# Own guns, learn how to use them, fight the anti-gun nimrods.



## Brick Gold (Feb 6, 2022)

Protect your rights.  Arm yourself.  Keep your place secure.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 6, 2022)

WTF?
How is arming yourself protecting your rights?
The right not to get burglarized, robbed or killed?

That just pretty basic shit.


----------



## JGalt (Feb 6, 2022)

I don't own any guns, they own me. They make me feed them, clean them, and tuck them in at night.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> How is arming yourself protecting your rights?
> The right not to get burglarized, robbed or killed?
> 
> That just pretty basic shit.


I know precisely what the OP is getting at.  The more the population arms itself, the more difficult it will be to disarm us and/or overthrow the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 6, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> I know precisely what the OP is getting at.  The more the population arms itself, the more difficult it will be to disarm us and/or overthrow the right to keep and bear arms.


Keep believing that.
The gun manufacturers and the NRA must love you.
I've had guns for well over 40 years and never believed that, once.

That BS has made the rounds of republicans since the late 80's........................of course, every time THEY aren't in office, it's the same shit.


----------



## JGalt (Feb 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Keep believing that.
> The gun manufacturers and the NRA must love you.
> I've had guns for well over 40 years and never believed that, once.
> 
> That BS has made the rounds of republicans since the late 80's........................of course, every time THEY aren't in office, it's the same shit.



You've had guns for well over 40 years but you don't like the companies that made those guns for well over 40 years, or an organization that represents your right to have guns for well over 40 years?


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Keep believing that.
> The gun manufacturers and the NRA must love you.
> I've had guns for well over 40 years and never believed that, once.
> 
> That BS has made the rounds of republicans since the late 80's........................of course, every time THEY aren't in office, it's the same shit.


Keep believing that the more Americans actively support the right to keep and bear arms, the securer the right is?  That's a no-brainer.  What are you trippin' on?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 6, 2022)

JGalt said:


> You've had guns for well over 40 years but you don't like the companies that made those guns for well over 40 years, or an organization that represents your right to have guns for well over 40 years?


I don't mind the gun makers, I just don't go out and buy guns every year, I have 5, and that suites me just fine.
I can't stand the NRA, I'm glad I canceled my American Rifleman subscription in 1989 or 1990.
Now I really despise them, TRAITORS.


JGalt said:


> View attachment 597736


Yeah, THIS is BULLSHIT.
2011
G. Kline Preston, a conservative lawyer in Nashville with business connections to Russia, introduces then-NRA president David Keene to Torshin, a powerful senator in Russia and close to President Vladimir Putin. Torshin, who styles himself as a gun enthusiast, is a lifetime NRA member. Around this time, Torshin’s young female aide, Maria Butina, creates Right to Bear Arms, a Russian version of the NRA and the first group of its kind in the country.

2013
Butina and Torshin host Keene and other American gun rights advocates at the Right to Bear Arms annual meeting in Moscow. Two hundred people take part in the event.

Keene reportedly enlists John Bolton, a notable rightwing hawk who will serve as President Trump’s National Security Adviser, to record a video for Right to Bear Arms promoting the merits of loose gun laws. “Were the Russian national government to grant a broader right to bear arms to its people, it would be creating a partnership with its citizens that would better allow for the protection of mothers, children and families without in any way compromising the integrity of the Russian state,” Bolton said.

2014
Butina and Torshin attend the NRA’s annual meeting in Indianapolis, where Butina is treated as a VIP. She presents a plaque to then-NRA president Jim Porter.

The NRA has been a Russian asset for a long time, along with republicans.


----------



## JGalt (Feb 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> I don't mind the gun makers, I just don't go out and buy guns every year, I have 5, and that suites me just fine.
> I can't stand the NRA, I'm glad I canceled my American Rifleman subscription in 1989 or 1990.
> Now I really despise them, TRAITORS.
> 
> ...



NRA has been a Russian asset for a long time, along with Republicans? That's some industrial-strength Blue Anon shit right there, son. You keep talking like that and someone's gonna red-flag you.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 6, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Keep believing that the more Americans actively support the right to keep and bear arms, the securer the right is?  That's a no-brainer.  What are you trippin' on?


WTF?
What are you trippin' on?

I don't write letters to the media every week to support the 1st amendment.
I don't stand on the corner screaming about my grievances to support my 1st amendment rights.
I don't cause trouble with the police so I can support my 4th amendment rights.
I don't walk into a police station, admit to crimes so I can support my 5th amendment rights.
I don't get arrested purposely, to support my 8th amendment rights.

AND only in certain circumstances do I carry my pistol to go anywhere to support my 2nd amendment rights.

I don't need to 'actively' support them, they aren't going anywhere, anytime soon.
Regardless of the 30 year campaign by republicans who claim otherwise, of course, when they aren't in power.


----------



## JGalt (Feb 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> What are you trippin' on?
> 
> I don't write letters to the media every week to support the 1st amendment.
> ...



Hope you have a permit for that pistol there, son.


----------



## NoNukes (Feb 6, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> Protect your rights.  Arm yourself.  Keep your place secure.


What a horrible country to live in.


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 6, 2022)




----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 6, 2022)

JGalt said:


> NRA has been a Russian asset for a long time, along with Republicans?


YES, they have.
WTF, are they doing in Moscow, on July 4th?

July 5 2018
Eight members of Congress, all Republicans, spent America's Independence Day in Russia.

Seven senators — John Kennedy (R-LA), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Steve Daines (R-MT), John Hoeven (R-ND), John Thune (R-SD), Jerry Moran (R-KS), and Ron Johnson (R-WI) — and one House member, Kay Granger (R-TX), are all in Moscow over the Fourth of July holiday this week for talks with Russian lawmakers and officials.


JGalt said:


> That's some industrial-strength Blue Anon shit right there, son. You keep talking like that and someone's gonna red-flag you.


"Blue" Anon?
Is that the subsidiary of Q Anon?

The disease is spreading.
Not only are republicans traitors, but they're also nuts too. 
Then again, look who they defend and support.


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 6, 2022)

NoNukes said:


> What a horrible country to live in.


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 6, 2022)




----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 6, 2022)




----------



## JGalt (Feb 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> YES, they have.
> WTF, are they doing in Moscow, on July 4th?
> 
> July 5 2018
> ...



But in certain circumstances you do carry a pistol to go anywhere to support your 2nd amendment rights. And you don't have a concealed carry permit.

Tell me more about this "anywhere" you carry a pistol without a permit. You do know that you've already committed several felonies, right? I mean, even a law-abiding gun-owner with a concealed carry permit can't carry "anywhere." Or don't you know that?

Maybe you should have paid attention to the NRA. They're a good source of information about the safe and legal use of firearms.

Just trying to keep you out of the ass-pound prison, mate.


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Not only are republicans traitors, but they're also nuts too.


Are we at war with Russia?  And if so, what is the quarrel over?  No one told me. . .  I honestly thought, since the cold war is over, so too, is this notion that they are the enemy.





__





						Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade with Russia
					





					www.census.gov


----------



## 1srelluc (Feb 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Keep believing that.
> The gun manufacturers and the NRA must love you.
> I've had guns for well over 40 years and never believed that, once.
> 
> That BS has made the rounds of republicans since the late 80's........................of course, every time THEY aren't in office, it's the same shit.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 6, 2022)

JGalt said:


> Hope you have a permit for that pistol there, son.


Yes, I do and they are registered with my county sheriff too.


----------



## JGalt (Feb 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Yes, I do and they are registered with my county sheriff too.



There is no "registration" with county law-enforcement, unless you live in some goofy state that makes up their own firearms laws. The only time I have any contact with the Sheriff's Department, is when I want to run a SN on a gun I bought, to check if it's stolen.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 6, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> View attachment 597765



In 1995, Heston entered his fourth stage by establishing his own political action fund-raising committee and jumped into the internal politics of the National Rifle Association. He gave numerous culture wars speeches and interviews upholding the conservative position, blaming media.

For the next six months, [Democratic presidential candidate and then-Vice President of the United States, Al Gore] is going to smear you as the enemy. He will slander you as gun-toting, knuckle-dragging, bloodthirsty maniacs who stand in the way of a safer America. Will you remain silent? I will not remain silent. If we are going to stop this, then it is vital to every law-abiding gun owner in America to register to vote and show up at the polls on Election Day.

So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, _Mr. Gore_: 'From my cold, dead hands!'

— Charlton Heston, May 20, 2000


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 6, 2022)

JGalt said:


> There is no "registration" with county law-enforcement,


Yes, there is, moron.



JGalt said:


> unless you live in some goofy state that makes up their own firearms laws.


It isn't mandatory, anyone anywhere can register their weapons with the county sheriff.



JGalt said:


> The only time I have any contact with the Sheriff's Department, is when I want to run a SN on a gun I bought, to check if it's stolen.


That's my point, a neighbor a long time ago had his guns stolen.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 6, 2022)

JGalt said:


> But in certain circumstances you do carry a pistol to go anywhere to support your 2nd amendment rights. And you don't have a concealed carry permit.
> 
> Tell me more about this "anywhere" you carry a pistol without a permit. You do know that you've already committed several felonies, right? I mean, even a law-abiding gun-owner with a concealed carry permit can't carry "anywhere." Or don't you know that?
> 
> ...


It's called Missouri where you can carry without a permit.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 6, 2022)

JGalt said:


> But in certain circumstances you do carry a pistol to go anywhere to support your 2nd amendment rights. And you don't have a concealed carry permit.


I do and so does my wife.


JGalt said:


> Tell me more about this "anywhere" you carry a pistol without a permit. You do know that you've already committed several felonies, right? I mean, even a law-abiding gun-owner with a concealed carry permit can't carry "anywhere." Or don't you know that?


No, I haven't.


JGalt said:


> Maybe you should have paid attention to the NRA. They're a good source of information about the safe and legal use of firearms.


That was a LOOOOOONG time ago, now they communist, propagandists.



JGalt said:


> Just trying to keep you out of the ass-pound prison, mate.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 6, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


> Are we at war with Russia?  And if so, what is the quarrel over?  No one told me. . .  I honestly thought, since the cold war is over, so too, is this notion that they are the enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just as I figured, Trump and FOX buddies up with Russia, their cult follows suit.


----------



## Mac-7 (Feb 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> The right not to get burglarized, robbed or killed?


Thats a good place to start


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Keep believing that.
> The gun manufacturers and the NRA must love you.
> I've had guns for well over 40 years and never believed that, once.
> 
> That BS has made the rounds of republicans since the late 80's........................of course, every time THEY aren't in office, it's the same shit.


An all out ban and the confiscation of firearms IS the objective.  Anyone who says otherwise is either lying, or stupid.

Diane Feinstein admitted that back in '93:

_“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.”_

Now, Creepy Joe is calling semi-automatic pistols "weapons of war".









