Biden America

We agree entirely on this point. Federal overstep is a huge problem.

 

And taking away all legal guns would be a HUGH federal overstep!

 

Agreed, but I have never actually asked for this. What I ask is that types of guns civilians carry be defined. Otherwise just buy a tank and the mortar to go with it and defend your stuff.

 

Biden can achieve this via Presidential Executive Order however…. He is a wuss and that would be a constitutional overreach… so that’s off the table for Brandon. He will just mouth empty platitudes the pipsqueak.

 

Pray that your fellow gun owners stop going into areas and indiscriminately killing people.

 

Does that mean I can buy a rocket launcher and some RPG’s?

We had a guy in my high school when I was growing up who carried an cashe of weapons in his car… including ahh, well he was a nut. And how he got that stuff, i don’t know.

 

I don’t have to worry…law enforcement will save the day :Laugh:Laugh

 

Or right minded people should have carry permits, have trained at gun ranges and have sense to know when they should act to save innocents.

 

Why?

 

Americans rights are not given them by the government.
The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are both contracts to secure liberty from government overreach. The Constitution actually limits government power and authority to the confines if its language. And any rights not delineated in the Constitution is reserved also to the people.

Non-Patriots need be reminded of that.
Democrats however will never learn.

 

You do realize socialism has failed in every country where it has been installed. As has communism.

 

It's not legally binding. However an American cannot excise it as an important document that defines the principal foundation of governance , nor our identity as citizens.

 

The Declaration of Independence Is the Moral and Legal Foundation of America
Timothy Sandefur July 02, 2018Audio PDFIn Fall 2018
The Declaration of Independence is an essential element—the essential element—of our national identity. Abraham Lincoln put the point beautifully when he called it the “electric cord” that “links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together.” He was speaking then about Independence Day celebrations and the fact that every year, immigrants and the children of immigrants join in celebrating the founding despite the fact that their ancestors weren’t in the country in 1776. “[T]hey cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us” by mere reflection on their ancestors, continued Lincoln. However, “when they look through that old Declaration of Independence [and] find that those old men say that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’” they understand that they too are Americans. Recognition of the principle of political equality, not ethnicity or heritage, is what makes Americans. Thus, even such immigrants “have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration.”

But the Declaration is more than a statement of the ideals that bond patriotic and liberty-loving men together. It’s also a legal document (one of the “organic laws” of the United States) that plays an important role in our constitutional system—or ought to, if it were properly understood. Unfortunately, throughout American history legal theorists have often denied the significance of the Declaration as law.

The Declaration of Independence is law. It was voted on and approved by the Continental Congress—the governing body of the nation at that time—and it had, and still has, legal effect. It’s codified in the United States statutes, today, at page 1, volume 1, of the Statutes at Large and in a supplemental volume of the U.S. Code. The Constitution refers to the Declaration directly (it was signed “in the Year . . . of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth”) and indirectly, as when it refers to “the people of the United States”—the same “one people” identified in the opening line of the Declaration. In fact, the Declaration of Independence is a precedent to the U.S. Constitution and, as such, an understanding of the Declaration is vital to interpreting the Constitution.

For instance, the Declaration announces the principles on which national sovereignty is based. Its pronouncements that all men are created equal, and that they create government to secure their rights, reserving always the right to alter or abolish it, serve as the foundations for the Constitution. Indeed, these principles are why the people had any right at all to create a constitution (a point James Madison made in Federalist No. 40).

 

Why shouldn't a law abiding citizen be able to buy a tank or mortar. The founders intended the citizenry to be "well regulated". Look at who the militia was by statute and what "well regulated" meant. Despite what senility himself says, citizens could and did own artillery pieces. It was quite common for the aristocrats to own the cannons and loan them to state militias prior to the War of Northern Aggression.
If you study out the intent of the founders, you will see they intended the citizens to have the same arms as the military. They wanted the military to be incapable of defeating the citizen militia.

 

If you read a different thread,does the bible allow Christians to defend themselves using lethal force, you'll note they claim America's Revolution against sovereign British rule was an act against God and unbiblical.

If consistent in that accusation, anything that occurred in America after securing our independence after that would be the same.
But that's not the case.
Reason does not reach the unreasonable platformers.

Meanwhile, soldiers are also Christian, Police, Militia members, free citizens.

 

The rebellion was an act of disobedience, which God, in His Sovereign ordination, allowed for His purposes.
When God set up the rebels as their own nation, He ordained a new government over the land, which the people are to obey.

In a perfect environment, Britain would have been so moved by Godward people that it changed. Note that Rome changed, not by Christian rebellion, but by Christian love in the face of persecution. That is the path prescribed for Christians, not picking up arms and killing those we disagree with. The rebels in the Revolution were in the wrong and the Bible points this out.
Perhaps Christians should read their Bibles more than watch Faux News.

 

'Faux' is pronounced like foe.
Perhaps libs claiming to be Christians should read their Bibles more than watch Faux CNN, Faux MSNBC, Faux ABC, Faux CBS. Faux NBC News.

 

Ahhh...the lib claiming to be Christian with a liberal view of history. No surprise. Liberal glasses will cause that.