You are about to action:
Object being modified by the action
Do you want to proceed?
If you wish to action:
Object being modified by the action
Then please send an email request to [email protected].
Ein Heller und ein Batzen is a German folksong, written by Albert von Schlippenbach in 1830.
●▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬✠❈ SUPPORT ❈✠▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬●
❖ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/arminius1871
●▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬♬❈ LYRICS ❈♬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬●
Ein Heller und ein Batzen, die waren beide mein.
Der Heller ward zu Wasser, der Batzen ward zu Wein.
Ja, der Heller ward zu Wasser, der Batzen ward zu Wein.
Heidi, Heido, Heidi heido, ha, ha,
heidi, heido, ha, ha
heidi, heido, hei, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Die Wirtsleut und die Mädel, die rufen beid: Oh weh!
Die Wirtsleut, wenn ich komme, die Mädel, wenn ich geh.
Heidi, Heido...
Meine Strümpfe sind zerrissen, meine Stiefel sind entzwei
und draußen auf der Heiden, da singt der Vogel frei.
Heidi, Heido...
Und gäb's kein Landstraß nirgend, da säß ich still zu Haus,
und gäb's kein Loch im Fasse, da tränk ich gar nicht draus.
Heidi, Heido...
War das 'ne große Freude, als ihn der Herrgott schuf,
ein Kerl, wie Samt und Seide, nur schade, daß er suff.
Heidi, Heido...
#einhellerundeinbatzen #volkslied #germany #song #history #drludwig
A semi-thorough in-depth look at the District of Columbia v. Heller decision released in 2008 by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Make certain you have your own copy before watching this video.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
* The PEOPLE have an individual right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of confrontation.
* To keep is to own, to bear is to carry - in one's hand, on one's person, in one's pocket or clothing.
* Justice Ginsburg provided the definition of "carry" - A DEFINITION ONLY - NOT AN ARGUMENT - with all justices concurring.
* Without a purpose, the right is meaningless. The purpose is to confront a threat.
* The MILITIA is simply all able bodied males as part of the "People".
* The militia PREEXIST - they are NOT created - just as the "People" preexist.
* The militia is NOT the military.
* The military and standing armies are CREATED.
* The State is NOT physical. In the context of the 2nd Amendment right, the State is the FREE POLITY - the people who form government with their consent.
* The preexisting militia exists to SECURE the free polity. Their preexistence is as an obstacle to standing armies, domestic insurrectionists and foreign invaders.
* Nunn v. State (GA) and State v. Chandler (LA) made it crystal clear that Open Carry is the right, the default exercise and the natural exercise of the 2nd Amendment right.
* The Georgia Supreme Court was the same court around the same time as Nunn v. State that upheld a prohibition on concealed carry in another case.
* Post Civil war Freedman's Bureau Act (1866) was necessary to remind everyone the citizens enjoy their right without respect to race, color or previous condition of slavery.
* United States v. Miller made it clear that not only was the mode of carry under examination in 2nd Amendment cases, but the weapon held or used was under examination.
* Possession of concealable weapons, unusually dangerous weapons - or weapons that don't pass the "suitable for self-defense" test can put one in legal jeopardy.
* In wrapping up the case, the Supreme Court of the United States made it crystal clear that the 2nd Amendment right was not without limitation.
* They provided examples of limitations on sensitive places, prohibited persons, concealed carry among others.
* In reviewing the District of Columbia's issuance policy, the Supreme Court of the United States reminded everyone of the right to open carry.
* They reminded everyone that the preferred weapon of choice for self-defense is a handgun.
* They pointed out that requiring the handgun to be disassembled and locked away was to effectively limit the ability to confront in a timely manner, rendering the right useless.
* They finished the case by noting that the defendant (DC) made a last minute offer of a permit to which the plaintiff (Mr. Heller) accepted.
I repeatedly warn the audience that to educate others on District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) - whether it be at 2nd Amendment forums or in the comments sections at 2nd Amendment social media sites - will get one into "hot water". The hostile parties will be those individuals and organizations that claim to be pro-2nd Amendment, BUT are really members of or supporters of the pro-Concealed Carry lobby. Encouraging others to actually read the DC v. Heller decision makes YOU a threat to that Concealed Carry lobby. An informed 2nd Amendment community will more likely question the claims that the Concealed Carry lobby makes, and will more likely be less accepting of some of the ideas the the Concealed Carry lobby tries to sell to the 2nd Amendment community.
YOU educate others on District of Columbia v. Heller at YOUR OWN RISK!
=8-)