Great 2A Article

[lfinsr]

This is the most coherent and readable article I've ever encountered before on the 2nd Amendment. Hopefully you'll get as much from it as I have. Back to reading, I'm less than half way through...

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin16.htm

Enjoy

Larry

[joe817]

Great article Larry! Well worth the read.

"One can hope that even the dullest American will recognize why, in the real world, where actions have consequences and effects follow from causes, any "gun-free zone" is actually a "self-defense prohibited zone" and a "free-fire zone for criminals and psychopaths", advertised and guaranteed as such to the predators under color of law. It amounts to locking the visitors at the zoo inside the cages with hungry lions and tigers, jackals and hyenas, at feeding time. In short, it is politically mandated and imposed victimization of innocent citizens, through public officials' intentional aiding and abetting of criminal activities. (Another egregious case of contemporary politicians' penchant for using the law to break the law.) "

And he said that back on July 5, 2005.

Thanks for posting!

[Kythas]

So not only is the author stating that the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, the Founders saw that right as going hand in hand with a DUTY to keep and bear arms.

Interesting.

[lfinsr]

On the matter of gun control in it's many forms, court opinion (with references that of course I have no access to), is that an unconstitutional law is no law at all and therefore cannot be broken.

"Thus, the very existence of such a statute, intended to further, and as an overt act evidencing, a criminal conspiracy against society, is itself a perfect legal justification for disobeying its commands, as well as any purported court order or other mechanism aimed at its enforcement."

That said, you're not likely to see me open carrying down Main St. just to be a crash test dummy...

Larry

[mr.72]

I presume this is a good read and I will finish reading it at some other time.

However I think that the overly long, drawn-out and obtuse language used in this article are effective in masking the main point from observation by the vast majority of readers who do not already understand these points intuitively. Reading through one page of this was painful. I am not really looking forward to the next seven.

[Purplehood]

Deep thoughts, by Jack Handy.

[bdickens]

When I scanned the page and saw links to stuff like "dethrone the imperial judiciary" and "CONSTITUTIONAL INCOME Do You Have Any?" I got turned off.

[pdubyoo]

I presume this is a good read and I will finish reading it at some other time.

However I think that the overly long, drawn-out and obtuse language used in this article are effective in masking the main point from observation by the vast majority of readers who do not already understand these points intuitively. Reading through one page of this was painful. I am not really looking forward to the next seven.

That's just to get through "part 1". There are 8 multipage articles that make up the whole series. I'm gonna have to stop here with this one.

[casingpoint]

Deep thoughts, by Jack Handy.

Even without having read the cited article yet, I can see a legal construct rapidly evolving for the arrest of citizens who abdicate their duty to keep firearms around. Oh, Holy Grail!

[bdickens]

This is the most coherent and readable article I've ever encountered before on the 2nd Amendment. Hopefully you'll get as much from it as I have. Back to reading, I'm less than half way through...

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin16.htm

Enjoy

Larry

No offense, but you need to do some more reading. I have seen a lot of articles on the Second Amendment that are way more coherent and readable. Not to mention more concise.