2nd Amendment Discussion

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not the whole and entire concept of natural rights, which is already secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Refuted in my earlier posts. Nice try, however.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied. You cannot appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

I wasn't appealing to your ignorance. I was just stating a fact from the courts own rulings.

a simple error. we have our Ninth Amendment.

If you will take the time to read post # 28 you won't be finding this to be "funny." All I can tell you is that if you disagree, then you've never litigated this sh!+ in court. And if you haven't litigated it in court, your nonsensical posts are little more than a detraction to people knowing what the facts are.

The Ninth Amendment is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't apply.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Refuted in my earlier posts. Nice try, however.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied. You cannot appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

I wasn't appealing to your ignorance. I was just stating a fact from the courts own rulings.

a simple error. we have our Ninth Amendment.

If you will take the time to read post # 28 you won't be finding this to be "funny." All I can tell you is that if you disagree, then you've never litigated this sh!+ in court. And if you haven't litigated it in court, your nonsensical posts are little more than a detraction to people knowing what the facts are.

The Ninth Amendment is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't apply.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.

WTF is wrong with you? What kind of sick son of a bitch trolls someone and tries to pick a right wing versus left wing argument over court rulings? Does your elevator go to the top or are you two french fries short of a Happy Meal?

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is express not implied. You cannot appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

I wasn't appealing to your ignorance. I was just stating a fact from the courts own rulings.

a simple error. we have our Ninth Amendment.

If you will take the time to read post # 28 you won't be finding this to be "funny." All I can tell you is that if you disagree, then you've never litigated this sh!+ in court. And if you haven't litigated it in court, your nonsensical posts are little more than a detraction to people knowing what the facts are.

The Ninth Amendment is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't apply.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.

WTF is wrong with you? What kind of sick son of a bitch trolls someone and tries to pick a right wing versus left wing argument over court rulings? Does your elevator go to the top or are you two french fries short of a Happy Meal?

There are errors in those opinions. Our Ninth Amendment applies.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I wasn't appealing to your ignorance. I was just stating a fact from the courts own rulings.

a simple error. we have our Ninth Amendment.

If you will take the time to read post # 28 you won't be finding this to be "funny." All I can tell you is that if you disagree, then you've never litigated this sh!+ in court. And if you haven't litigated it in court, your nonsensical posts are little more than a detraction to people knowing what the facts are.

The Ninth Amendment is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't apply.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.

WTF is wrong with you? What kind of sick son of a bitch trolls someone and tries to pick a right wing versus left wing argument over court rulings? Does your elevator go to the top or are you two french fries short of a Happy Meal?

There are errors in those opinions. Our Ninth Amendment applies.

Well, if you feel that way, tell they judges. They wrote the rulings.

 

[danielpalos]

a simple error. we have our Ninth Amendment.

If you will take the time to read post # 28 you won't be finding this to be "funny." All I can tell you is that if you disagree, then you've never litigated this sh!+ in court. And if you haven't litigated it in court, your nonsensical posts are little more than a detraction to people knowing what the facts are.

The Ninth Amendment is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't apply.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.

WTF is wrong with you? What kind of sick son of a bitch trolls someone and tries to pick a right wing versus left wing argument over court rulings? Does your elevator go to the top or are you two french fries short of a Happy Meal?

There are errors in those opinions. Our Ninth Amendment applies.

Well, if you feel that way, tell they judges. They wrote the rulings.

Seems like the activism of legislating from the bench. The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.

 

[Gracie]

Well, first, I find it funny that you mention cannons, since people very much did own cannons and gatling guns at the time that was written, and "Well Regulated" meant "kept regular" at the time that was written.

Now, that's not to say that your argument would otherwise be legitimate, since nobody should care what they thought in the first place, as the men were tyrants, and even if they weren't, this is just an appeal to authority. Why should we need the endorsement of crusty old tyrants in order to purchase property with the fruits of our labor? We shouldn't. The transaction is voluntary, the property is theirs to sell, and since it's voluntary, it would likewise be ours to buy. Merely owning property doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, therefor it can't be said that merely owning something is legitimate. This means the burden of proof is on the active party to explain why it's unethical to own property.
What makes it legitimate for certain people to have rights that others don't? Being approved by the Government? Wearing a badge? Wearing a specific outfit? Training?