						Biden calls popular Glock handgun 'weapon of war' in new gun control push
					

During a gun control announcement on Thursday, President Joe Biden referred to the Glock, a popular handgun available in the civilian market, as a "weapon




					americanmilitarynews.com


----------



## Mac-7 (Feb 6, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> An all out ban and the confiscation of firearms IS the objective.


True

and its the reason I reject any incremental compromise

because no concession will make the gun grabbers go away


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 6, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> True
> 
> and its the reason I reject any incremental compromise
> 
> because no concession will make the gun grabbers go away


I've yet to see any "compromise".  All I've seen is our rights being infringed.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 7, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Thats a good place to start


That's why my guns are where they are at.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 7, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> An all out ban and the confiscation of firearms IS the objective.  Anyone who says otherwise is either lying, or stupid.


Anyone who believes that is paranoid or stupid.


Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Diane Feinstein admitted that back in '93:
> 
> _“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.”_
> 
> ...


“One of the things I was proudest of years ago, when I was in the Senate — I was able to get these weapons and the size of magazines outlawed,” Biden added. “That got changed. It got overruled. But I don’t see any rationale to why there should be such a weapon able to be purchased. It doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment rights to deny that. But anyway, their futures were cut short by a man with a stolen Glock and that 40-round magazine.”

I agree, I have two Glock 9mm, I don't have 40 round or even 20 round magazines.
I have what came with the pistols, 10+1.

I have no fear of my weapons being confiscated, nor have I EVER.

WTF do people need 40 rounds in the magazine for?
If morons can't kill something with 40 rounds, they deserve to be chased down and beaten with their own weapons.

Take a shooting and safety course.
At least go to a shooting range.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 7, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> Protect your rights.  Arm yourself.  Keep your place secure.



Be thick, get a gun, point it at people, pull the trigger. Think about it next week, or never, or some shit. Vote for idiots because they're "just like you".

This kind of crap, right?


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 7, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> I don't mind the gun makers, I just don't go out and buy guns every year, I have 5, and that suites me just fine.
> I can't stand the NRA, I'm glad I canceled my American Rifleman subscription in 1989 or 1990.
> Now I really despise them, TRAITORS.
> 
> ...




This.....


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 7, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Anyone who believes that is paranoid or stupid.
> 
> “One of the things I was proudest of years ago, when I was in the Senate — I was able to get these weapons and the size of magazines outlawed,” Biden added. “That got changed. It got overruled. But I don’t see any rationale to why there should be such a weapon able to be purchased. It doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment rights to deny that. But anyway, their futures were cut short by a man with a stolen Glock and that 40-round magazine.”
> 
> ...


Your head is obviously in the sand of you think total ban and confiscation isn't the ultimate goal.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 7, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Your head is obviously in the sand of you think total ban and confiscation isn't the ultimate goal.


What a stupid fucking retarded post.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 7, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> What a stupid fucking retarded post.


The Heller decision exists because D.C. wanted to outright ban gun ownership, you goofy ass...lol


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 7, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> “One of the things I was proudest of years ago, when I was in the Senate — I was able to get these weapons and the size of magazines outlawed,” Biden added. “That got changed. It got overruled. But I don’t see any rationale to why there should be such a weapon able to be purchased. It doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment rights to deny that.


Biden's ignorance here is appalling.
- Nothing in the 1994 AWB outlawed "these weapons" or their standard capacity magazines.
- It didn't get 'overruled ' - it sunset when the law expired in 2004.
- The fact he doesn't see any reason for someone to buy one is meaningless
- Thee 2nd protects the right to own and use all "bearable arms", so a ban on said arms does indeed violate the 2nd.

Thank you for exposing ol' Joe for the buffoon he is.


Smokin' OP said:


> But anyway, their futures were cut short by a man with a stolen Glock and that 40-round magazine.”


Murdered, in California,  with a stolen Glock and 40rd magazine.
Clearly,  just one more law would have prevented this crime.


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 7, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> Protect your rights.  Arm yourself.  Keep your place secure.


You tell them Rambo. 
Tell them how many times you've protected yourself. 

We have to stop that tyrannical POTUS, those pillaging hordes of Chinese raping and eating children. 
You can't dramatize these assumptions. Hell no.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 7, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> You tell them Rambo.
> Tell them how many times you've protected yourself.
> We have to stop that tyrannical POTUS, those pillaging hordes of Chinese raping and eating children.
> You can't dramatize these assumptions. Hell no.


I love how you go out of your way to demonstrate your inability to meaningfully address a point..


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 7, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Yes, I do and they are registered with my county sheriff too.


You don't own a gun, do you?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 8, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Your head is obviously in the sand of you think total ban and confiscation isn't the ultimate goal.


Your head is obviously up the NRA's ass if you STILL think, after 30 years of Lucy and Charlie Brown, Lucy won't pull the football away.........................THIS TIME.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 8, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Biden's ignorance here is appalling.
> - Nothing in the 1994 AWB outlawed "these weapons" or their standard capacity magazines.


Something is better than nothing.
I guarantee you, it wasn't democrats or Biden that put these worthless items in the bill, to sabotage it as worthless.

The Act included a "grandfather clause" to allow for possession and transfer of weapons and ammunition that "were otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of enactment."

The Act exempted some 650 firearm types or models (including their copies and duplicates) which would be considered manufactured in October 1993. The list included the Ruger Mini-14 Auto Loading Rifle without side folding stock, Ruger Mini Thirty Rifle, Iver Johnson M-1 Carbine, Marlin Model 9 Camp Carbine, Marlin Model 45 Carbine, and others. 

The Act "also did not apply to any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition or semiautomatic shotguns that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
 Tubular magazine fed rimfire guns were exempted regardless of tubular magazine capacity.





M14 Shooter said:


> - It didn't get 'overruled ' - it sunset when the law expired in 2004.
> - The fact he doesn't see any reason for someone to buy one is meaningless


No, it isn't, more people would go to firing ranges and take shooting lessons.
It's what is needed, people can't seem to hit the broad side of a barn door.
Hence: "I need 30 or 40 rounds with me at all times".



M14 Shooter said:


> - Thee 2nd protects the right to own and use all "bearable arms", so a ban on said arms does indeed violate the 2nd.


ALL "Bearable arms" in 1789.


M14 Shooter said:


> Thank you for exposing ol' Joe for the buffoon he is.


Thank you for exposing another "constitutional" 2nd amendment, gun nutter, who can't shoot and evidently, refuses to learn.


M14 Shooter said:


> Murdered, in California,  with a stolen Glock and 40rd magazine.
> Clearly,  just one more law would have prevented this crime.


Clearly, the dumbass can't shoot, he needed 40 rounds?
If the  40 round magazine wasn't available, he wouldn't have been able to steal it.



M14 Shooter said:


>


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 8, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You don't own a gun, do you?


NO, I don't, either does my wife, no weapons in the house either.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 8, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Your head is obviously up the NRA's ass if you STILL think, after 30 years of Lucy and Charlie Brown, Lucy won't pull the football away.........................THIS TIME.


I'm a member of GOA, actually.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 8, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Something is better than nothing.
> I guarantee you, it wasn't democrats or Biden that put these worthless items in the bill, to sabotage it as worthless.


So...  there's really nothing here for Biden to take credit for.
Why do you let him?


Smokin' OP said:


> The Act included a "grandfather clause" to allow for possession and transfer of weapons and ammunition that "were otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of enactment."


Well, of course.  
You expect a bill that required the confiscation of all those guns and magazines to pass Congress in 1994?
To be enforced, when no one knows how many guns and magazines there are, much less who has them?
Why?

But hey - good of you to recognize the 1994 AWB accomplished exactly zero


Smokin' OP said:


> No, it isn't, more people would go to firing ranges and take shooting lessons.
> It's what is needed, people can't seem to hit the broad side of a barn door.
> Hence: "I need 30 or 40 rounds with me at all times".


^^^^
Has nothing to do with what I said.


Smokin' OP said:


> ALL "Bearable arms" in 1789.


You know your statement is false.
Why do you bother making statement you know are false?


Smokin' OP said:


> Clearly, the dumbass can't shoot, he needed 40 rounds?


Look at you - it's as if you know you cannot address the point.
Tell us:
This shooting happened in CA
What gun law, not already in place, would have prevented this shooting?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Feb 8, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> Protect your rights.  Arm yourself.  Keep your place secure.


...and die in battle with a machine gun in your hand so you can go to Valhalla.


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 8, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> AND only in certain circumstances do I carry my pistol to go anywhere to support my 2nd amendment rights.


I only carry (concealed) when I go to Walmart or the post office.


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 8, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> You tell them Rambo.
> Tell them how many times you've protected yourself.
> 
> We have to stop that tyrannical POTUS, those pillaging hordes of Chinese raping and eating children.
> You can't dramatize these assumptions. Hell no.


More guns, less crime.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 9, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> So...  there's really nothing here for Biden to take credit for.
> Why do you let him?
> 
> Well, of course.
> ...


They would know, as they come across them.
Gun nuts think the sheriff is going to come banging on everyone's door, searching their homes without cause?


M14 Shooter said:


> But hey - good of you to recognize the 1994 AWB accomplished exactly zero


Thanks to republican sabotaging.


M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^^
> Has nothing to do with what I said.


Yes, it does, Biden was right.

" The fact he doesn't see any reason for someone to buy one is meaningless".
Preparing for war or..........................you can't shoot.


M14 Shooter said:


> You know your statement is false.
> Why do you bother making statement you know are false?


No, it isn't.
When were the constitution and the bill of rights contained in it, ratified?
Why is it the people that wrote the constitution seem to have such foresight on the 2nd amendment but nothing else?

They weren't mind readers on slavery.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.



M14 Shooter said:


> Look at you - it's as if you know you cannot address the point.
> Tell us:
> This shooting happened in CA
> What gun law, not already in place, would have prevented this shooting?


What law in place prevents traffic accident deaths?
NONE.
But they help, that's the point.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 9, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> They would know, as they come across them.


Ah.  Post-fact enforcement
And so, a ban on 'assault weapons' cannot do anything to reduce the number of shootings with 'assault wepaons' and 'high capacity magazines'. only confiscate them afterwards.
Which the police do anyway.
Thank you for demonstrating the unnecessary and ineffective nature of the AWB.


Smokin' OP said:


> Thanks to republican sabotaging.


Your is a statement of ignorance or dishonesty:
The _Democrats _wrote and passed the 1994 AWB - they did not need a single Republican vote to do it.


Smokin' OP said:


> Yes, it does,


Demonstrate this to be the case.
Draw the necessary relationship between my post and your response, and show how it logically follows.


Smokin' OP said:


> No, it isn't.


The only way your statement is not a lie is if you are ignorant of the fact the the Second Amendment  extends, _prima facie,_to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
So, did you lie, or are you ignorant of the facts?


Smokin' OP said:


> What law in place prevents traffic accident deaths?
> NONE.


And thus, you agree:
"One more law" would have been useless to stop this crime.
That doesn't stop you from demnading them though, does it?


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 9, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> More guns, less crime.


