimes unless someone has been harmed. Probable cause can only be maintained if you are suspected of committing a crime. If there is no probable cause then they do not have a reason to stop, detain or arrest you... nor do they have any right to demand identification. This isn't Hitler's Germany quite yet... but we are definitely getting there!

Brother you just gotta start researching the law and standing up for yourself. If you stand up - sometimes you get knocked down but the reason we are here on the precipice of a New World Order is that EVERYONE ISN'T JUST MAKING THE DECISION THEY WILL NOT PUT UP WITH ANY MORE TYRANNY... that means DO NOT CONSENT to constitutional violations!

DO not take a plea!
Do not consent to their jurisdiction.
Make a claim of frivolous action as well as contempt of the constitution.

The people have NO IDEA of their power in law. This is the reasons Attorneys don't want you to learn law... you will realize YOU DO NOT NEED THEM and when you get an attorney - you just traded all your rights for state-granted privileges.

This is also why the SPLC demonizes "sovereigns" because they have a vested interest in making sure people do not learn the law! SPLC is a group of ATTORNEYS!

The 2nd Amendment itself

...is an infringement.

deacon's picture

question vince

what form or forms did i sign that says
they can out me in jail for,say concealed carry?
if i remember correctly,and most times i do,i signed nothing
and they still will jail me for their contrived offense
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence