Post Reply 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
We are in trouble... It starts a new...
02-27-2018, 07:42 PM
Post: #1
We are in trouble... It starts a new...
The Illinois legislature is hell bent to get rid of guns. And once again people are out buying things. While reloading supplies are still out there, I stopped by Cabelas today, and found zero AR15 / AR10 Magazines. ammo was still on the shelves, but the 5.56 pile was way down. 22LR still was plentiful. But I see holes already. We could see a major run again.

Pretty soon we might be felons. MOLON LABE!

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-28-2018, 10:23 AM
Post: #2
RE: We are in trouble... It starts a new...
Welcome to my world. It seems that every time I turn around and the State goes into to session, I get to see how the LEFT keeps trying to rid Oregon of crime and violence. Not by actually enforcing the current laws but by trying to create a new magical law(s) that will solve ALL their gun and violence issues. Now they ALL want to rid ALL of us from the MEAN and HATEFUL type of gun:AR Style Military, weapons of war.

From the National Review:
The historical record unequivocally supports the existence of an individual right.

It is critical to remember that the Founding Fathers were Englishmen before they were Americans. When they began to sow the seeds of revolt against the British crown, they sought not to destroy all that had gone before but to protect rights that they believed they already possessed. Thus, when George III responded to unrest by attempting to disarm rebellious colonists, he “provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms,” Scalia wrote. (“Arms,” incidentally, did not mean only “muskets” but included any personal weapon that could be wielded by an individual, including but not limited to “musket and bayonet,” “side arms,” and “sabre, holster pistols, and carbine.”)

Justice Scalia understood this well:

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” Other contemporary authorities concurred. Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence. (Citations omitted.)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Forum Jump:

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Red Dot Arms Forum | Return to Top | Return to Content | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication