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.
And to whom are you addressing this?The right wing is only about morals, when it is about drugs and sex.Says the guy who never locks his doors and is convinced that there is no violence to be had in his little utopiaYou're lucky that the US allows delusional people to own guns.I have no problem with you protecting your home, but your militia is the National Guard.I'm not a hillbilly.
A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
No it's not.
There are private militia in existence today.
I happen to belong to one with just one member, me.
Only Bad persons do Bad things, right wingers.
Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.No, it isn't. The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.No, it isn't. It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.
What's your point? The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, unalienable, absolute, God given Right. So, big freaking deal. A state can "secure" the Right. The state does not grant the Right nor can it, constitutionally, deprive you of it. And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.
The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and earliest court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.
Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong. AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.
The judicial view:
“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)
"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
"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)
The United States Supreme Court agreed:
."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)
So, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution. State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute. The courts have consistently ruled that the word "absolute" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, unalienable, etc. (aka God given Rights.)
“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)
Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified. And it the courts declared the Right to be an absolute Right, then the Right is also inherent and unalienable pursuant to applicable case law.
You fail.
Utterly non - responsive reply. danielpalos, you are trolling. Your post means nothing. How long have you been peddling that shit? Nobody has ever bought it.
Get your head out of your ass for a change. To "secure" a Right does not create the Right; it does not grant the Right. It merely establishes that the Right exists and "ensures" (sic) it.
Secure: 12. to effect; make certain of; ensure
the definition of secure
“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)
“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)
Sorry, danielpalos, that's the law and you can't change it with troll posts.
10USC246 is federal law. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.No, it isn't. The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.No, it isn't. It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.
What's your point? The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, unalienable, absolute, God given Right. So, big freaking deal. A state can "secure" the Right. The state does not grant the Right nor can it, constitutionally, deprive you of it. And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.
The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and earliest court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.
Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong. AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.
The judicial view:
“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)
"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
"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)
The United States Supreme Court agreed:
."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)
So, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution. State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute. The courts have consistently ruled that the word "absolute" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, unalienable, etc. (aka God given Rights.)
“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)
Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified. And it the courts declared the Right to be an absolute Right, then the Right is also inherent and unalienable pursuant to applicable case law.
You fail.
Your nonsense is rarely worth a response, but I sure as Hell did not advocate any so - called "private justice."
Citizens are required to exhaust all nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. OTOH, when it comes to their personal security, the individual must, by law, be wholly responsible for that. In addition, if / when government breaks down, the citizenry is empowered to be the last line of defense in a free nation.
10USC246 is federal law. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.No, it isn't. The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.What's your point? The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, unalienable, absolute, God given Right. So, big freaking deal. A state can "secure" the Right. The state does not grant the Right nor can it, constitutionally, deprive you of it. And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.
The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and earliest court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.
Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong. AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.
The judicial view:
“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)
"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
"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)
The United States Supreme Court agreed:
."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)
So, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution. State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute. The courts have consistently ruled that the word "absolute" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, unalienable, etc. (aka God given Rights.)
“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)
Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified. And it the courts declared the Right to be an absolute Right, then the Right is also inherent and unalienable pursuant to applicable case law.
You fail.
Your nonsense is rarely worth a response, but I sure as Hell did not advocate any so - called "private justice."
Citizens are required to exhaust all nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. OTOH, when it comes to their personal security, the individual must, by law, be wholly responsible for that. In addition, if / when government breaks down, the citizenry is empowered to be the last line of defense in a free nation.
Only custom and habit until it was indistinguishable from morals, preceded our Constitutions.
You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.
Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.
Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
You are grasping at straws. The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an unorganized militia. BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.
The law does not require the militia to be organized. Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.
“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2
As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS.
Please open your eyes and read the cited cases. The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.
The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law. Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.
The law is about a well regulated militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army. And how did they intend to regulate the militia? Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?
You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.
Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
You are grasping at straws. The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an unorganized militia. BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.
The law does not require the militia to be organized. Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.
“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2
As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS.
Please open your eyes and read the cited cases. The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.
The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law. Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.
The law is about a well regulated militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army. And how did they intend to regulate the militia? Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?
Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.
Like many things, this matter is very simple.
There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.
To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.
Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.
I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.
We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.
One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."
The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."Like many things, this matter is very simple.
There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.
To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.
Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.
I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.
We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.
One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."
There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:
1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and
2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
The de facto government maintains that we have a "Living Constitution" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.
The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."Like many things, this matter is very simple.
There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.
To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.
Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.
I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.
We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.
One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."
There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:
1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and
2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
The de facto government maintains that we have a "Living Constitution" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.
Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."Like many things, this matter is very simple.
There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.
To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.
Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.
I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.
We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.
One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."
There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:
1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and
2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
The de facto government maintains that we have a "Living Constitution" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.
No it does not.
Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."Like many things, this matter is very simple.
There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.
To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.
Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.
I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.
We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.
One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."
There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:
1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and
2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
The de facto government maintains that we have a "Living Constitution" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.
No it does not.
LOLOf course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."Like many things, this matter is very simple.
There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.
To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.
Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.
I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.
We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.
One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."
There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:
1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and
2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
The de facto government maintains that we have a "Living Constitution" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.
No it does not.
I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar. You are here, as usual to troll me. You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.
I'm not playing your childish game on this thread. If you have something to say, say it.
Are you on the right wing?Like many things, this matter is very simple.
There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.
To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.
Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.
I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.
We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.
One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
this is the Point, dear: Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.
Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
You are grasping at straws. The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an unorganized militia. BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.
The law does not require the militia to be organized. Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.
“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2
As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS.
Please open your eyes and read the cited cases. The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.
The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law. Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.
The law is about a well regulated militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army. And how did they intend to regulate the militia? Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?
Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.
Appeals to ignorance? I'm sorry. I did not realize you were ignorant. But, I held out hope you could learn.
Natural Rights exist without Due Process. For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:
"The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states
this is the Point, dear: Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.
Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
You are grasping at straws. The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an unorganized militia. BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.
The law does not require the militia to be organized. Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.
“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2
As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS.
Please open your eyes and read the cited cases. The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.
The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law. Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.
The law is about a well regulated militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army. And how did they intend to regulate the militia? Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?
Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.
Appeals to ignorance? I'm sorry. I did not realize you were ignorant. But, I held out hope you could learn.
Natural Rights exist without Due Process. For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:
"The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states
LOLOf course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:
1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and
2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
The de facto government maintains that we have a "Living Constitution" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.
No it does not.
I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar. You are here, as usual to troll me. You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.
I'm not playing your childish game on this thread. If you have something to say, say it.
You poor thing, bless your heart. Why do you blame me for your ignorance?
The Constitution itself backs me up. It contains the language required to alter it, rendering it a living Constitution.
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
You're welcome for the free education.