That is exactly why America is the nation of Rambos it  is. 
Tell the parents of that kid that got shot in a school in buffalo you want more guns. 
You're brain dead.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> I only carry (concealed) when I go to Walmart or the post office.


Carrying at the post office, even on post office property like the parking lot, will get you 10 years.  I park across the street from the post office and leave my gun in the car.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 10, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah.  Post-fact enforcement
> And so, a ban on 'assault weapons' cannot do anything to reduce the number of shootings with 'assault wepaons' and 'high capacity magazines'. only confiscate them afterwards.


No, it would stop the sale/manufacture of them too, further reducing the numbers.
What do you expect them to do?
Like the NRA and RWNJ's claim, no knock warrant at 2AM, guns drawn, to confiscate a single 40 or 50 round magazine?


M14 Shooter said:


> Which the police do anyway.
> Thank you for demonstrating the unnecessary and ineffective nature of the AWB.
> 
> Your is a statement of ignorance or dishonesty:
> The _Democrats _wrote and passed the 1994 AWB - they did not need a single Republican vote to do it.


You're FOS.
Most reviews of the 1994 version of the assault weapons ban point to loopholes in the text of the bill that, some argue, made it less effective than some would have wanted.

The bill specifically changed the federal criminal code "to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon," however, it specified which semiautomatic assault weapons were included.

It passed the House in August 1994, with a vote of 235-195, and the reconciled version passed the Senate four days later. 
The bill that ultimately became law was passed in the Senate with a vote of 95-4 in November 1993.
It was signed into law by Clinton as part of a larger crime bill on Sept. 13, 1994.

There were only 4 republican senators in 1994?
Just because a democrat introduced the bill, doesn't mean republicans can't add amendments and that's what they did, sabotaging the bill.



M14 Shooter said:


> Demonstrate this to be the case.
> Draw the necessary relationship between my post and your response, and show how it logically follows.


Less magazine capacity, the fewer people would take bullets for granted, thus better shooting.


M14 Shooter said:


> The only way your statement is not a lie is if you are ignorant of the fact the the Second Amendment  extends, _prima facie,_to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
> So, did you lie, or are you ignorant of the facts?


The 2nd amendment as written doesn't give "prima facie" to all weapons, it took a court to rule on that.

 In _Caetano v. Massachusetts_ (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare". 



M14 Shooter said:


> And thus, you agree:
> "One more law" would have been useless to stop this crime.


NOTHING is guaranteed, it may have or not.
Lower speed limits don't eliminate car crashes and deaths but it helps.
The law lowering the milliliter of alcohol content in a person's blood doesn't eliminate DWI's but it helps.



M14 Shooter said:


> That doesn't stop you from demnading them though, does it?


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 10, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> That is exactly why America is the nation of Rambos it  is.
> Tell the parents of that kid that got shot in a school in buffalo you want more guns.
> You're brain dead.




No...tell that kid in Buffalo that the party they likely voted for, the democrat party, keeps releasing the very monsters who shoot innocent people....that is the problem...


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 10, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No, it would stop the sale/manufacture of them too, further reducing the numbers.
> What do you expect them to do?
> Like the NRA and RWNJ's claim, no knock warrant at 2AM, guns drawn, to confiscate a single 40 or 50 round magazine?
> 
> ...




Moron.......rifles of any time are the least used of any gun in a crime....the democrats thought that since most people don't own a rifle, they could get away with banning them.........their bill wasn't intended to stop crime, it was created to allow them to confiscate the guns when they found them....and punish the owners for the sin of owning a gun...

You doofus.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 10, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No, it would stop the sale/manufacture of them too, further reducing the numbers.
> What do you expect them to do?
> Like the NRA and RWNJ's claim, no knock warrant at 2AM, guns drawn, to confiscate a single 40 or 50 round magazine?
> 
> ...




Moron........Heller did that, not Caetano...Caetano, simply pointed out to the fascists on the Massachusetts court that Heller didn't allow them to ban stun guns...you idiot....and they pointed out...



> Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf




Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





*As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. *
*


First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). 



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. 


*
*If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis*

*Heller.....*

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 10, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Moron.......rifles of any time are the least used of any gun in a crime....the democrats thought that since most people don't own a rifle, they could get away with banning them.........their bill wasn't intended to stop crime, it was created to allow them to confiscate the guns when they found them....and punish the owners for the sin of owning a gun...
> 
> You doofus.


Sure Q NUT.
Speed limit laws are enforced just to give out tickets.
What a moron, perfect Trumptard.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 10, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Moron........Heller did that, not Caetano...Caetano, simply pointed out to the fascists on the Massachusetts court that Heller didn't allow them to ban stun guns...you idiot....and they pointed out...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You fucking *retard*.

Why do you think I included this?
'In _Caetano v. Massachusetts_ (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its *earlier* rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie"

It still took a court to extend that privilege, *NOT *the constitution.


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Carrying at the post office, even on post office property like the parking lot, will get you 10 years.  I park across the street from the post office and leave my gun in the car.


 I was kidding about the post office (and I seldom go to Walmart).


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 10, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> That is exactly why America is the nation of Rambos it  is.
> Tell the parents of that kid that got shot in a school in buffalo you want more guns.
> You're brain dead.


I meant more good guys with guns.


----------



## Woodznutz (Feb 10, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Moron.......rifles of any time are the least used of any gun in a crime....the democrats thought that since most people don't own a rifle, they could get away with banning them.........their bill wasn't intended to stop crime, it was created to allow them to confiscate the guns when they found them....and punish the owners for the sin of owning a gun...
> 
> You doofus.


True. Handguns for crime, long guns for revolution (or deer hunting).


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 10, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> That is exactly why America is the nation of Rambos it  is.
> Tell the parents of that kid that got shot in a school in buffalo you want more guns.
> You're brain dead.


Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 10, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No, it would stop the sale/manufacture of them too, further reducing the numbers.
> What do you expect them to do?


Fact remains:
A ban on 'assault weapons' cannot do anything to reduce the number of shootings with 'assault weapons' and 'high capacity magazines'. only confiscate them afterwards - which the police do anyway.
Thus, it is a unnecessary and ineffective restriction on the right to keep and bear arms -  your favorite kind.


Smokin' OP said:


> You're FOS.
> Most reviews of the 1994 version of the assault weapons ban point to loopholes in the text of the bill that, some argue, made it less effective than some would have wanted.


The _Democrats _wrote and passed the 1994 AWB. 
_They _put those "loopholes" there.
_They _put the sunset there.


Smokin' OP said:


> Less magazine capacity, the fewer people would take bullets for granted, thus better shooting.


And thus, your inability to Draw the necessary relationship between my post and your response, and show how it logically follows.  Thank you    


Smokin' OP said:


> The 2nd amendment as written doesn't give "prima facie" to all weapons


_As written,_ it protects the right to own and use everything form a penknife to nuclear weapons.
_As ruled upon_, the Second Amendment  extends, _prima facie,_to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
So, you decide which interpretation you want.
Either way, in no way shape or form can it be honestly argued that it protects only the weapons available in 1791.


Smokin' OP said:


> NOTHING is guaranteed, it may have or not.


And thus, you agree:
"One more law" would have been useless to stop this crime.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 10, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> It still took a court to extend that privilege, *NOT *the constitution.


Look at you, refusing to understand the right to keep and bear arms is a right, not a privilege.
You fucking *retard*.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure Q NUT.
> Speed limit laws are enforced just to give out tickets.
> What a moron, perfect Trumptard.


Speed limit laws are enforced just to give out tickets.  Red light violations were moved to yellow light violations just to give out tickets.  Underover, unmarked, traffic cops so they can give out more tickets when fewer cars with roof-top bar lights would do more to slow drivers.  Traffic enforcement is all about revenue.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 10, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> You fucking *retard*.
> 
> Why do you think I included this?
> 'In _Caetano v. Massachusetts_ (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its *earlier* rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie"
> ...




No, shithead...they didn't extend it, it is a Right...not a privilege......and the only reason they had to rule on these stupid things, is idiots like you decided you wanted to end them.......before, everyone understood that Americans have the Right to own and carry guns......then fascists like you decided you didn't like that, and started passing laws that violated the Right...so it went to court to explain to idiots like you that we have always had the Right, the Constitution does not create it, or grant it........the Right existed before the Constitution and the Bill of Righs...

You moron..


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 10, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> I meant more good guys with guns.


Oh sure.  That'll help.  Are you really that thick? 
The problem is ratbags with guns yet to solve the problem you think we need more guns???? 
Do you ever read what you say? Piss off idiot.


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 10, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No...tell that kid in Buffalo that the party they likely voted for, the democrat party, keeps releasing the very monsters who shoot innocent people....that is the problem...


The kid wasn't a criminal, he's not .old enough to vote and your presumption is based on lies and hate.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 10, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Oh sure.  That'll help.  Are you really that thick?
> The problem is ratbags with guns yet to solve the problem you think we need more guns????
> Do you ever read what you say? Piss off idiot.


Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 11, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Fact remains:
> A ban on 'assault weapons' cannot do anything to reduce the number of shootings with 'assault weapons' and 'high capacity magazines'. only confiscate them afterwards - which the police do anyway.
> Thus, it is a unnecessary and ineffective restriction on the right to keep and bear arms -  your favorite kind.


FOS.
YOUR opinion.


M14 Shooter said:


> The _Democrats _wrote and passed the 1994 AWB.
> _They _put those "loopholes" there.
> _They _put the sunset there.


Again.............FOS.


M14 Shooter said:


> And thus, your inability to Draw the necessary relationship between my post and your response, and show how it logically follows.  Thank you
> 
> _As written,_ it protects the right to own and use everything form a penknife to nuclear weapons.


Really, Thomas Jefferson was really Nostradamus.
Jefferson had visions of citizen's walking around with mini-nukes.


M14 Shooter said:


> _As ruled upon_, the Second Amendment  extends, _prima facie,_to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
> So, you decide which interpretation you want.
> Either way, in no way shape or form can it be honestly argued that it protects only the weapons available in 1791.


Yes, it does.
There's your Nostradamus, thinking coming back, again.


M14 Shooter said:


> And thus, you agree:
> "One more law" would have been useless to stop this crime.


Wrong.

Red lights fail to stop car crashes at intersections.
Let's just eliminate them.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 11, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Look at you, refusing to understand the right to keep and bear arms is a right, not a privilege.
> You fucking *retard*.


Look at you, referring to bumper sticker mentality.

Why do you lose your right to carry a firearm in a federal courthouse?
Why do you lose your right to carry a firearm in an airport?
Why do you lose your right to carry a firearm on an airliner?
Who do you lose your right to carry a firearm if you get convicted of domestic abuse?

So much for your "rights" idiot.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 11, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No, shithead...they didn't extend it, it is a Right...not a privilege......and the only reason they had to rule on these stupid things, is idiots like you decided you wanted to end them.......before, everyone understood that Americans have the Right to own and carry guns......then fascists like you decided you didn't like that, and started passing laws that violated the Right...so it went to court to explain to idiots like you that we have always had the Right, the Constitution does not create it, or grant it........the Right existed before the Constitution and the Bill of Righs...
> 
> You moron..