Why do people have to justify wanting to own certain property? Owning something is passive, so the burden of proof is not on them to explain why they own something, or why they need something.

Well, even if your argument here were legitimate, maybe they'd like to kill a number of people in self defense, or scare them off. Road Pirates/Police/Centralized security takes an average of 15 minutes to come shoot your dog and outline your body in chalk, so it's not as though they're sufficient protection, especially given that they've been legally shown to have no obligation to protect you.

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia

Who are you, or really anyone else, to decide what's needed to hunt or defend yourself? What if I want a catapult because it looks cool? I have models of medieval castles, knights, catapults, siege engines, etc. What if I want to build a life-sized medieval battle diorama? Should the Government send its Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police to come shoot my dog and beat the hell out of me?

Who are you, or anyone else, to tell us what the only applications for certain tools and equipment are for? Maybe people collect guns, maybe they're for self defense, maybe they're for target practice, maybe they're toys to some people. Anything can be used for mass murder, including knives.

Why should Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police be the only people to have these sorts of weapons? They're literally the most violent demographic in America, they gun people down in the streets, through doors, etc. Why should known mass murderers be the only people legally allowed to keep certain tools? Besides that, monopolization of such tools was never practical in the first place, even less so now that they can be 3D Printed, with the schematics available online.

EDIT: Forgot my citations for Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police being incredibly violent:
The Splinter: Family Awarded just...4 dollars
https://splinternews.com/family-of-bl...
The Free Thought Project: Cops shoot dad through door
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Cop Beats man chained to bed
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/wat...
The Free Thought Project: Officers beat 9-year-old for leaning on car https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Officers Justified in Beating Loud Music https://thefreethoughtproject.com/off...
The Free Thought Project: Cop Acquitted in shooting of therapist https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Woman thrown to ground by police https://thefreethoughtproject.com/vid...
The Free Thought Project: Tasered man burns to death
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/law...
The Free Thought Project: Chief of Police removed for trying to stop police brutality https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mes...
The Free Thought Project: Cop will NOT go to jail after raping 5 year old girl https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Cops beat unarmed, innocent man https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mes...
The Free Thought Project: Killing of sleeping man "reasonable" https://thefreethoughtproject.com/wil...
Lew Rockwell: The New "Stop Resisting"
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/04/e...
The Atlantic: How Police Training leads to Avoidable Deaths
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/...
Rutherford Institute: The only truly compliant citizen is a dead one.
https://www.rutherford.org/publicatio...
The Root: If I Complied I Would Have Gotten Killed
https://www.theroot.com/if-i-would-ha...
Cleveland Police hold 11 year old at gunpoint
https://www.wftv.com/news/local/grove...
Indiana Cops taser 10-year-old
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/indi...

The Free Thought Project: Charges dropped for 119 people after cop caught planting meth https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cha...
The Free Thought Project: Cops detain entire bar
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/pol...
The Guardian: Eric Garner Chokehold Video
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/v...

Road Pirate fired for not being too hasty to gun people down:
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504718...
Cop sodomizes man because he thought he smelled drugs:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/man...
City fires Road Pirates for feeling uncomfortable extorting people:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
Road Pirates hold kids at gunpoint:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/11...
Cops kill 25 dogs every day, on average:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-0...
The real reason the Government-run media doesn't like the idea of self-driving cars(It's because they want to continue extorting people):
https://123duionline.com/autonomous-v...
Road Pirates violently assaulting street musicians:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/bra...
Road Pirate rapes 14 year old sex crime victim instead of helping her:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/chi...
Amount of Road Pirates convicted of murder(Only 20%):
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/police...
Figures for Road Pirates being incredibly violent:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/pol...
Road Pirates more likely to beat their wives:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
Road Pirates run people over to keep them safe:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/nyp...

Feel better?

Not really, I posted that because I wanted you to try to refute my argument, not ask me if I'm feeling better.

I'm not even sure if you're asking that question seriously or not.

She is not. Like most anti gunners, she will not discuss the subject on any level above emotions. I don’t like it, so you can’t do it.

So...you "know" me? Since when? And where did I say I was anti gun? Again...since when? I own guns. I am NOT giving them up. I asked a question or two or three. Mainly, just curious as to what the founding fathers had in mind when they had no clue what future weaponry would consist of;. Unless they were like you and know all in their infinite wisdom. *Sarcasm*

Same response to Pumpkin.

If you think my argument isn't legitimate, perhaps you'd be willing to refute any part of it, rather than taking cheap shots at me in responses to someone else. I told you the ethical argument, and pragmatic argument, both indicating that people's rights should not be infringed. I also refuted your claim that the crusty old tyrants hadn't intended for people to own cannons.

I'm perfectly willing to have an honest discussion, if you'd like to do something other than dodge my argument.

I'm not here to argue with little girls, sweety. I'm here to just talk about things that cross my mind now and then. I also don't dodge teenyboppers.

 

[Gracie]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

You're simply incorrect. Muzzle loading cannons of the sort that were used in the days of the founders, were not prohibited in the early days of the US. In fact, to this day, they are still federally unregulated.

Cannons have never been widely used for hunting or sport shooting. Muzzle loading cannons were only ever designed for siege warfare, naval warfare, and anti-infantry applications. Essentially, the ONLY purpose of these weapons was to take out as many as possible, almost EXCLUSIVELY humans, or to directly aid in taking out as many as possible by cracking open forts and bunkers or sinking ships.

I'm afraid you're completely off-base in your interpretation of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and therefore your prescription on how that purpose should be applied to modern rifles.

So...silly me. But..I learned quite a bit in this thread, so...that's a plus!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If you will take the time to read post # 28 you won't be finding this to be "funny." All I can tell you is that if you disagree, then you've never litigated this sh!+ in court. And if you haven't litigated it in court, your nonsensical posts are little more than a detraction to people knowing what the facts are.

The Ninth Amendment is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't apply.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.

WTF is wrong with you? What kind of sick son of a bitch trolls someone and tries to pick a right wing versus left wing argument over court rulings? Does your elevator go to the top or are you two french fries short of a Happy Meal?

There are errors in those opinions. Our Ninth Amendment applies.

Well, if you feel that way, tell they judges. They wrote the rulings.

Seems like the activism of legislating from the bench. The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.

That is irrelevant. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent on the Constitution. In other words, the Right predates the Constitution.

 

[Picaro]

If you will take the time to read post # 28 you won't be finding this to be "funny." All I can tell you is that if you disagree, then you've never litigated this sh!+ in court. And if you haven't litigated it in court, your nonsensical posts are little more than a detraction to people knowing what the facts are.

The Ninth Amendment is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't apply.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.

WTF is wrong with you? What kind of sick son of a bitch trolls someone and tries to pick a right wing versus left wing argument over court rulings? Does your elevator go to the top or are you two french fries short of a Happy Meal?

There are errors in those opinions. Our Ninth Amendment applies.

Well, if you feel that way, tell they judges. They wrote the rulings.

Seems like the activism of legislating from the bench. The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.

Both the Federal and state govts., as well as most local municipalities, surpassed and obsoleted the 2nd's referral to 'militia' via forming a standing Army and Navy, then National Guard units, then state police and county sheriff depts, and local police depts. In small towns, the need for citizen call ups is obvious, but those were formed around already existing local groups like the American Legion, not ';everybody in town', just known solid citizens. This was a process of evolution. As I said earlier, the history of gun control in the U.S. is long and extensive; whether or not this fits in with ideological fantasies doesn't matter. Many 'Founders' didn't consider the poor or even most of 'the urban rabble' to be citizens, certainly Jefferson didn't, much less 'part of a militia' of any kind.

 

[Picaro]

If you will take the time to read post # 28 you won't be finding this to be "funny." All I can tell you is that if you disagree, then you've never litigated this sh!+ in court. And if you haven't litigated it in court, your nonsensical posts are little more than a detraction to people knowing what the facts are.

The Ninth Amendment is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't apply.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.

WTF is wrong with you? What kind of sick son of a bitch trolls someone and tries to pick a right wing versus left wing argument over court rulings? Does your elevator go to the top or are you two french fries short of a Happy Meal?

There are errors in those opinions. Our Ninth Amendment applies.

Well, if you feel that way, tell they judges. They wrote the rulings.

Seems like the activism of legislating from the bench. The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.

It is, and sooner or later the laws will change again according to political whims, which is why you see all the activity after these shootings to pass new laws; obviously it isn't 'settled law' just because the current SC passed some stuff that favors right wing ideologues current whims.

As I've said man time I personally have no problems with concealed carry, it's just stupid to keep claiming the Constitution still matters when it doesn't, and hasn't for a long time.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.

WTF is wrong with you? What kind of sick son of a bitch trolls someone and tries to pick a right wing versus left wing argument over court rulings? Does your elevator go to the top or are you two french fries short of a Happy Meal?

There are errors in those opinions. Our Ninth Amendment applies.

Well, if you feel that way, tell they judges. They wrote the rulings.

Seems like the activism of legislating from the bench. The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.

That is irrelevant. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent on the Constitution. In other words, the Right predates the Constitution.

where do you get your propaganda from?

the simple legal error was in the composition of the militia. the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only militia service, well regulated.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.

WTF is wrong with you? What kind of sick son of a bitch trolls someone and tries to pick a right wing versus left wing argument over court rulings? Does your elevator go to the top or are you two french fries short of a Happy Meal?

There are errors in those opinions. Our Ninth Amendment applies.

Well, if you feel that way, tell they judges. They wrote the rulings.

Seems like the activism of legislating from the bench. The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.

Both the Federal and state govts., as well as most local municipalities, surpassed and obsoleted the 2nd's referral to 'militia' via forming a standing Army and Navy, then National Guard units, then state police and county sheriff depts, and local police depts. In small towns, the need for citizen call ups is obvious, but those were formed around already existing local groups like the American Legion, not ';everybody in town', just known solid citizens. This was a process of evolution. As I said earlier, the history of gun control in the U.S. is long and extensive; whether or not this fits in with ideological fantasies doesn't matter. Many 'Founders' didn't consider the poor or even most of 'the urban rabble' to be citizens, certainly Jefferson didn't, much less 'part of a militia' of any kind.

Our written Constitution is our supreme law of the land, in Any conflict of laws.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

WTF is wrong with you? What kind of sick son of a bitch trolls someone and tries to pick a right wing versus left wing argument over court rulings? Does your elevator go to the top or are you two french fries short of a Happy Meal?

There are errors in those opinions. Our Ninth Amendment applies.

Well, if you feel that way, tell they judges. They wrote the rulings.

Seems like the activism of legislating from the bench. The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.

That is irrelevant. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent on the Constitution. In other words, the Right predates the Constitution.

where do you get your propaganda from?

the simple legal error was in the composition of the militia. the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only militia service, well regulated.

I'm not a political hack. I work in a firm that does legal research, shepardizing, legal investigations, and prepares briefs. How about you?

You can talk about the militia all day long. I'm talking about the Right to keep and bear Arms. Since neither the right nor the left concern themselves with the elements of Freedom, Liberty and Justice, it leaves a void wherein I can share something besides the typical political dumbassery that you apparently dabble in on a daily basis.

As someone familiar with the history of legal precedents, I try to follow the reasoning of how the Constitution today means 180 degrees opposite of what it did when the framers put their signature on it.

There is a higher principle in play. Nobody is ever required to disobey an unconstitutional law. The challenge is, we have to know when the United States Supreme Court oversteps their boundaries and give their unconscionable actions the same respect we'd give to any other illegal act.

 

[danielpalos]

There are errors in those opinions. Our Ninth Amendment applies.

Well, if you feel that way, tell they judges. They wrote the rulings.

Seems like the activism of legislating from the bench. The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.

That is irrelevant. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent on the Constitution. In other words, the Right predates the Constitution.

where do you get your propaganda from?

the simple legal error was in the composition of the militia. the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only militia service, well regulated.

I'm not a political hack. I work in a firm that does legal research, shepardizing, legal investigations, and prepares briefs. How about you?

You can talk about the militia all day long. I'm talking about the Right to keep and bear Arms. Since neither the right nor the left concern themselves with the elements of Freedom, Liberty and Justice, it leaves a void wherein I can share something besides the typical political dumbassery that you apparently dabble in on a daily basis.

As someone familiar with the history of legal precedents, I try to follow the reasoning of how the Constitution today means 180 degrees opposite of what it did when the framers put their signature on it.

There is a higher principle in play. Nobody is ever required to disobey an unconstitutional law. The challenge is, we have to know when the United States Supreme Court oversteps their boundaries and give their unconscionable actions the same respect we'd give to any other illegal act.

Yet, the Judicature claimed it arose from our Second Amendment.

And, you cannot discount the traditional police power of a State and its Unitary not federal form of Government.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Feel better?

Not really, I posted that because I wanted you to try to refute my argument, not ask me if I'm feeling better.

I'm not even sure if you're asking that question seriously or not.

She is not. Like most anti gunners, she will not discuss the subject on any level above emotions. I don’t like it, so you can’t do it.

So...you "know" me? Since when? And where did I say I was anti gun? Again...since when? I own guns. I am NOT giving them up. I asked a question or two or three. Mainly, just curious as to what the founding fathers had in mind when they had no clue what future weaponry would consist of;. Unless they were like you and know all in their infinite wisdom. *Sarcasm*

Same response to Pumpkin.

If you think my argument isn't legitimate, perhaps you'd be willing to refute any part of it, rather than taking cheap shots at me in responses to someone else. I told you the ethical argument, and pragmatic argument, both indicating that people's rights should not be infringed. I also refuted your claim that the crusty old tyrants hadn't intended for people to own cannons.

I'm perfectly willing to have an honest discussion, if you'd like to do something other than dodge my argument.

I'm not here to argue with little girls, sweety. I'm here to just talk about things that cross my mind now and then. I also don't dodge teenyboppers.

So, you're going to dismiss my argument on the basis of age instead of its content.

 

[Gracie]

Not really, I posted that because I wanted you to try to refute my argument, not ask me if I'm feeling better.

I'm not even sure if you're asking that question seriously or not.

She is not. Like most anti gunners, she will not discuss the subject on any level above emotions. I don’t like it, so you can’t do it.

So...you "know" me? Since when? And where did I say I was anti gun? Again...since when? I own guns. I am NOT giving them up. I asked a question or two or three. Mainly, just curious as to what the founding fathers had in mind when they had no clue what future weaponry would consist of;. Unless they were like you and know all in their infinite wisdom. *Sarcasm*

Same response to Pumpkin.

If you think my argument isn't legitimate, perhaps you'd be willing to refute any part of it, rather than taking cheap shots at me in responses to someone else. I told you the ethical argument, and pragmatic argument, both indicating that people's rights should not be infringed. I also refuted your claim that the crusty old tyrants hadn't intended for people to own cannons.

I'm perfectly willing to have an honest discussion, if you'd like to do something other than dodge my argument.

I'm not here to argue with little girls, sweety. I'm here to just talk about things that cross my mind now and then. I also don't dodge teenyboppers.

So, you're going to dismiss my argument on the basis of age instead of its content.

No. I am dismissing your attempts to be ornery. I don't feel like being ornery to you or anyone else although you sure seem to want confrontation. Move along, sweetcakes. Argue with someone else.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

How do you remove a tyrant who has the backing of the military?
Do you bow to that tyrant
fight back with whatever you have on hand?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Well, if you feel that way, tell they judges. They wrote the rulings.

Seems like the activism of legislating from the bench. The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.

That is irrelevant. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent on the Constitution. In other words, the Right predates the Constitution.

where do you get your propaganda from?

the simple legal error was in the composition of the militia. the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only militia service, well regulated.

I'm not a political hack. I work in a firm that does legal research, shepardizing, legal investigations, and prepares briefs. How about you?

You can talk about the militia all day long. I'm talking about the Right to keep and bear Arms. Since neither the right nor the left concern themselves with the elements of Freedom, Liberty and Justice, it leaves a void wherein I can share something besides the typical political dumbassery that you apparently dabble in on a daily basis.

As someone familiar with the history of legal precedents, I try to follow the reasoning of how the Constitution today means 180 degrees opposite of what it did when the framers put their signature on it.

There is a higher principle in play. Nobody is ever required to disobey an unconstitutional law. The challenge is, we have to know when the United States Supreme Court oversteps their boundaries and give their unconscionable actions the same respect we'd give to any other illegal act.

Yet, the Judicature claimed it arose from our Second Amendment.

And, you cannot discount the traditional police power of a State and its Unitary not federal form of Government.

Do you know the difference between power and authority?

The way the court system works in this country is that a case starts at the trial court level. Depending on where it starts, it can be appealed several times until it reaches the United States Supreme Court. Then the high Court decides whether or not they want to hear it.

The Constitution of the United States allows the United States Supreme Court to interpret the law. That's it. They have NO further authority. In practice, however, the United States Supreme Court reviews their own court decisions and over-rules themselves!!! WTF? We call it legislating from the bench, but nobody officially challenges it.

Between Donald Trump ruling by Executive fiat and the United States Supreme Court legislating from the bench, the House and Senate serve NO purpose in this country.

The de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal law in this country is wherein the first time an issue landed on the desk of the United States Supreme Court and they granted cert (that is they agreed to hear the case) then that statute has been through the system and it is what it is. If the United States Supreme Court, the President, or Jesus himself has a problem with it, the ONLY constitutional way to change the law is to have the House and Senate write a NEW law and let the President sign it. George Washington predicted the way we're running the country and he warned:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The government we have today is an illegal / de facto / unconstitutional / unconscionable government that does not respect the law. Ex post facto laws are enacted in violation of the Constitution; the law is being perverted and even your nonsensical posts that lack meaning might make you a criminal tomorrow the way the ship is being run. NOBODY is safe from that kind of tyranny.

I'm telling you what the law is. In reality, NONE of you out there are safe. In reality, the various branches of the government have shit-canned the Constitution. George Bush declared that the Constitution was "just a god-damned piece of paper" while the United States Supreme Court destroyed over 130 tears of standing legal precedents with the Heller decision. So, my decision is simply to tell the government they did not have the authority to change the Constitution. That is done via Amendments. THAT sir is the very reason we have a Second Amendment. The greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. So, the people have the authority to reject the unconstitutional acts whereby the United States Supreme Court has claimed that they grant you your Rights. If the government does not understand that... read the Declaration of Independence. It will give you the answer.

 

[danielpalos]

Seems like the activism of legislating from the bench. The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.

That is irrelevant. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent on the Constitution. In other words, the Right predates the Constitution.

where do you get your propaganda from?

the simple legal error was in the composition of the militia. the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only militia service, well regulated.

I'm not a political hack. I work in a firm that does legal research, shepardizing, legal investigations, and prepares briefs. How about you?

You can talk about the militia all day long. I'm talking about the Right to keep and bear Arms. Since neither the right nor the left concern themselves with the elements of Freedom, Liberty and Justice, it leaves a void wherein I can share something besides the typical political dumbassery that you apparently dabble in on a daily basis.

As someone familiar with the history of legal precedents, I try to follow the reasoning of how the Constitution today means 180 degrees opposite of what it did when the framers put their signature on it.

There is a higher principle in play. Nobody is ever required to disobey an unconstitutional law. The challenge is, we have to know when the United States Supreme Court oversteps their boundaries and give their unconscionable actions the same respect we'd give to any other illegal act.

Yet, the Judicature claimed it arose from our Second Amendment.

And, you cannot discount the traditional police power of a State and its Unitary not federal form of Government.

Do you know the difference between power and authority?

The way the court system works in this country is that a case starts at the trial court level. Depending on where it starts, it can be appealed several times until it reaches the United States Supreme Court. Then the high Court decides whether or not they want to hear it.

The Constitution of the United States allows the United States Supreme Court to interpret the law. That's it. They have NO further authority. In practice, however, the United States Supreme Court reviews their own court decisions and over-rules themselves!!! WTF? We call it legislating from the bench, but nobody officially challenges it.

Between Donald Trump ruling by Executive fiat and the United States Supreme Court legislating from the bench, the House and Senate serve NO purpose in this country.

The de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal law in this country is wherein the first time an issue landed on the desk of the United States Supreme Court and they granted cert (that is they agreed to hear the case) then that statute has been through the system and it is what it is. If the United States Supreme Court, the President, or Jesus himself has a problem with it, the ONLY constitutional way to change the law is to have the House and Senate write a NEW law and let the President sign it. George Washington predicted the way we're running the country and he warned:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The government we have today is an illegal / de facto / unconstitutional / unconscionable government that does not respect the law. Ex post facto laws are enacted in violation of the Constitution; the law is being perverted and even your nonsensical posts that lack meaning might make you a criminal tomorrow the way the ship is being run. NOBODY is safe from that kind of tyranny.

I'm telling you what the law is. In reality, NONE of you out there are safe. In reality, the various branches of the government have shit-canned the Constitution. George Bush declared that the Constitution was "just a god-damned piece of paper" while the United States Supreme Court destroyed over 130 tears of standing legal precedents with the Heller decision. So, my decision is simply to tell the government they did not have the authority to change the Constitution. That is done via Amendments. THAT sir is the very reason we have a Second Amendment. The greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. So, the people have the authority to reject the unconstitutional acts whereby the United States Supreme Court has claimed that they grant you your Rights. If the government does not understand that... read the Declaration of Independence. It will give you the answer.

Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of our free States. We have a First Amendment.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

That is irrelevant. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent on the Constitution. In other words, the Right predates the Constitution.

where do you get your propaganda from?

the simple legal error was in the composition of the militia. the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only militia service, well regulated.

I'm not a political hack. I work in a firm that does legal research, shepardizing, legal investigations, and prepares briefs. How about you?

You can talk about the militia all day long. I'm talking about the Right to keep and bear Arms. Since neither the right nor the left concern themselves with the elements of Freedom, Liberty and Justice, it leaves a void wherein I can share something besides the typical political dumbassery that you apparently dabble in on a daily basis.

As someone familiar with the history of legal precedents, I try to follow the reasoning of how the Constitution today means 180 degrees opposite of what it did when the framers put their signature on it.

There is a higher principle in play. Nobody is ever required to disobey an unconstitutional law. The challenge is, we have to know when the United States Supreme Court oversteps their boundaries and give their unconscionable actions the same respect we'd give to any other illegal act.

Yet, the Judicature claimed it arose from our Second Amendment.

And, you cannot discount the traditional police power of a State and its Unitary not federal form of Government.

Do you know the difference between power and authority?

The way the court system works in this country is that a case starts at the trial court level. Depending on where it starts, it can be appealed several times until it reaches the United States Supreme Court. Then the high Court decides whether or not they want to hear it.

The Constitution of the United States allows the United States Supreme Court to interpret the law. That's it. They have NO further authority. In practice, however, the United States Supreme Court reviews their own court decisions and over-rules themselves!!! WTF? We call it legislating from the bench, but nobody officially challenges it.

Between Donald Trump ruling by Executive fiat and the United States Supreme Court legislating from the bench, the House and Senate serve NO purpose in this country.

The de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal law in this country is wherein the first time an issue landed on the desk of the United States Supreme Court and they granted cert (that is they agreed to hear the case) then that statute has been through the system and it is what it is. If the United States Supreme Court, the President, or Jesus himself has a problem with it, the ONLY constitutional way to change the law is to have the House and Senate write a NEW law and let the President sign it. George Washington predicted the way we're running the country and he warned:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The government we have today is an illegal / de facto / unconstitutional / unconscionable government that does not respect the law. Ex post facto laws are enacted in violation of the Constitution; the law is being perverted and even your nonsensical posts that lack meaning might make you a criminal tomorrow the way the ship is being run. NOBODY is safe from that kind of tyranny.

I'm telling you what the law is. In reality, NONE of you out there are safe. In reality, the various branches of the government have shit-canned the Constitution. George Bush declared that the Constitution was "just a god-damned piece of paper" while the United States Supreme Court destroyed over 130 tears of standing legal precedents with the Heller decision. So, my decision is simply to tell the government they did not have the authority to change the Constitution. That is done via Amendments. THAT sir is the very reason we have a Second Amendment. The greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. So, the people have the authority to reject the unconstitutional acts whereby the United States Supreme Court has claimed that they grant you your Rights. If the government does not understand that... read the Declaration of Independence. It will give you the answer.

Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of our free States. We have a First Amendment.

The Second Amendment does exactly what it says it does. It guarantees the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms as a measure to insure the security of a free state. It does not authorize nor create nor even secure ANYTHING. You have been provided with enough legal precedent to verify that.

Furthermore, the individual states ruled that the Second Amendment is absolute and is above the law making power.

Regardless of what it originally meant, that is all irrelevant. The Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on and there are no militias that enforce the Constitution or repel a dictator because most people live in total darkness of what their Rights and RESPONSIBILITIES are..