<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gun Liberty and McDonald</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/13/gun-liberty-and-mcdonald/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/13/gun-liberty-and-mcdonald/</link>
	<description>Concordia res Parvae Crescunt</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 18:17:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Boldin</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/13/gun-liberty-and-mcdonald/comment-page-1/#comment-325596</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Boldin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:28:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=6363#comment-325596</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think I can go ahead and agree with the quackery definition - might start using that in my regular responses.  fiction, quackery, plenty of other good names for it, right?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think I can go ahead and agree with the quackery definition &#8211; might start using that in my regular responses.  fiction, quackery, plenty of other good names for it, right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Kilpatrick</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/13/gun-liberty-and-mcdonald/comment-page-1/#comment-325595</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Kilpatrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:14:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=6363#comment-325595</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 14th Amendment &#8220;incorporation doctrine&#8221; is nothing less than LEGAL QUACKERY perpetrated by corrupt judges and executive officers of the government!   
 
The original language of the Constitution clearly indicates the framers intent that restrictions on infringing the people&#8217;s rights applied against all levels of governments! 
 
Art IV, states, &quot;Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State.&quot; AND, &quot;The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.&quot;. 
 
Art VI states, &quot;This Constitution...shall be the Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.&quot;, and further states,  &quot;...Senators and Representatives...and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the U.S. and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;...&quot; 
 
I&#039;m no lawyer but I am a College Graduate and that language is quite plain and clear to me.  It&#8217;s just another example of government&#8217;s corruption and violations of their authority. 
 
The framers of the US Constitution absolutely intended the Judges &#8211; whether Federal, State or Municipal Magistrates &#8211; to uphold the US Constitution as the &#8220;Supreme Law of the Land.&#8221;  That one statement shoots holes all in the so-called &#8220;Incorporation Doctrine.&#8221; 
Do the judges really believe the framers were referring to the District of Columbia as &#8220;the Land&#8221;?  Give me a break! 
 
What this means is that if an American citizen is brought before ANY Judge/Magistrate charged with violating a law which &#8220;any reasonable person would believe violated any provision of the US Constitution&#8221;, the judge is constitutionally obligated to dismiss the charges and free the defendant immediately.  An example might be an American charged with &#8220;unlawfully possessing a firearm.&#8221; 
 
The framers did NOT intend that Americans would be harassed for exercising their rights by having to hire expensive, and mostly incompetent, lawyers to defend them against unconstitutional laws for years and years only to get to the SCOTUS and have them deny hearing the matter.  Local judges were intended to be the &#8220;line of defense&#8221; between an overreaching government and its victims &#8211; &#8220;the people&#8221;. 
 
The corrupt judiciary and &#8220;lawmakers&#8221; are tyrants and all deserve a tyrant&#8217;s due. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 14th Amendment &ldquo;incorporation doctrine&rdquo; is nothing less than LEGAL QUACKERY perpetrated by corrupt judges and executive officers of the government!   </p>
<p>The original language of the Constitution clearly indicates the framers intent that restrictions on infringing the people&rsquo;s rights applied against all levels of governments! </p>
<p>Art IV, states, &quot;Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State.&quot; AND, &quot;The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.&quot;. </p>
<p>Art VI states, &quot;This Constitution&#8230;shall be the Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.&quot;, and further states,  &quot;&#8230;Senators and Representatives&#8230;and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the U.S. and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;&#8230;&quot; </p>
<p>I&#039;m no lawyer but I am a College Graduate and that language is quite plain and clear to me.  It&rsquo;s just another example of government&rsquo;s corruption and violations of their authority. </p>
<p>The framers of the US Constitution absolutely intended the Judges &ndash; whether Federal, State or Municipal Magistrates &ndash; to uphold the US Constitution as the &ldquo;Supreme Law of the Land.&rdquo;  That one statement shoots holes all in the so-called &ldquo;Incorporation Doctrine.&rdquo;<br />
Do the judges really believe the framers were referring to the District of Columbia as &ldquo;the Land&rdquo;?  Give me a break! </p>
<p>What this means is that if an American citizen is brought before ANY Judge/Magistrate charged with violating a law which &ldquo;any reasonable person would believe violated any provision of the US Constitution&rdquo;, the judge is constitutionally obligated to dismiss the charges and free the defendant immediately.  An example might be an American charged with &ldquo;unlawfully possessing a firearm.&rdquo; </p>
<p>The framers did NOT intend that Americans would be harassed for exercising their rights by having to hire expensive, and mostly incompetent, lawyers to defend them against unconstitutional laws for years and years only to get to the SCOTUS and have them deny hearing the matter.  Local judges were intended to be the &ldquo;line of defense&rdquo; between an overreaching government and its victims &ndash; &ldquo;the people&rdquo;. </p>
<p>The corrupt judiciary and &ldquo;lawmakers&rdquo; are tyrants and all deserve a tyrant&rsquo;s due. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: test &#8211; South Texas Tenth Amendment Center</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/13/gun-liberty-and-mcdonald/comment-page-1/#comment-325548</link>
		<dc:creator>test &#8211; South Texas Tenth Amendment Center</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 02:03:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=6363#comment-325548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] is the most troublesome part of the ruling, but that five justices ruled in favor of gun rights for all the wrong reasons: As much as the McDonald decision is a victory for residents who want to defend themselves in [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is the most troublesome part of the ruling, but that five justices ruled in favor of gun rights for all the wrong reasons: As much as the McDonald decision is a victory for residents who want to defend themselves in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Second Look At Rick Perry And Why I Will Vote For Him &#124; RedState</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/13/gun-liberty-and-mcdonald/comment-page-1/#comment-325481</link>
		<dc:creator>A Second Look At Rick Perry And Why I Will Vote For Him &#124; RedState</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:21:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=6363#comment-325481</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] is the most troublesome part of the ruling, but that five justices ruled in favor of gun rights for all the wrong reasons: As much as the McDonald decision is a victory for residents who want to defend themselves in [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is the most troublesome part of the ruling, but that five justices ruled in favor of gun rights for all the wrong reasons: As much as the McDonald decision is a victory for residents who want to defend themselves in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Second Look At Rick Perry And Why I Will Vote For Him &#124; Wolves of Liberty</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/13/gun-liberty-and-mcdonald/comment-page-1/#comment-325480</link>
		<dc:creator>A Second Look At Rick Perry And Why I Will Vote For Him &#124; Wolves of Liberty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:17:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=6363#comment-325480</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] is the most troublesome part of the ruling, but that five justices ruled in favor of gun rights for all the wrong reasons: As much as the McDonald decision is a victory for residents who want to defend themselves in [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is the most troublesome part of the ruling, but that five justices ruled in favor of gun rights for all the wrong reasons: As much as the McDonald decision is a victory for residents who want to defend themselves in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ross Wolf</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/13/gun-liberty-and-mcdonald/comment-page-1/#comment-325479</link>
		<dc:creator>Ross Wolf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:53:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=6363#comment-325479</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Without Guns How would Americans Resist An Unconstitutional U.S. Government Takeover?  
 
Obama never clarified what he meant when he stated in July 2008: &quot;We cannot continue to rely on our military to achieve the national security objectives we&#039;ve set. We&#039;ve got to have a civilian national security force that&#039;s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.&#8221; 
 
Obama&#8217;s recently expanded Veterans and other Corps and Obamacare provisions buried in the health bill mandated a 6,000-man army on U.S. Soil; all the aforementioned changes including the new army, are so broadly defined they could subsequently include most any function of government. Hitler&#8217;s Germany in the 1930&#8217;s during hard economic times, established &quot;Civilian Volunteer Patrols&quot; for the purported purpose of helping Citizens and to protect the Homeland. But shortly after Hitler&#8217;s patrols were established, the civilian volunteers were transformed into a neighborhood political enforcement and informant arm&#8221; of the Nazi Party working with Hitler&#8217;s private secret Police, the Gestapo. During this period, years before the Gestapo was consolidated with the German Government, the Gestapo arrested Citizens and confiscated private property with no legal authority. Gestapo is the contraction of Geheime Staatspolizei for &quot;Secret State Police.&quot;  
 
In 1934 the Gestapo was placed under SS leader Heinrich Himmler Chief of German Police. Then in 1939 all German Police agencies were put under the control of the &quot;Reich Main Security Office&#8221; the equivalent of U.S. Homeland Security. 
 
It will be interesting to see if Obama intends to use the new Obamacare 6,000-man army on U.S. Soil in violation of the Constitution. 
 
Should it be expected U.S. private mercenary companies now paid extremely well by U.S. Government to provide security in Iraq, might attempt to secure contracts from the Obama Government to provide security in U.S. Cities, should America&#8217;s recession worsen causing crime and riots like those seen in Greece? 
 
