Excerpts From Friend-of-Court Briefs

What about what the Founding Fathers thought?

Isn't it strange, that nobody is talking specifically about what the Founding Fathers thought, wrote and said about the right to keep and bear arms?

They wrote about it and spoke about it, both in public and private settings quite a bit during the period. Why doesn't anyone bring up their quotations? Oh wait a minute, here they are...

www.savetheguns.com/quotes.htm

Presidential Opinion

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Thomas Jefferson President of the United States

Hummmm, his opinion seems fairly clear. Funny, he didn’t mention the National Guard, it sort of sounds like he means individuals should not be from prevented carrying arms or defending themselves.

Pro DC briefs

The pro DC briefs seem to rely upon a sad litany of 'established' or 'settled' Second Amendment rulings; this is a patently false position in that Second Amendment cases come forward periodically, and with diverse rulings in conclusion. The Supreme Court has, from time-to-time, been offered the opportunity to review the issue's specific applications and has declined to do so. This issue is alive and well, and so long as it is so is our Republic; if the Second Amendment is, finally, killed stone dead the magnificent documents upon which our Republic is founded will indeed be, in the words of George W. Bush, 'just a God damned piece of paper.'

The Case is Moot

What part of the dam Constitution doesn't this out-of-control government understand? Every single Nation where the people have had their weapons confiscated by government experienced genocide by that same Government. Are the people so dumbed down in this Nation that they can't LEARN from History?

The People of this Nation will NOT put up with having their guns taken away. The Constitution states the right to bear arms in an INHERENT right. For all the dumbed down, look up INHERENT. Our Forefathers were smart enough to put these INHERENT rights into the Constution, and the purpose for this was to warn the Government to leave it alone. Hands off! Don't Touch. They warned that this right should be used by We The People (who give our permission to Government to be our Servents, NOT our Masters) as a last resort to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. This was the MAIN purpose of the Forefathers for putting this into the Constitution/Bill Of Rights.

Our Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Any Government Branch who flips it the finger needs to be removed by the People whom it is suppose to serve.

The D.C. gun case exposes strange bedfellows and internal rifts in the administration

Regarding

Excerpts From Friend-of-Court Briefs

The D.C. gun case exposes strange bedfellows and internal rifts in the administration

By Emma Schwartz

Posted March 7, 2008

There are three types of people opposing an individuals right to keep and bear arms. One is a madman, a fool. Another is a coward, a person afraid to get hurt. The third person is a criminal, one who desires little opposition and reduced risk during the commission of his crime.

The rational mind recogizes risk, and realizes the necessity of keeping all options open with regard to defense of self, family, friends and country.

Anti-Gun Rights Bias

Do you have anyone who can write an unbiased article about this subject, or is Ms. Schwartz your only choice? If she's going to be biased against the legal ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens, she could at least state some real facts, instead of just making things up, or taking the incorrect facts fed to her by various anti-gun rights organizations.

2nd amendment rights

The right to feel safe and protect my family should not be regulated by the elete nor the rich who feel that they know what's in my best interest. Please allow me to choose to arm myself lawfully if I choose to protect my family and myself. If I have obeyed the law as an adult and have demonstrated myslef to be of sound mind I should have the right to arm myself with a concealed handgun after receiving training and passing standard profiency with that weapon. I should have at least the same chance of survival as the evil doer that illegally takes up arms against the law abiding citizen that does the right and responsible thing.

Original intent!

The Second Amendment's main purpose was for the citizenry to defend themselves against a tryannical government, which ours is moving closer to become. The militia (both the organized and unorganized) at the time it was written had the most modern so-called "assault rifle," pistol, knive and/or tomahawk. ALL militia members were armed with these same firearms. Both "militias" were on equal footing as far as technology goes. Now, many citizens can not own the equivalent of the M-16 so we may "feel" safer. Freedom ALWAYS has a cost! This is a scam. We must be allowed to own the exact firearms the organized (our military) are ALL issued. Otherwise, the Second Amendment has been "infringed" as our Forefathers dictated it shall not, within the text of the Second Amendment. Our military (the organized militia) firearms are becoming extremely high tech. They are working on firearms which shoot around corners, they have access to thermal and night vision technology, and "beam" weapons. The citizenry's firearms are being more and more limited, as time goes on. This causes a vast difference between what we may own versus what the government owns. If we do not stress an absolute line in the sand as far as what we may own as citizens, where will the line ultimately be drawn? When we have nothing. It will remain a gradual deterioration of our rights, which has been going on for decades!

District of Columbia. v. Heller

The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the police can not be held liable for failure to protect the citizens of the US from attack.

On the other hand; under current laws and regulations, the police have unlimited access to automatic weapons, military style auto loading high capacity shotguns, grenade launchers, silencers, explosive devices, and other weapons that are illegal for the general citizenry to possess.

If these weapons are not mandated for the protection of the citizenry, what is their purpose?

The United States is the worlds leading manufacturer of military weapons, weapons systems and anti-personnel munitions. It has the most widespread military presence on the planet.

With a state that is this heavily armed; it seems odd that it should deny its citizens the right to personal protection that it will not itself undertake to insure.

Only a police state would do such a thing.

D.C. Gun case

How could "the people" in the 2nd Amendment be any different from

"the people" in the rest of the Bill of Rights?