Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of our free States. We have a First Amendment.Yet, the Judicature claimed it arose from our Second Amendment.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.
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.
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..
Where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of our free States. We have a First Amendment.Yet, the Judicature claimed it arose from our Second Amendment.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.
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.
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..
The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.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.
There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment. All terms are collective and plural not singular and individual.The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
That still has nothing to do with an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. Even the Heller decision in the United States Supreme Court acknowledges that.
Machine guns have been highly regulated since 1934, cost tens of thousands of dollars, and are virtually never used in crime.But I am not saying we give up our weapons. I'm saying there is no reason for a citizen to own or be permitted to own a weapon of mass destruction...which is what machine guns are.
'Assault weapoons' are suitable for all the traditionally lawful purposes of a gun.Next question....why does anyone want to own an AK47 or whatever they are called? For what purpose? To just blow stuff up?
If you handed George Washing an AR15, he'd know what it is, is what it is for, and want all hims troops, including militia, to have one.I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc..
More relevantly, you cannot provide a sound argument for the necessity and efficacy of such a thing.I don't see any reason that semi-automatic carbines couldn't be categorized as a "destructive weapon," and require a tax stamp,
There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment. All terms are collective and plural not singular and individual.The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
That still has nothing to do with an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. Even the Heller decision in the United States Supreme Court acknowledges that.
You misunderstand our federal form of Government and our written Constitution and supreme law of the land. Nothing is more supreme. Natural rights are found and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment. Natural rights are available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment. All terms are collective and plural not singular and individual.The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
That still has nothing to do with an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. Even the Heller decision in the United States Supreme Court acknowledges that.
The Right does not need to be in the Second Amendment. It is a Right that predates the Constitution. It existed before the Constitution was penned and, according to the United States Supreme Court, the Right is NOT DEPENDENT upon the Constitution for its existence.
You misunderstand our federal form of Government and our written Constitution and supreme law of the land. Nothing is more supreme. Natural rights are found and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment. Natural rights are available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment. All terms are collective and plural not singular and individual.The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
That still has nothing to do with an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. Even the Heller decision in the United States Supreme Court acknowledges that.
The Right does not need to be in the Second Amendment. It is a Right that predates the Constitution. It existed before the Constitution was penned and, according to the United States Supreme Court, the Right is NOT DEPENDENT upon the Constitution for its existence.
And they should. My question is...why is an AR15 needed for the regular joe or jane to protect themselves from say, a home invader? Are they that bad a shot to need such a weapon whereas their 357 (for example) is not enough? Isn't the AK15 overkill (pun not intended)?If you handed George Washing an AR15, he'd know what it is, is what it is for, and want all hims troops, including militia, to have one.I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc..
And they should. My question is...why is an AR15 needed for the regular joe or jane to protect themselves from say, a home invader? Are they that bad a shot to need such a weapon whereas their 357 (for example) is not enough? Isn't the AK15 overkill (pun not intended)?If you handed George Washing an AR15, he'd know what it is, is what it is for, and want all hims troops, including militia, to have one.I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc..
the Right is NOT DEPENDENT upon the Constitution for its existence.
An AR carbine or pistol chambered for a major pistol caliber is a good as or better choice for home defense than a shotgun, in every regard, save for single-round hitting power.And they should. My question is...why is an AR15 needed for the regular joe or jane to protect themselves from say, a home invader?If you handed George Washing an AR15, he'd know what it is, is what it is for, and want all hims troops, including militia, to have one.I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc..
And they should. My question is...why is an AR15 needed for the regular joe or jane to protect themselves from say, a home invader? Are they that bad a shot to need such a weapon whereas their 357 (for example) is not enough? Isn't the AK15 overkill (pun not intended)?If you handed George Washing an AR15, he'd know what it is, is what it is for, and want all hims troops, including militia, to have one.I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc..
the Right is NOT DEPENDENT upon the Constitution for its existence.
No, it is not, but the Constitution still enumerates and guarantees the right.
Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land, regardless.You misunderstand our federal form of Government and our written Constitution and supreme law of the land. Nothing is more supreme. Natural rights are found and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment. Natural rights are available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment. All terms are collective and plural not singular and individual.The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
That still has nothing to do with an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. Even the Heller decision in the United States Supreme Court acknowledges that.
The Right does not need to be in the Second Amendment. It is a Right that predates the Constitution. It existed before the Constitution was penned and, according to the United States Supreme Court, the Right is NOT DEPENDENT upon the Constitution for its existence.
No, YOU misunderstand. I've already posted the court holdings. I'll do it one more time. If you misrepresent the law again after that, everybody will realize that you are ignorant troll. Watch and learn:
“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}
“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
This is the courts telling you that absolute Rights existed BEFORE the Constitution was written. Do you understand that principle?
Then the courts went on to rule again and make sure you understand that absolute Rights are natural, inherent, and unalienable.
You can have your opinion all day long, but it does not square with the simple facts. Now let us see if the United States Supreme Court agreed with this point:
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
Government is supposed to secure the Rights... the United States Supreme Court did not say that state constitutions "secure" a Right. It says GOVERNMENT. Government, at all levels and branches, must secure your Rights. They do that by not passing laws that contradict the Bill of Rights.
As proof that states do not secure these Rights, we will revisit the laws:
"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:
"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:
“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
And there it is. The states PROTECT the Right.
As verbs the difference between secure and protect
is that secure is to make safe; to relieve from apprehensions of, or exposure to, danger; to guard; to protect while protect is to keep safe; to defend; to guard; to prevent harm coming to.
As a adjective secure
is free from attack or danger; protected.
https://wikidiff.com/secure/protect
The way you word your position is that states secure Rights by way of their state constitution. That simply is not true danielpalos. The Rights existed before and independent of constitutions.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