There appears to be nothing to stop U.S. Government deploying &#8220;American Citizens that are mercenaries&#8221; on U.S. soil to assist regular police or to accompany a &#8220;National Police Stabilization Force&#8221; alleged suggested in a recent NGO Rand Corporation Report provided the U.S. Army. The suggested &#8220;National Police Stabilization Force&#8221; would appear controlled by the Feds and might include in its ranks with federal police, local and state law enforcement. What would happen to State Rights and what Laws and Jurisdiction would be used to prosecute state Citizens arrested by a National Police Stabilization Force? Could this proposed National Police Stabilization Force involve Obama&#8217;s new 6,000-man army? A National Police Force could potentially be sent by Obama into any State with the approval of its governor, against the wishes of its Citizens? To clarify the Rand Corporation report visit:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=122533&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pag...&lt;/a&gt; 
 
Several U.S. private security companies now work with U.S. law enforcement agencies in America under federal quasi-government contracts, sharing information, locate for arrest individuals and share with government assets they cause to be forfeited from U.S. Citizens. In retrospect, Hitler created the Gestapo a secret &#8220;Private police organization that worked closely with German police to arrest and eliminate anyone that disagreed with the Nazi Government and to seize huge amounts of property from German Citizens.  
 
Should the Obama Government contract private mercenaries on American soil; deploy in America Obama&#8217;s new 6,000-man army or create his proposed &#8220;civilian national security force&#8221; or similar force; it should be expected that any of these forces during a declared emergency might last years, would discard your Constitutional rights including the Fourth Amendment, violate your private records and seize your arms. After the Nazi Government declared a State emergency against the Communists in 1933, Nazi officials proceeded without warrants to search Germans and their homes, confiscate their private arms, imprison Germans Citizens without cause and confiscate their property; Hitler&#8217;s volunteer corps often moved into confiscated homes. 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Without Guns How would Americans Resist An Unconstitutional U.S. Government Takeover?  </p>
<p>Obama never clarified what he meant when he stated in July 2008: &quot;We cannot continue to rely on our military to achieve the national security objectives we&#039;ve set. We&#039;ve got to have a civilian national security force that&#039;s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.&rdquo; </p>
<p>Obama&rsquo;s recently expanded Veterans and other Corps and Obamacare provisions buried in the health bill mandated a 6,000-man army on U.S. Soil; all the aforementioned changes including the new army, are so broadly defined they could subsequently include most any function of government. Hitler&rsquo;s Germany in the 1930&rsquo;s during hard economic times, established &quot;Civilian Volunteer Patrols&quot; for the purported purpose of helping Citizens and to protect the Homeland. But shortly after Hitler&rsquo;s patrols were established, the civilian volunteers were transformed into a neighborhood political enforcement and informant arm&rdquo; of the Nazi Party working with Hitler&rsquo;s private secret Police, the Gestapo. During this period, years before the Gestapo was consolidated with the German Government, the Gestapo arrested Citizens and confiscated private property with no legal authority. Gestapo is the contraction of Geheime Staatspolizei for &quot;Secret State Police.&quot;  </p>
<p>In 1934 the Gestapo was placed under SS leader Heinrich Himmler Chief of German Police. Then in 1939 all German Police agencies were put under the control of the &quot;Reich Main Security Office&rdquo; the equivalent of U.S. Homeland Security. </p>
<p>It will be interesting to see if Obama intends to use the new Obamacare 6,000-man army on U.S. Soil in violation of the Constitution. </p>
<p>Should it be expected U.S. private mercenary companies now paid extremely well by U.S. Government to provide security in Iraq, might attempt to secure contracts from the Obama Government to provide security in U.S. Cities, should America&rsquo;s recession worsen causing crime and riots like those seen in Greece? </p>
<p>There appears to be nothing to stop U.S. Government deploying &ldquo;American Citizens that are mercenaries&rdquo; on U.S. soil to assist regular police or to accompany a &ldquo;National Police Stabilization Force&rdquo; alleged suggested in a recent NGO Rand Corporation Report provided the U.S. Army. The suggested &ldquo;National Police Stabilization Force&rdquo; would appear controlled by the Feds and might include in its ranks with federal police, local and state law enforcement. What would happen to State Rights and what Laws and Jurisdiction would be used to prosecute state Citizens arrested by a National Police Stabilization Force? Could this proposed National Police Stabilization Force involve Obama&rsquo;s new 6,000-man army? A National Police Force could potentially be sent by Obama into any State with the approval of its governor, against the wishes of its Citizens? To clarify the Rand Corporation report visit:  <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=122533" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&#038;pag" rel="nofollow">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&#038;pag</a>&#8230; </p>