Sure Q NUT, imbecile.
The right to carry bearable firearms existed before the constitution?
Automatic weapons are "bearable". 
You can't own them, without a license, fee, and background check.
WTF happened to your "rights"?


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure Q NUT, imbecile.
> The right to carry bearable firearms existed before the constitution?
> Automatic weapons are "bearable".
> You can't own them, without a license, fee, and background check.
> WTF happened to your "rights"?




The government stole them, you idiot.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 11, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The government stole them, you idiot.


Sure they did Q NUT.
Why aren't gun nuts suing them?

Maybe when JFK Jr. comes back, he'll take up the cause.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> FOS.
> YOUR opinion.


I accept your surrender.


Smokin' OP said:


> Again.............FOS.


You speak from ignorance or dishonesty.
Either way, I accept your surender.


Smokin' OP said:


> Really, Thomas Jefferson was really Nostradamus.
> Jefferson had visions of citizen's walking around with mini-nukes.I


^^^^
Irrelevant nonsense.


Smokin' OP said:


> Yes, it does.


You speak from ignorance or dishonesty.
Either way, I accept your surrender.

As usual.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Look at you, referring to bumper sticker mentality.


Look at you, unwilling to accept the truth.


Smokin' OP said:


> Why do you lose your right to carry a firearm in a federal courthouse?
> Why do you lose your right to carry a firearm in an airport?
> Why do you lose your right to carry a firearm on an airliner?
> Who do you lose your right to carry a firearm if you get convicted of domestic abuse?


All rights can be removed through due process., and all rights have limitations.
If that, to you, means a right is not actually  a right, but a privilege, then you must believe you have -no- rights.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> The right to carry bearable firearms existed before the constitution?


Just like every other right.


Smokin' OP said:


> Automatic weapons are "bearable".


They are not "bearable arms" as the term is used in the context of the 2nd.
How do you now know this?


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 11, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Look at you, unwilling to accept the truth.
> 
> All rights can be removed through due process., and all rights have limitations.
> If that, to you, means a right is not actually  a right, but a privilege, then you must believe you have -no- rights.



No, they cannot be taken through due process.  They can be infringed through tyranny only.  Your post seems to agree with Smokin' OP more than it disagrees.  I think you're trying to appear "sensible" rather than holding firm with your beliefs.

There is no "except when" clause in the Constitution's protections of rights and, as rights, they cannot be stripped by government.  You know this.  Stand firm.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 11, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Just like every other right.
> 
> They are not "bearable arms" as the term is used in the context of the 2nd.
> How do you now know this?



The Second Amendment does not say, the right to keep bearable arms shall not be infringed.  It was very clear that it protected cannons and other arms besides those that could be carried.  Why would you concede to the  twists and deceptions of the left?  Stand firm.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> No, they cannot be taken through due process.


Amendment V
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

If you cannot be deprived of your liberty through due process , you cannot be imprisoned.
Life, liberty and property all all held in the same regard here


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 11, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Amendment V
> No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
> 
> If you cannot be deprived of your liberty through due process , you cannot be imprisoned.
> Life, liberty and property all all held in the same regard here



Where does that say your gun rights or your right to free speech or freedom of religion can be stripped as long as you have due process?  That is referring to criminal punishment by imprisonment, death penalty, and fines, etc.  It is a restriction on the common law or legal authorities to impact a person's freedoms and not intended as an authorization to strip people of their freedoms.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Where does that say your gun rights or your right to free speech or freedom of religion can be stripped as long as you have due process?


Amendment V
No person shall ... be deprived of life, _*liberty*_, or property, without due process of law;


woodwork201 said:


> That is referring to criminal punishment by imprisonment, death penalty, and fines, etc.  It is a restriction on the common law or legal authorities to impact a person's freedoms and not intended as an authorization to strip people of their freedoms.


It means state, through its power to punish criminal acts, can restrict or remove rights, but only through due process.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 11, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> The right to carry bearable firearms existed before the constitution?



Yes.  Since no power was ever conferred to government to allow it to have an interest in the personal arms of the private citizen, the citizen retained the right to keep and bear arms.

Conferred powers and retained rights, the yin and yang of the Constitution.



Smokin' OP said:


> Automatic weapons are "bearable".



Yes, "bearable arms" with indisputable military usefulness.  Under the "_Miller_ rule" (established by SCOTUS in 1939) military usefulness is the main thrust of SCOTUS' protection criteria, to decide if a citizen's possession and use of a type of arm (that government wants to restrict) is in law, outside the government's purview.



Smokin' OP said:


> You can't own them, without a license, fee, and background check.



A scheme of regulation written in the tax code, where the greatest deference to Congressional action is given, essentially to get the camel's nose under the tent.  It is a regulatory scheme that was sustained by SCOTUS in a case (_Miller_) that:

a) the Justices only heard the government's arguments,
b) only allowed the law to persist because no evidence was presented that said a shotgun with a barrel under 18 inched had military usefulness,
c) the Court sent the case back down to develop those facts.
d) _Miller _was quickly recognized as a decision that would protect all citizen possession and use of nearly all guns -- _Cases v. U.S_., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) gave a true account of what enforcing _Miller_ would mean (paragraph breaks added):

"if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus.​​But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,--almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,--is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute.​​Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns,"​
So _Miller_ needed to be perverted and the Supreme Court has to be dismissed and ignored, and _Cases_ revived and inserted the old racist and discriminatory "militia right" interpretation into the federal courts . . .  And for 66 years that frustrated the enforcement of the 2nd Amendment -- until _Heller_ began re-righting the constitutional ship.



Smokin' OP said:


> WTF happened to your "rights"?



They were stolen by usurpers in robes, doing the bidding of leftists who hate the Constitution



Smokin' OP said:


> Why aren't gun nuts suing them?



Oh, we are . . .  And the great reckoning for you and your ilk will come in June, as another great step in the enforcement of the 2nd Amendment will occur.

.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 11, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> No, they cannot be taken through due process.  They can be infringed through tyranny only.



Hey genius, explain what;

"_No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law_"​
. . . in the 5th Amendment (and 14thA) means.



woodwork201 said:


> There is no "except when" clause in the Constitution's protections of rights and, as rights, they cannot be stripped by government.  You know this.  Stand firm.



JHFC, stop, just stop.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 12, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> I accept your surrender.
> 
> You speak from ignorance or dishonesty.
> Either way, I accept your surender.
> ...


NONE was given.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 12, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Look at you, unwilling to accept the truth.


LIES from a liar, I don't accept.


M14 Shooter said:


> All rights can be removed through due process., and all rights have limitations.


So, people's "rights" are NOT absolute.
That's not the implication you gave in previous comments.


M14 Shooter said:


> If that, to you, means a right is not actually  a right, but a privilege, then you must believe you have -no- rights.


People have as many rights as the government gives you.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 12, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Yes.  Since no power was ever conferred to government to allow it to have an interest in the personal arms of the private citizen, the citizen retained the right to keep and bear arms...................self imposed rights


Hmmmmmm..........................Self-imposed rights.



Abatis said:


> Conferred powers and retained rights, the yin and yang of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sure, so anyone should be able to own and brandish RPGs, hand grenades, howitzers, landmines, etc.
Sounds like Afghanistan is the country you should be living in.


Abatis said:


> Oh, we are . . .  And the great reckoning for you and your ilk will come in June, as another great step in the enforcement of the 2nd Amendment will occur.


I knew it, now it's June?
JFK Jr. was supposed to reappear in November of last year.


Abatis said:


> .


----------



## whitehall (Feb 12, 2022)

If you are into long distance target shooting  an A.R. 15 is fine but for home defense nothing beats a 12 ga. sewer pipe. You can get an old single barrel 12 ga. pretty cheap anywhere. Cut the barrel to a little over 18 inch legal length, load it up with #4 shot and you have a handy intimidator when things go bump in the night. If the shit hits the fan all you have to do is cock the hammer and let 'er rip but the sight of the thing will probably deter any sane home invader.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> NONE was given.


It was, when you demonstrated your inability to meaningfully respond.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> LIES from a liar, I don't accept.


You know full well you cannot demonstrate how anything I said is wrong, much less a lie.
You just want to avoid aahaving to give a ,eaminful respons,e because you know you cannot.


Smokin' OP said:


> So, people's "rights" are NOT absolute.
> That's not the implication you gave in previous comments.


You need to pay better attention.


Smokin' OP said:


> People have as many rights as the government gives you.


This is a lie, as you know rights are not granted by the government.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 12, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Hmmmmmm..........................Self-imposed rights.






Hmmmm.........................TOS violation.



Smokin' OP said:


> Sure, so anyone should be able to own and brandish RPGs, hand grenades, howitzers, landmines, etc.
> Sounds like Afghanistan is the country you should be living in.



No, again the principle is _conferred_ powers and _retained_ rights.

"We the People" conferred the power to acquire, keep and bear weapons of open indiscriminate warfare to Congress (along with other strictly defined powers, see Article I, Section 8; "_Congress shall have the power_ . . . ".

In the obverse, government can not claim any powers that were not granted, which in this instance is the retained right to keep and bear the personal arms of the private citizen.

This principle of conferred powers and retained rights is the core of the rules of constitutional interpretation represented in the 9th and 10th Amendments (which you apparently never learned about).



Smokin' OP said:


> I knew it, now it's June?
> JFK Jr. was supposed to reappear in November of last year.



SCOTUS usually issues decisions heard in the fall term, in June of the following year.

The case is _NYSRPA v Bruen_.  Look for SCOTUS to invalidate the "two-step" doctrine used by Courts of Appeals to uphold dozens of gun laws, including the state assault weapon bans and large capacity magazine bans and many other laws that all will be thrown in the dumpster . . .

Read *THIS POST* and the couple of mine that follow it, for an explanation.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 12, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Hey genius, explain what;
> 
> "_No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law_"​
> . . . in the 5th Amendment (and 14thA) means.





M14 Shooter said:


> Amendment V
> No person shall ... be deprived of life, _*liberty*_, or property, without due process of law;
> 
> It means state, through its power to punish criminal acts, can restrict or remove rights, but only through due process.



You are both wrong.  The 5th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights; not the Bill of Government Authorities.  Its purpose is not to define or create rights for government but, instead, enumerates some of the rights of the people.  Again, no power is granted or created for the government in the Bill of Rights; it serves only to restrict their authority and to protect the rights of the people.

The phrase, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" cannot be construed as an authorization for the government to take away any right from anyone, as long as due process is permitted.  The phrase is in the context of judicial punishment, following the protections against self-incrimination, double-jeopardy, and protection by a grand jury.

William Rawle wrote, in A View of the Constitution, "*It follows from all the antecedent precautions, that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and the repetition of this declaration, is only valuable, as it exhibits the summary of the whole, and the anxiety that it should never be forgotten.*"  As he states, the due process phrase is only valuable when considered in the context of the previous statements in the 5th and in his writing.



