Canadian Firearms Confiscation points to U.S. Confiscation

13 Feb

video    00:05:20


Posted by on February 13, 2014 in 2nd Amendment, Video


Tags: ,

5 responses to “Canadian Firearms Confiscation points to U.S. Confiscation

  1. Chris

    February 13, 2014 at 4:39 PM

    “There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov’t) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order”

    (Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).

    The Second Amendment. America’s ORIGINAL Homeland Security.

  2. Christian Gains

    February 13, 2014 at 4:48 PM

    Unfortunately Chris (while you’re perfectly correct), “We the People” have accepted soooooo much compromise, undermining, & deleting of our Constitution that, frankly, we REALLY on longer HAVE a functioning Constitutional Representative Government…Sad, but that’s REALLY where we are due to #1] Apathy, #2] greed & #3] laziness…May god help us! Our gov-corp certainly won’t!

  3. cynthia

    February 13, 2014 at 6:34 PM

    who has ‘vetted’ each and every CITY, COUNTY, STATE much less UNITED STATES ‘con-stitution’al amendment? who has taken the time even part time to verify that every ‘portion’ of their respective CITY, COUNTY, and STATE much less UNITED STATES ‘charter’ ‘bylaws’ and ‘constitution’ are in fact ‘legal’ much less lawful? is there a compilation site that affords the hard evidence? if so would LOVE to be provided link. For me, not ‘political’ much less ‘commercial.’

  4. Buck

    February 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM

    In Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105: “No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.“
    – In Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.“
    – In Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262: ”If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.“

  5. Al Lopez

    February 14, 2014 at 11:00 AM

    Reblogged this on The Firewall.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s