<p>Several U.S. private security companies now work with U.S. law enforcement agencies in America under federal quasi-government contracts, sharing information, locate for arrest individuals and share with government assets they cause to be forfeited from U.S. Citizens. In retrospect, Hitler created the Gestapo a secret &ldquo;Private police organization that worked closely with German police to arrest and eliminate anyone that disagreed with the Nazi Government and to seize huge amounts of property from German Citizens.  </p>
<p>Should the Obama Government contract private mercenaries on American soil; deploy in America Obama&rsquo;s new 6,000-man army or create his proposed &ldquo;civilian national security force&rdquo; or similar force; it should be expected that any of these forces during a declared emergency might last years, would discard your Constitutional rights including the Fourth Amendment, violate your private records and seize your arms. After the Nazi Government declared a State emergency against the Communists in 1933, Nazi officials proceeded without warrants to search Germans and their homes, confiscate their private arms, imprison Germans Citizens without cause and confiscate their property; Hitler&rsquo;s volunteer corps often moved into confiscated homes. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/13/gun-liberty-and-mcdonald/comment-page-1/#comment-325478</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:47:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=6363#comment-325478</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mr. Vance writes in the Conclusion to his article; &quot;As much as the McDonald decision is a victory for residents who want to defend themselves in Chicago and other municipalities with draconian gun laws, this decision also makes it clear that our rights are not natural and absolute.&quot;  I would change the last part of this sentence to, &quot;this decision also makes it clear that our rights are not considered natural and absolute by SCOTUS&quot;.  But SCOTUS was never given the privilege of final arbiter of the laws of the Constitution in this Constitution or any other document.  We, the people, quite rightly retained that privilege for ourselves and our successors.  Seems to me that it&#039;s time for some more nullification action of many of the SC decisions. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Vance writes in the Conclusion to his article; &quot;As much as the McDonald decision is a victory for residents who want to defend themselves in Chicago and other municipalities with draconian gun laws, this decision also makes it clear that our rights are not natural and absolute.&quot;  I would change the last part of this sentence to, &quot;this decision also makes it clear that our rights are not considered natural and absolute by SCOTUS&quot;.  But SCOTUS was never given the privilege of final arbiter of the laws of the Constitution in this Constitution or any other document.  We, the people, quite rightly retained that privilege for ourselves and our successors.  Seems to me that it&#039;s time for some more nullification action of many of the SC decisions. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gun Liberty and McDonald &#171; USA in Exile</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/13/gun-liberty-and-mcdonald/comment-page-1/#comment-325438</link>
		<dc:creator>Gun Liberty and McDonald &#171; USA in Exile</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:45:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=6363#comment-325438</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] It has been said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. This is especially true when it comes to gun liberty, since there are many organizations and government officials in â€œthe land of the freeâ€ that would like nothing better than to disarm or severely limit the gun rights of law-abiding American citizens. The recent pro-gun decision in the Supreme Court case ofÂ McDonald v. City of Chicago doesnâ€™t change our need for due diligence when it comes to gun liberty. READ IT HERE [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] It has been said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. This is especially true when it comes to gun liberty, since there are many organizations and government officials in â€œthe land of the freeâ€ that would like nothing better than to disarm or severely limit the gun rights of law-abiding American citizens. The recent pro-gun decision in the Supreme Court case ofÂ McDonald v. City of Chicago doesnâ€™t change our need for due diligence when it comes to gun liberty. READ IT HERE [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention Gun Liberty and McDonald â€“ Tenth Amendment Center -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/13/gun-liberty-and-mcdonald/comment-page-1/#comment-325423</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Gun Liberty and McDonald â€“ Tenth Amendment Center -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:51:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=6363#comment-325423</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Colley1962 and Ron Paul. Ron Paul said: Gun Liberty and McDonald http://bit.ly/cDIexN #tlot #tcot #RonPaul [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Colley1962 and Ron Paul. Ron Paul said: Gun Liberty and McDonald <a href="http://bit.ly/cDIexN" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/cDIexN</a> #tlot #tcot #RonPaul [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