			
				William Rawle on the topics in the 5th Amendment said:
			
		

> At common law there are two modes of instituting prosecutions; one of which is by an information filed by the officer who represents the public, on his own judgment and discretion, which, if unadvisedly or corruptly done, may subject the individual to causeless trouble and expense. The other is by an indictment which is prepared by the same officer, and sent to a grand jury, or it may be done by the grand jury themselves. In both of these cases, witnesses are carefully examined on the part of the public, and the accused is not put on his trial unless at least twelve grand jurymen, on their oaths or affirmations, find that there is sufficient cause for it. In the fifth article it is expressly declared, that no person, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger, shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, and in no case shall he be compelled to be a witness against himself.
> 
> That no one shall be subject for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, which is also provided, is perhaps too narrow—no one, after a full trial and a fair acquittal, ought to be subjected to another trial for the
> same offence, whether it be great or small, and such indeed is the settled rule of law. The plea of a former acquittal, is a complete bar to every subsequent prosecution for the same offence. It follows from all the antecedent precautions, that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and the repetition of this declaration, is only valuable, as it exhibits
> ...



In fact, from Congress.gov, it is clearly the intent and interpretation of the due process clause that it does NOT give congress the power to do anything it wishes simply by creating a process:

Standing by itself, the phrase due process would seem to refer solely and simply to procedure, to process in court, and therefore to be so limited that due process of law would be what the legislative branch enacted it to be. But that is not the interpretation which has been placed on the term. *It is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave Congress free to make any process ‘due process of law’ by its mere will.*









						Overview | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
					

An annotation about Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.




					constitution.congress.gov
				




Interestingly, the 5th also secures protection against the government taking property without just compensation, often called the "takings clause".  In the same way as the due process clause does not grant any power to the government, the takings clause does not grant power to take property.  Just like the 2nd Amendment assumes and acknowledges the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, the 5th Amendment talks about pre-existing rights of government: to jail criminals and to take property as necessary for the function of government.

The right to take someone's liberty, or, in case of certain crimes, even their life is implied in common law and are among many implied powers of government.  The due process clause is intended to limit government's power to before locking up a criminal or fining them or taking their property or executing them.  To assume that the government has the power to take someone's life without cause but with due process is just about the most asinine thing I have ever read on this forum.  The power to take a life comes from the common law to punish certain crimes.  The power to take someone's liberty by imprisoning them for crimes comes from common law. 

Please provide documentation where common law would permit the stripping of the right to free speech or freedom of religion.  It doesn't exist in common law, therefore the government has no power to take those rights.  Therefore the due process clause does not give the government the right to strip someone of their right to free speech or freedom of religion.  In fact, the clause grants no authority at all to the government.  It only limits authority that they would otherwise have.

Based on the arguments you both make, there is no constitutional protection of any right and the 2nd Amendment is meaningless.  To suggest that the right to keep and bear arms can be stripped is to agree with the left that rights are not rights, they're privileges to be given or taken at the will of the government.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 12, 2022)

whitehall said:


> If you are into long distance target shooting  an A.R. 15 is fine but for home defense nothing beats a 12 ga. sewer pipe. You can get an old single barrel 12 ga. pretty cheap anywhere. Cut the barrel to a little over 18 inch legal length, load it up with #4 shot and you have a handy intimidator when things go bump in the night. If the shit hits the fan all you have to do is cock the hammer and let 'er rip but the sight of the thing will probably deter any sane home invader.



There are cases where a shotgun is the best thing to have.  When 5 or more home invaders crash through your door in the middle of the night, though, you want an AR-15.  There's no one best tool that covers all scenarios.  Since most guns will never be used in any defensive or offensive role, mostly our guns are like insurance, they make us feel safe.  Each person must evaluate their own risks, their own fears, and what it takes for them to feel the safest and take whatever legal steps needed for their own.  When the time comes to use the guns, should it ever come, they can only hope that they either made the right tools available or that they're successful in improvising with what is still a great tool even if not the ideal tool for the circumstance in which they find themselves.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 12, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> LIES from a liar, I don't accept.
> 
> So, people's "rights" are NOT absolute.
> That's not the implication you gave in previous comments.
> ...


I thanked your post not because I agree with your view on the rights but I definitely agree with your view on M14 Shooter's previous comments.  He appears to now be saying that the government has the ability to strip any right it wants.  

Once we concede that the government can strip a person of their rights then all that's left is to argue about which rights and when.  And, ultimately, it is all rights and whenever the government wishes.


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 12, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The Second Amendment does not say, the right to keep bearable arms shall not be infringed.  It was very clear that it protected cannons and other arms besides those that could be carried.  Why would you concede to the  twists and deceptions of the left?  Stand firm.


Stand firm? 
On what? If the government want yoyr guns They will take them and will do nothing about it. None if you Rambos have the courage. 
Stand firm my arse?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 12, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> anti-gun nimrods.


This is a lie.

No one is ‘anti-gun.’

No one seeks to ‘take away’ your rights.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 12, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The Second Amendment does not say, the right to keep bearable arms shall not be infringed.  It was very clear that it protected cannons and other arms besides those that could be carried.  Why would you concede to the  twists and deceptions of the left?  Stand firm.


Scalia was on ‘the left’?


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 12, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Stand firm?
> On what? If the government want yoyr guns They will take them and will do nothing about it. None if you Rambos have the courage.
> Stand firm my arse?


You and the government are free to believe that.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Scalia was on ‘the left’?


Of course he was.  He had some opinions I like but he also believed that the Court could do anything it wanted, without regard to the Constitution.  Just because his rulings were more in alignment with my wants than against my wants doesn't make him any less wrong in thinking and saying that the Congress and the Courts could operate outside of the Constitution.


----------



## MarathonMike (Feb 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> I know precisely what the OP is getting at.  The more the population arms itself, the more difficult it will be to disarm us and/or overthrow the right to keep and bear arms.


Google tells me we are near 400 million guns owned in America. That is more than one gun per citizen. There will be no disarmament of the citizenry.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 12, 2022)

MarathonMike said:


> Google tells me we are near 400 million guns owned in America. That is more than one gun per citizen. There will be no disarmament of the citizenry.


Unless the citizenry allows it.

Hurricane Katrina taught us a lot about liberty, the right to keep and bear arms, and the police state in the United States.

The most important lesson to learn is that the police and the armed forces WILL turn their guns on Americans to enforce the will of tyrants in government.

We learned that those who claim "from my cold dead fingers" may not actually be prepared to back that up.  I think that many, though, would have stood by that mantra had they not been taken so much by surprise that the government would do it.  A lot of people have now had more time to think it through with a better understanding of the reality of it.  Some probably realize they won't stand up and others are more determined that they will stand up.


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 13, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You and the government are free to believe that.


You would start firing on the military if they arrived??? You live in a dream Rambo.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 13, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> You would start firing on the military if they arrived??? You live in a dream Rambo.



If the military show up at my door that is prima facie evidence that the government has declared war on me.  But I have no intention of going to war with my government.  I do have every intention of exercising my right to keep and bear arms.  Let's hope that those two ends are not at odds.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 13, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You are both wrong.  The 5th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights; not the Bill of Government Authorities.  Its purpose is not to define or create rights for government but, instead, enumerates some of the rights of the people.  Again, no power is granted or created for the government in the Bill of Rights; it serves only to restrict their authority and to protect the rights of the people.



Yes, but the ultimate end is government's power being exerted on the citizen.

The requirement of due process is two-fold; government is restrained from acting without cause in an arbitrary / capricious manner but then it legitimizes action against the citizen that falls within those burden of proof and processes and procedures recognized as 'due process'.



woodwork201 said:


> The phrase, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" cannot be construed as an authorization for the government to take away any right from anyone, as long as due process is permitted.



Due process is just one more multi-stage standard of action relating to burden; a bar the government must meet, that the government must  "afford" rather than permit the accused / convicted before serious punitive actions are _yes_, authorized.



woodwork201 said:


> The phrase is in the context of judicial punishment, following the protections against self-incrimination, double-jeopardy, and protection by a grand jury.



Limited to just those huh?



woodwork201 said:


> As he states, the due process phrase is only valuable when considered in the context of the previous statements in the 5th and in his writing.



As instructive as Rawle is, the evolution of due process has left his framework behind.



woodwork201 said:


> In fact, from Congress.gov, it is clearly the intent and interpretation of the due process clause that it does NOT give congress the power to do anything it wishes simply by creating a process:



Judge Henry Friendly's list is a general starting point for due process.  None of it is actual "process" as you use the word there; each point is directed to forcing government to operate in an equatable and repeatable manner that maintains constant standards that are reviewable by another court.

An unbiased tribunal.
Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
The right to know opposing evidence.
The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.



woodwork201 said:


> Interestingly, the 5th also secures protection against the government taking property without just compensation, often called the "takings clause".  In the same way as the due process clause does not grant any power to the government, the takings clause does not grant power to take property.  Just like the 2nd Amendment assumes and acknowledges the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, the 5th Amendment talks about pre-existing rights of government: to jail criminals and to take property as necessary for the function of government.



Pre-existing rights of government? That's an odd phrasing considering your previous statements about due process not authorizing action.

Yes, there are certain aspects of our justice system that predate the COTUSA but in many instances, the US system diverges and expands on English common law with the rights of the citizen being paramount.



woodwork201 said:


> The right to take someone's liberty, or, in case of certain crimes, even their life is implied in common law and are among many implied powers of government.



Yes, there are certain government authorities that bind citizen action that flowed into the US system that are just assumed to continue without being formally expressed -- EVEN IF A PROVISION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS CALLS OUT A RIGHT IN THAT AREA OF LAW . . .   As SCOTUS said:

"The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (Art. V) does not prevent a second trial if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion, _United States v. Ball,_ 163 U. S. 662,  163 U. S. 627, nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment, _Brown v. Walker,_ 161 U. S. 591, and cases cited. Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial." -- _Robertson v. Baldwin_, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)​


woodwork201 said:


> The due process clause is intended to limit government's power to before locking up a criminal or fining them or taking their property or executing them.  To assume that the government has the power to take someone's life without cause but with due process is just about the most asinine thing I have ever read on this forum.



What the Hell have I ever said that would lead you to believe I think government possesses power to enforce these restrictions / punishments without cause?  Yes, such an idea is asinine and to present it here as a position I have advanced, is an asinine straw man.

The singular intent and purpose of imposing due process demands on government is to forestall the imposition of punishment in an arbitrary and capricious manner.




woodwork201 said:


> Based on the arguments you both make, there is no constitutional protection of any right and the 2nd Amendment is meaningless.  To suggest that the right to keep and bear arms can be stripped is to agree with the left that rights are not rights, they're privileges to be given or taken at the will of the government.



Your arguments seem to exist in an alternate legal universe that begins in 1791 and ends 200 years ago . . . You fail to recognize that the RKBA was nearly extinguished and was all but unenforceable from 1942 to 2008; the RKBA was put into a box where individual citizens could not claim the 2ndA as a mechanism to challenge law.

We are slowly re-establishing the RKBA thus the due process protecting citizens from government action is under continuous evolution.  

All of the rights protections and due process established by SCOTUS, especially under the 14thA against state action, that we now accept as long-standing *for other rights*, were suspended for 80 years for the RKBA.  _Heller_ reset the table and _McDonald_ wrote the menu but since then SCOTUS closed down the kitchen and took a hiatus as far as the RKBA is concerned.

Small gains have happened, _Caetanao_ in 2016 and a few process cases have come down.  Look at _Rehaif v. United States_, 588 U.S. ___ (2019); SCOTUS enforced _mens rea _requirements, that government must prove that a person charged with 922(g) prohibited person in possession knew he possessed a gun and that he knew of his status as a prohibited person -- the mere possession of the gun was not adequate to sustain the charge.

Now we are waiting on _NYSRPA v Bruen_, perhaps a few steps will be taken to bring your imagined 2ndA condition into reality..

.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 13, 2022)

MarathonMike said:


> Google tells me we are near 400 million guns owned in America. That is more than one gun per citizen. There will be no disarmament of the citizenry.


Yes, there are a lot of privately owned guns in the United States, but keep in mind that those guns are not in the hands of everyone.  Rather, they are estimated to be in the hands of roughly 33% to 46% of the population.  I'd like to see a significant increase in that number. While the number of privately owned guns has increased over the years, the rate of gun ownership has stayed relatively the same.

I certainly take your point, but a higher rate of ownership would be the best check against draconian gun control legislation.


----------



## MarathonMike (Feb 13, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Yes, there are a lot of privately owned guns in the United States, but keep in mind that those guns are not in the hands of everyone.  Rather, they are estimated to be in the hands of roughly 33% to 46% of the population.  I'd like to see a significant increase in that number. While the number of privately owned guns has increased over the years, the rate of gun ownership has stayed relatively the same.
> 
> I certainly take your point, but a higher rate of ownership would be the best check against draconian gun control legislation.


A fair point. I think that is happening largely as a result of the Democrats war on law and order.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You are both wrong.  The 5th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights; not the Bill of Government Authorities.  Its purpose is not to define or create rights for government but, instead, enumerates some of the rights of the people.  Again, no power is granted or created for the government in the Bill of Rights; it serves only to restrict their authority and to protect the rights of the people.


The state -unquestionably- has the power to define crimes and impose penalties on those who commit them.
This power is limited by the 5th Amendment in that those penalties many not include the denial of the rights to life liberty and property, except when taken through due process.
Your entire line of argument here is meaningless as no one claims the 5th amendment gives the state _any _power, the one you describe, or otherwise.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Stand firm?
> On what? If the government want yoyr guns They will take them and will do nothing about it. None if you Rambos have the courage.
> Stand firm my arse?


Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one is ‘anti-gun.
> No one seeks to ‘take away’ your rights.


^^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 13, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> If the military show up at my door that is prima facie evidence that the government has declared war on me.


Absolute bullshit.  That's your take on and it's wrong. They wouldn't embark on that if that were the case.  
If they did you would lose bigly. 



woodwork201 said:


> But I have no intention of going to war with my government.  I do have every intention of exercising my right to keep and bear arms.  Let's hope that those two ends are not at odds.


----------



## Brick Gold (Feb 13, 2022)

The time has returned.  Guns Guns Guns!  Get them, use them!


----------



## Brick Gold (Feb 13, 2022)

Dont let the cominits take your right to protect your family away!  If they take your guns the bad guys will still have them!  Helllloooo, anyone in there dumpocrat?!  Whos side you on?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 13, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> Own guns, learn how to use them, fight the anti-gun nimrods.


More advocacy for violence by the lawless, criminal right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 13, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> You would start firing on the military if they arrived??? You live in a dream Rambo.


A dream of anti-American treason.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Absolute bullshit.  That's your take on and it's wrong. They wouldn't embark on that if that were the case.
> If they did you would lose bigly.


Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The state -unquestionably- has the power to define crimes and impose penalties on those who commit them.
> This power is limited by the 5th Amendment in that those penalties many not include the denial of the rights to life liberty and property, except when taken through due process.
> Your entire line of argument here is meaningless as no one claims the 5th amendment gives the state _any _power, the one you describe, or otherwise.


You said the government can strip any right, anyone's rights, as long as they get due process.  Do you now admit you were wrong?  

Now you're saying they can make anything illegal that they wish.  Can they make it illegal to say "Fuck Joe Biden" at a sporting event?  Can they make it illegal to play the guitar?  Can they make it illegal to own a gun?

They can make reasonable things illegal and they can imprison  you for violating the law.  That doesn't mean they can strip any right as long as they allow due process.

And, you're lying now.  You absolutely stated that the 5th Amendment gives the government the power to strip people's rights.




> ​woodwork201 said:​​
> Where does that say your gun rights or your right to free speech or freedom of religion can be stripped as long as you have due process?​
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Brick Gold (Feb 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> More advocacy for violence by the lawless, criminal right.


I'm not promoting violence.  Learn how to use and safely store your guns and practice home defense, it could save your life and the lives of your family.

Dont let them take your 2nd amendment away.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 14, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> It was, when you demonstrated your inability to meaningfully respond.


Just because you don't like the answer, isn't my problem.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I thanked your post not because I agree with your view on the rights but I definitely agree with your view on M14 Shooter's previous comments.  He appears to now be saying that the government has the ability to strip any right it wants.
> 
> Once we concede that the government can strip a person of their rights then all that's left is to argue about which rights and when.  And, ultimately, it is all rights and whenever the government wishes.


Agreed.
Amendment 28 or entire abolishment?
Start over?
Who knows what could take place.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You are both wrong.  The 5th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights; not the Bill of Government Authorities.  Its purpose is not to define or create rights for government but, instead, enumerates some of the rights of the people.  Again, no power is granted or created for the government in the Bill of Rights; it serves only to restrict their authority and to protect the rights of the people.
> 
> The phrase, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" cannot be construed as an authorization for the government to take away any right from anyone, as long as due process is permitted.  The phrase is in the context of judicial punishment, following the protections against self-incrimination, double-jeopardy, and protection by a grand jury.
> 
> ...


See above.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 14, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You know full well you cannot demonstrate how anything I said is wrong, much less a lie.
> You just want to avoid aahaving to give a ,eaminful respons,e because you know you cannot.


Like I stated, you don't like the answer, just like Trump, that who you remind me of.


M14 Shooter said:


> You need to pay better attention.
> 
> This is a lie, as you know rights are not granted by the government.


WTF?
Then who do you think grants people rights? GOD?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 14, 2022)

Abatis said:


> View attachment 600596
> Hmmmm.........................TOS violation.
> 
> 
> ...


WTF?
Just because you claim to have this "power" doesn't make it so.


Abatis said:


> In the obverse, government can not claim any powers that were not granted, which in this instance is the retained right to keep and bear the personal arms of the private citizen.


Yes they can.


Abatis said:


> This principle of conferred powers and retained rights is the core of the rules of constitutional interpretation represented in the 9th and 10th Amendments (which you apparently never learned about).


Your "interpretation" is wrong.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. Congress 17 specifically “enumerated” powers, along with unspecified “implied” powers considered “necessary and proper” to carry out the enumerated powers.
The rights and powers have been amended 27 times.



Abatis said:


> SCOTUS usually issues decisions heard in the fall term, in June of the following year.
> 
> The case is _NYSRPA v Bruen_.  Look for SCOTUS to invalidate the "two-step" doctrine used by Courts of Appeals to uphold dozens of gun laws, including the state assault weapon bans and large capacity magazine bans and many other laws that all will be thrown in the dumpster . . .
> 
> Read *THIS POST* and the couple of mine that follow it, for an explanation.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 14, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> Just because you claim to have this "power" doesn't make it so.



WTF?
I'm not claiming "*I*" have the power; I'm trying to explain to you the most foundational (Lockean) principle of the US Constitution --- that *all* power originally resides in the people and "We the People" created government by popular consent, granting government certain express (thus limited) powers, assigning government specific duties to be performed for our benefit and protection.

The entire Constitutional experiment is based on the principle that government can not _legitimately_ exercise powers *not *granted to it.

Under _*your*_ philosophy of US federal governmental authority, what is the definition of an "unalienable right"?

Following _*your*_ philosophy of US federal governmental authority, what does the 9th Amendment mean to you?  I'm especially interested in your understanding of the 9th's statement on the existence of "retained" rights _beyond_ those that are enumerated. I argue the 9th stands to tell (the government and the people) that the usual limitation of "enumeration" does not apply to rights because the principle of retained rights is, the people retain EVERYTHING not conferred to government.

Following _*your*_ philosophy of US federal governmental authority, what does the 10th Amendment mean to you? I argue the 10th unequivocally stands to tell everyone that the usual limitation of "enumeration" *does* apply to powers . . . 

What possible oppositional argument could you present to those positions?



Smokin' OP said:


> Yes they can.



That the federal government can not *legitimately* exercise powers not granted to it was the basis of Federalist arguments _against_ adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.  *As Hamilton said*:

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"​
Of course the Federalist's "lost" the argument over adding a bill of rights but Madison saw to it that Federalist argument was codified in the Constitution in the 9th and 10th Amendments.  The 9th and 10th Amendments stand as affirmation of, and permanent testament to, the Federalist's argument about the fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights, and the importance of permanently recognizing those principles in the Constitution.

That absolute truth exists and continues in the face of _you_ not understanding those principles and even your obstinate, anti-Constitution allegiance to modern leftist / collectivist politics that demands you reject those principles.



Smokin' OP said:


> Your "interpretation" is wrong.
> 
> Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. Congress 17 specifically “enumerated” powers, along with unspecified “implied” powers considered “necessary and proper” to carry out the enumerated powers.
> The rights and powers have been amended 27 times.



Words have meanings . . .   You wrote, "the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. Congress 17 *specifically “enumerated” powers*, along with unspecified “implied” powers considered *“necessary and proper” to carry out the enumerated powers.*"

Apparently you do not understand and completely fail to see the significance of, the unavoidable specificity and limitations of "specifically *enumerated* powers".

You also fail to understand that the exercise of "_unspecified implied powers_" is only authorized to fulfill the "_specific enumerated powers_", not for whatever the government decides it wants to do _beyond_ the enumerated powers.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> There are cases where a shotgun is the best thing to have.  When 5 or more home invaders crash through your door in the middle of the night, though, you want an AR-15.  There's no one best tool that covers all scenarios.  Since most guns will never be used in any defensive or offensive role, mostly our guns are like insurance, they make us feel safe.  Each person must evaluate their own risks, their own fears, and what it takes for them to feel the safest and take whatever legal steps needed for their own.  When the time comes to use the guns, should it ever come, they can only hope that they either made the right tools available or that they're successful in improvising with what is still a great tool even if not the ideal tool for the circumstance in which they find themselves.


5 or more invaders? A 12 ga #4 shell has 21 .22 cal pellets. While the (5) invaders are ducking and reeling from the blast, another shell can be loaded in a second. Depending on where you live you might be killing half a dozen innocent neighbors if you start blasting with 20 rounds of .223 AR 15


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 14, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Like I stated, you don't like the answer, just like Trump, that who you remind me of.
> 
> WTF?
> Then who do you think grants people rights? GOD?



Your creator - whether or not you believe your creator is God or nature.  The rights are natural rights.  How can the government grant rights?  Where do they get that power?  Are they born above us?  Royalty?


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 14, 2022)

Abatis said:


> WTF?
> I'm not claiming "*I*" have the power; I'm trying to explain to you the most foundational (Lockean) principle of the US Constitution --- that *all* power originally resides in the people and "We the People" created government by popular consent, granting government certain express (thus limited) powers, assigning government specific duties to be performed for our benefit and protection.
> 
> The entire Constitutional experiment is based on the principle that government can not _legitimately_ exercise powers *not *granted to it.
> ...



When you don't blow your whole point by telling everyone how smart you are, and just demonstrate it by explaining the facts, you do a good job.  Good job on this post; it's exactly correct.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You said the government can strip any right, anyone's rights, as long as they get due process.  Do you now admit you were wrong?


Nope.  I am 100% correct.


woodwork201 said:


> Now you're saying they can make anything illegal that they wish.


I did?  When?
I said the state has the power to pass laws that make certain actions illegal, and the power to enforce those laws.
I am 100% correct.


woodwork201 said:


> Can they make it illegal to say "Fuck Joe Biden" at a sporting event?  Can they make it illegal to play the guitar?  Can they make it illegal to own a gun?


Certainly, you understand the power of the state to make some things illegal is limited by the constitution.
Obviously, I do as well.


woodwork201 said:


> They can make reasonable things illegal and they can imprison  you for violating the law.  That doesn't mean they can strip any right as long as they allow due process.


Good to see you;re finally catching in to what I said.


woodwork201 said:


> And, you're lying now.  You absolutely stated that the 5th Amendment gives the government the power to strip people's rights.


Not once did I say that.
Disagree?   Cite the post and copy/paste the text to that effect.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Just because you don't like the answer, isn't my problem.


Fact remains:
Your willful failure to meaningfully address the issues put to you confirms you concession.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Like I stated, you don't like the answer,


Your cconcession, acceptted.


Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> Then who do you think grants people rights? GOD?


Rights are not granted by anyone, especially the state.
Disagree?
Cite the law that _grants _you the right to free speech.
I accept you concession in advance.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 14, 2022)

whitehall said:


> 5 or more invaders? A 12 ga #4 shell has 21 .22 cal pellets. While the (5) invaders are ducking and reeling from the blast, another shell can be loaded in a second. Depending on where you live you might be killing half a dozen innocent neighbors if you start blasting with 20 rounds of .223 AR 15



There was a news story maybe 7 or 8 years back about a home invader shot straight in the chest with a 12 gauge shotgun.  Not a single pellet penetrated the rib cage.  He had a bunch of surface wounds but nothing at all life threatening and the shot didn't stop him; he kept attacking the home owner. I'm not an expert on slug performance but, in general, if you're going to use a shotgun for home defense, don't use bird or game shot.  Use buck shot or (unless I am mistaken) a slug.  One thing about a slug, even though I'm not certain of it's penetration capabilities, it would surely knock someone on their ass so I'll stick with buck shot or a slug.

Also, those 21  pellets, or the lesser number of pellets in a buckshot round, cannot be individually aimed; they all go in pretty much the same direction.  You don't stop multiple attackers with a single shot.  The whole idea that you point a shotgun in the general direction and kill someone is a myth.  Maybe even worse than a myth; it's a lie.

There are definitely scenarios where a shotgun would be the preferred defensive tool and there are potential scenarios where it would be far better to have something like an AR-15 or even a handgun that has high capacity magazines as standard.

The problem, of course, is knowing ahead of time which you need, or even if you have them all quickly available, how do you decide in those couple of seconds you might have to decide?  You could very well be in an AR-15 scenario and grab your shotgun and, hopefully, survive - or vice versa.  We can only do the best we can and hope that it turns out well.

Of course the greater hope is to have a shotgun, rifle, and handgun all readily available and never, ever, have to touch them in defense or anger.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 14, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Nope.  I am 100% correct.
> 
> I did?  When?
> I said the state has the power to pass laws that make certain actions illegal, and the power to enforce those laws.
> ...



I quoted what you said, in context of my question.  I asked, show me where the government gets the authority to take away rights and you responded with a quote from the 5th Amendment.  You most certainly made the claim that the government has that right and that it came from the 5th.

Let me give it to you again without the quote attribute so you can see it without having to click to expand:

*woodwork201 said:*​​Where does that say your gun rights or your right to free speech or freedom of religion can be stripped as long as you have due process?​​*M14 Shooter said:                *​​*Amendment V*​*No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;*​​It means state, through its power to punish criminal acts, can restrict or remove rights, but only through due process. ​

Don't act like a Democrat.  Now you're adding limitations and context  to what you said that you did not include before.  You're trying to change up what you said but the record is clear, 100% clear. 

Your response was not to a question of how does the Constitution protect from taking rights, the question was where does the Constitution say your rights can be taken.  Your answer:  Amendment V.

Man up.  Either admit you were wrong or stand by your statement that the 5th Amendment empowers the government.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I quoted what you said, in context of my question.  I asked, show me where the government gets the authority to take away rights and you responded with a quote from the 5th Amendment.  You most certainly made the claim that the government has that right and that it came from the 5th.


Allow me to clear up your confusion, as you -clearly- only read what you want to read.

You said:
_No, they cannot be taken through due process_

The state, though its power to legislate criminal acts and enforce the laws so made, has the power to strip those who break those laws of their rights - life , liberty and property .
The 5th Amendment states that this may only be done when the state strips those rights through due process.
As the 5th Amendment creates this condition, stripping someone of those rights does not violate the constitution.
As such, they -can- be taken through due process.

You can choose to understand this, or you can choose to be wrong.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 14, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Allow me to clear up your confusion, as you -clearly- only read what you want to read.
> 
> You said:
> _No, they cannot be taken through due process_
> ...


Once again, you lie.  I asked where they get the authority to take rights and you said Amendment V.  That's exactly the context.  Quit lying.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Once again, you lie.  I asked where they get the authority to take rights and you said Amendment V.  That's exactly the context.  Quit lying.


You can choose to understand what I said, or you can choose to be wrong.
Let us know.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Feb 14, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> I've yet to see any "compromise".  All I've seen is our rights being infringed.


I’ve always believed, based on my observations, that a liberal defines compromise as conservatives give fifty percent and liberals take fifty percent.  I can’t recall liberals living up to any compromise agreements in  my adult life.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 14, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> I’ve always believed, based on my observations, that a liberal defines compromise as conservatives give fifty percent and liberals take fifty percent.  I can’t recall liberals living up to any compromise agreements in  my adult life.


That's because there's never been a compromise when it comes to gun control laws.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 15, 2022)

Abatis said:


> WTF?
> I'm not claiming "*I*" have the power; I'm trying to explain to you the most foundational (Lockean) principle of the US Constitution --- that *all* power originally resides in the people and "We the People" created government by popular consent, granting government certain express (thus limited) powers, assigning government specific duties to be performed for our benefit and protection.


That sounds nice, "that *all* power originally resides in the people and "We the People" created government".
That was the original principle and was true for a long time.


Abatis said:


> The entire Constitutional experiment is based on the principle that government can not _legitimately_ exercise powers *not *granted to it.


Correct.


Abatis said:


> Under _*your*_ philosophy of US federal governmental authority, what is the definition of an "unalienable right"?


Rights that can't be taken away without a just cause.

As the main drafter, Thomas Jefferson described – _We human beings are born on this planet with these rights, and so these are our birthright.
The Original Source of “Life, Liberty And The Pursuit of Happiness” Is The Philosophy of English Philosopher John Locke. While Discussing On Unalienable Rights, John Locke Said About “Life, Liberty, And Property”. However, When Thomas Jefferson Drafted The Declaration of Independence, He Replaced The “Property” Term With “The Pursuit of Happiness”]_

 That didn't even make sense when Jefferson included it because the Africans and the American Indians were denied without just cause.




Abatis said:


> Following _*your*_ philosophy of US federal governmental authority, what does the 9th Amendment mean to you?  I'm especially interested in your understanding of the 9th's statement on the existence of "retained" rights _beyond_ those that are enumerated. I argue the 9th stands to tell (the government and the people) that the usual limitation of "enumeration" does not apply to rights because the principle of retained rights is, the people retain EVERYTHING not conferred to government.


That's what is stated.
Not true anymore, enumerated rights were being expanded beyond retained rights, almost as soon as the ink was dry on the constitution because the government was being expanded with different departments and agencies that addressed different issues that came up.

That's why the constitution was amended 27 times and SCOTUS decisions falling one way or the other.


Abatis said:


> Following _*your*_ philosophy of US federal governmental authority, what does the 10th Amendment mean to you? I argue the 10th unequivocally stands to tell everyone that the usual limitation of "enumeration" *does* apply to powers . . .
> 
> What possible oppositional argument could you present to those positions


Sure it does, when the 10th was written, 13 states were in existence, as the country expanded, states tried different rules that infringed for or against people's power or rights, decisions were made by the courts or federal government that gave or stopped those actions.



Abatis said:


> That the federal government can not *legitimately* exercise powers not granted to it was the basis of Federalist arguments _against_ adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.  *As Hamilton said*:
> 
> "I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"​
> Of course the Federalist's "lost" the argument over adding a bill of rights but Madison saw to it that Federalist argument was codified in the Constitution in the 9th and 10th Amendments.  The 9th and 10th Amendments stand as affirmation of, and permanent testament to, the Federalist's argument about the fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights, and the importance of permanently recognizing those principles in the Constitution.


YES, "principles".
Sounds good on paper, not so good in the field.


Abatis said:


> That absolute truth exists and continues in the face of _you_ not understanding those principles and even your obstinate, anti-Constitution allegiance to modern leftist / collectivist politics that demands you reject those principles.


What you describe as the 'truth" are about as significant as "principles" are.
A nice theory but not reality.

"Anti-constitution"?
As those who supported Trump looked the other way, making excuses,  and let him violate the constitution on a daily/monthly basis?


Abatis said:


> Words have meanings . . .   You wrote, "the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. Congress 17 *specifically “enumerated” powers*, along with unspecified “implied” powers considered *“necessary and proper” to carry out the enumerated powers.*"
> 
> Apparently you do not understand and completely fail to see the significance of, the unavoidable specificity and limitations of "specifically *enumerated* powers".


Apparently, you don't understand "unspecified implied powers" can and are infringing and expanding beyond enumerated powers.
It isn't 1791 anymore.


Abatis said:


> You also fail to understand that the exercise of "_unspecified implied powers_" is only authorized to fulfill the "_specific enumerated powers_", not for whatever the government decides it wants to do _beyond_ the enumerated powers.


 I understand it.

You fail to understand those implied powers and enumerated powers were being blurred within the first 100 years of the country and its constitution.

Just like the three branches of government are "equal".
Each has been expanding their powers ever since.
It isn't 1791 anymore.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Fact remains:
> Your willful failure to meaningfully address the issues put to you confirms you concession.


NONE was given.
Fact remains: YOU don't like the answer, so you dismiss it, like Trump.

Now, you're doing the same with Woodwork.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Your cconcession, acceptted.


NONE was given.


M14 Shooter said:


> Rights are not granted by anyone, especially the state.


So, the right to sue someone for helping another to get an abortion is a lie?


M14 Shooter said:


> Disagree?
> Cite the law that _grants _you the right to free speech.


Ratified in 1791.
When Virginia approved the amendment(s), it became US law.
Just like the other 9.


M14 Shooter said:


> I accept you concession in advance.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 15, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Your creator - whether or not you believe your creator is God or nature.  The rights are natural rights.


But that is what a person that was creating a government told you at the time.
If they were "natural" all the countries of the world would have these rights.


woodwork201 said:


> How can the government grant rights?


They can grant them and take them away, through votes.



woodwork201 said:


> Where do they get that power?


Elections or appointments.


woodwork201 said:


> Are they born above us?


Of course.


woodwork201 said:


> Royalty?


They sure think so.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 15, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> That sounds nice, "that *all* power originally resides in the people and "We the People" created government".
> That was the original principle and was true for a long time.



And remains today.



Smokin' OP said:


> Rights that can't be taken away without a just cause. . . .
> 
> That didn't even make sense when Jefferson included it because the Africans and the American Indians were denied without just cause.



So, as I thought, your philosophy of US federal governmental authority does not allow you to recognize and/or apply, the actual definition of "unalienable rights".



Smokin' OP said:


> That's what is stated.
> Not true anymore, enumerated rights were being expanded beyond retained rights, almost as soon as the ink was dry on the constitution because the government was being expanded with different departments and agencies that addressed different issues that came up.



Huh? . . . "enumerated rights" expanding beyond "retained rights"? 

The express enumeration of powers limits them, as SCOTUS said:


"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated.​​The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.​​This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.​​The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."​​_MARBURY v. MADISON_, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)​

You ridicule and dismiss the inviolate, unalterable and thus permanent nature of principles, you also mock the idea that committing powers to writing and the ratification of that strict expression becomes fixed rules for government operation.  It is obvious you support and believe the distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers* has* been abolished. 

.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 15, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> That's why the constitution was amended 27 times and SCOTUS decisions falling one way or the other.



The only amendment I can think of that expanded powers was the 18th . . .  

The fact is obvious and undeniable that the federal government understood that whatever, "unspecified “implied” powers" you imagine to exist, could not be massaged and milked to allow Congress to ban intoxicating liquors . . . 

The existence of the 18th Amendment belies your theory and extinguishes the illegitimate idea that the federal government can just do whatever it claims benefits the general welfare, or whatever bullshit being pushed at a particular time . . .  e.g, gun violence is a "public health crisis" so "we" don't need to trouble ourselves with that dumb, antiquated 2ndA / right to keep and bear arms.



Smokin' OP said:


> Sure it does, when the 10th was written, 13 states were in existence, as the country expanded, states tried different rules that infringed for or against people's power or rights, decisions were made by the courts or federal government that gave or stopped those actions.



Again, the federal Bill of Rights was no impediment to state action until (in theory) the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.  Soon after, SCOTUS effectively disabled the 14th's "privileges or immunities" clause in 1873 in a decision called, _The Slaughter House Cases._

Because _Slaughter House_ disabled the 14th's "privileges or immunities" clause, only "due process" and "equal protection" remained as legal processes to protect substantive fundamental rights from state abridgment.

Those two amorphous, subjective concepts demand a specific law already enacted, or government action that already happened, to be challenged claiming a specific rights injury and a subsequent excruciating examination of the affronts to "due process" or "equal protection" in that rights injury and how, maybe, those "protections" are owed to the citizen . . .  That piecemeal process took decades to develop and is how we were saddled with "selective incorporation"; truth is, "selective incorporation" is a contrivance invented by the Court as a workaround to _Slaughter House_.

.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 15, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> YES, "principles".
> Sounds good on paper, not so good in the field.



I completely understand that is how leftist authoritarians think; that's why it seems Democrats can never utter the word or speak of the concept of "principles".  Instead they prattle on about "values" because values are always under constant reevaluation.  Progressivism demands "values" to be revised or even be totally abandoned if new heartstrings are tugged.



Smokin' OP said:


> What you describe as the 'truth" are about as significant as "principles" are.
> A nice theory but not reality.



SCOTUS does not agree with you.



Smokin' OP said:


> "Anti-constitution"?
> As those who supported Trump looked the other way, making excuses,  and let him violate the constitution on a daily/monthly basis?



ADHDDebate.  

Try not to be so emotionally driven and easily distracted by your TDS; you sound unhinged.



Smokin' OP said:


> Apparently, you don't understand "unspecified implied powers" can and are infringing and expanding beyond enumerated powers.



There's a word for that, _usurpation_.



Smokin' OP said:


> I understand it.



Apparently not or your politics just demand that you ignore what SCOTUS has said:

"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.​​This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society."​


Smokin' OP said:


> You fail to understand those implied powers and enumerated powers were being blurred within the first 100 years of the country and its constitution.



The rules are still the rules and I'm certain your idea of implied powers and my idea of implied powers are diametrically opposed.  As an example, I would say that the federal government possesses implied powers to fulfill its promise to the states to forever provide a republican form of government.  This is confirmed when SCOTUS says, even putting the 2nd Amendment out of view, the federal government can not allow a state to disarm its citizens.  

I would predict you would say that there are implied powers to deconstruct our republic and institute a direct democracy if enough people want it, and of course, disarm the citizenry.

.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> NONE was given.


It was, whether you realize it or not.
And accepted.
As usual.
When you believe you can present a meanignful response to what I posted  let us know.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> NONE was given.


It was, when you failed to present a meaningful response.


Smokin' OP said:


> So, the right to sue someone for helping another to get an abortion is a lie?


There is no such right - it is a privilege granted by law.


Smokin' OP said:


> Ratified in 1791.
> When Virginia approved the amendment(s), it became US law.
> Just like the other 9.



What rights does the bill of rights _grant_?
Please copy/paste the text to that effect.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 15, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> But that is what a person that was creating a government told you at the time.
> If they were "natural" all the countries of the world would have these rights.
> 
> They can grant them and take them away, through votes.
> ...


All countries do have those rights; all people have those rights.  Do you think the Uighurs in China have the right to life?  Or is it OK for the Chinese to slaughter them?  Is slaughtering them a human rights violation?  You are clearly arguing that it is not a violation and that they have no natural right to life.  That's exactly what I'd expect from a 21st century "liberal" or leftist.  There are no human rights violations in the world and we needn't allow any asylum from our southern border.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 16, 2022)

Abatis said:


> And remains today.


Sure it does.

August 11 2011
DES MOINES — Mitt Romney’s visit to the Iowa State Fair on Thursday might have been the best debate prep session he could have hoped for.

Romney’s appearance at the fair’s soapbox grew unusually testy when a few angry people heckled the Republican presidential candidate over his declaration not to raise taxes.

“Corporations!” a protester shouted, apparently urging Romney to raise taxes on corporations that have benefited from loopholes in the tax code. “Corporations!”

“Corporations are people, my friend,” Romney said.

Some people in the front of the audience shouted, “No, they’re not!”

“Of course they are,” Romney said. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”


Abatis said:


> So, as I thought, your philosophy of US federal governmental authority does not allow you to recognize and/or apply, the actual definition of "unalienable rights".


Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
If it is so "unalienable", why is that not a right in all the countries of the world?


Abatis said:


> Huh? . . . "enumerated rights" expanding beyond "retained rights"?
> 
> The express enumeration of powers limits them, as SCOTUS said:
> 
> ...


That's the Supreme Court, only 12 years after the constitution was ratified.
Why do you think they even heard the case?
Because power was being challenged, even back then.
As I stated earlier before the ink was dry.


Abatis said:


> You ridicule and dismiss the inviolate, unalterable and thus permanent nature of principles, you also mock the idea that committing powers to writing and the ratification of that strict expression becomes fixed rules for government operation.


"Principles"?
From politicians?


Abatis said:


> It is obvious you support and believe the distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers* has* been abolished.
> 
> .


Never stated, I support it, it's the way the three branches of government operates.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 16, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I completely understand that is how leftist authoritarians think; that's why it seems Democrats can never utter the word or speak of the concept of "principles".


Sure, as Trump and his cult tried to overthrow an election?


Abatis said:


> Instead they prattle on about "values" because values are always under constant reevaluation.  Progressivism demands "values" to be revised or even be totally abandoned if new heartstrings are tugged.


As republicans harped on "family values" since Reagan?
ALL the way up to when Trump was nominated, then........................out the window.


Abatis said:


> SCOTUS does not agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sure it does, the truth would sound like that to those in Trump's cult.
Unhinged are in Trump's cult, even worse than he is.


Abatis said:


> There's a word for that, _usurpation_.


Well "usurpation" has been happening since the constitution has been ratified.


Abatis said:


> Apparently not or your politics just demand that you ignore what SCOTUS has said:
> 
> "Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.​​This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society."​
> 
> ...


Doesn't matter my idea or your idea of implied powers.
They are being challenged by politicians, lawyers, and judges, for and against the government "powers".


Abatis said:


> As an example, I would say that the federal government possesses implied powers to fulfill its promise to the states to forever provide a republican form of government.  This is confirmed when SCOTUS says, even putting the 2nd Amendment out of view, the federal government can not allow a state to disarm its citizens.


None have, so far.


Abatis said:


> I would predict you would say that there are implied powers to deconstruct our republic and institute a direct democracy if enough people want it, and of course, disarm the citizenry.


You would be wrong.
They don't, right now.


Abatis said:


> .


----------



## Smokin' OP (Feb 16, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> All countries do have those rights; all people have those rights.


WTF?
They do?


woodwork201 said:


> Do you think the Uighurs in China have the right to life?  Or is it OK for the Chinese to slaughter them?  Is slaughtering them a human rights violation?


So, they don't?


woodwork201 said:


> You are clearly arguing that it is not a violation and that they have no natural right to life.


I did not, I think everyone has a right to life but that isn't my call.
The Chinese have a different opinion.

That's why so many countries are pissed off.


woodwork201 said:


> That's exactly what I'd expect from a 21st century "liberal" or lef


Yeah, I know, the truth always comes as a surprise to Trump and his cult.


----------

