2nd Amendment should not be infringed upon because of Las Vegas shooter.

[danielpalos]

Two of the greatest board trolls on the Internet have now entered this thread. If we are to be subjected to the insanity of faun and danielpalos, this thread is done. Maybe they can hook up and be happy we were able to introduce them.

At the end of the day, nothing has changed. As John Adams, second president of the United States, stated:

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed.”

In law, the terminology of natural rights (sic), unalienable Rights, absolute, inherent, and God given are all synonymous. Under the de jure / lawful / constitutional interpretation of our Constitution you have Rights that are above the government's law making power. You are not required to give up those Rights and if the government expects that, you have a Duty, an Obligation, and the Right to rebel against tyranny in government. That is the bottom line.

You have to give up some natural rights to give that power to government. We have a Constitution for that.

Unalienable Rights cannot be forfeited. That is the whole meaning of the word. Government cannot take away certain Rights and you have no authority to give them up. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that unalienable, inherent, natural and absolute are all the same thing.

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".

You out of your mind.

"."But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance. Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.

The founding fathers taught by example. Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?

 

[danielpalos]

this is the Point, dear: Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

First off, I'm not your dear. You need to hook up with that faggot, faun and have yourself a good old time.

Secondly, YOU are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment. You need to learn how to read.

I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you. The Right exists with or without the Constitution. The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does not grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it. The militia is what is subject to regulation, NOT the Right to keep and bear Arms.

Thank you for admitting natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural Rights don't have to be covered by the Second Amendment. You already have the Rights. All the Bill of Rights does is limit what government can do to the individual.

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You've already been proven wrong once before. There is NO due process involved if you want to exercise a constitutional guarantee.

You don't have to go and petition courts in order to join a church

You have not proven anything. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment. Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[Humorme]

Two of the greatest board trolls on the Internet have now entered this thread. If we are to be subjected to the insanity of faun and danielpalos, this thread is done. Maybe they can hook up and be happy we were able to introduce them.

At the end of the day, nothing has changed. As John Adams, second president of the United States, stated:

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed.”

In law, the terminology of natural rights (sic), unalienable Rights, absolute, inherent, and God given are all synonymous. Under the de jure / lawful / constitutional interpretation of our Constitution you have Rights that are above the government's law making power. You are not required to give up those Rights and if the government expects that, you have a Duty, an Obligation, and the Right to rebel against tyranny in government. That is the bottom line.

You have to give up some natural rights to give that power to government. We have a Constitution for that.

Unalienable Rights cannot be forfeited. That is the whole meaning of the word. Government cannot take away certain Rights and you have no authority to give them up. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that unalienable, inherent, natural and absolute are all the same thing.

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".

You out of your mind.

"."But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance. Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.

The founding fathers taught by example. Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?

What is your point? You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc. You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them. Due Process doesn't come into play unless you misuse your Rights or are denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint.

You are talking irrelevant nonsense.

Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved. You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.

 

[danielpalos]

You have to give up some natural rights to give that power to government. We have a Constitution for that.

Unalienable Rights cannot be forfeited. That is the whole meaning of the word. Government cannot take away certain Rights and you have no authority to give them up. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that unalienable, inherent, natural and absolute are all the same thing.

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".

You out of your mind.

"."But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance. Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.

The founding fathers taught by example. Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?

What is your point? You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc. You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them. Due Process doesn't come into play unless you misuse your Rights or are denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint.

You are talking irrelevant nonsense.

Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved. You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.

The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.

And,

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Humorme]

First off, I'm not your dear. You need to hook up with that faggot, faun and have yourself a good old time.

Secondly, YOU are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment. You need to learn how to read.

I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you. The Right exists with or without the Constitution. The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does not grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it. The militia is what is subject to regulation, NOT the Right to keep and bear Arms.

Thank you for admitting natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural Rights don't have to be covered by the Second Amendment. You already have the Rights. All the Bill of Rights does is limit what government can do to the individual.

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You've already been proven wrong once before. There is NO due process involved if you want to exercise a constitutional guarantee.

You don't have to go and petition courts in order to join a church

You have not proven anything. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment. Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

I have proven, from court decisions all the way up to the United States Supreme Court that the Right to keep and bear Arms existed before the ratification of the Second Amendment; that it is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence; that you have an inherent Right to own firearms.

You are the one who has proven nothing. You keep yapping about state constitutions. Well, let us take one and see how the courts ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed 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 (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power.

The argument advanced against the constitutionality of this law is, that any discrimination made by the legislature, in punishing the abuse of this right, in regard to a particular weapon, is an impairing of the right of its lawful use."

Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

The courts clearly and unequivocally disagree with the snake oil you keep trying to sell. NOBODY, not even on your own side, is buying whatever you're selling - unless they just don't understand. And, to add insult to injury, you have not been able to produce one, single, solitary fact from ANY source to back up your claims with.

 

[Humorme]

Unalienable Rights cannot be forfeited. That is the whole meaning of the word. Government cannot take away certain Rights and you have no authority to give them up. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that unalienable, inherent, natural and absolute are all the same thing.

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".

You out of your mind.

"."But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance. Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.

The founding fathers taught by example. Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?

What is your point? You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc. You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them. Due Process doesn't come into play unless you misuse your Rights or are denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint.

You are talking irrelevant nonsense.

Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved. You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.

The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.

And,

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

People always have a Right to rebel against tyranny.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

 

[danielpalos]

Thank you for admitting natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural Rights don't have to be covered by the Second Amendment. You already have the Rights. All the Bill of Rights does is limit what government can do to the individual.

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You've already been proven wrong once before. There is NO due process involved if you want to exercise a constitutional guarantee.

You don't have to go and petition courts in order to join a church

You have not proven anything. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment. Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

I have proven, from court decisions all the way up to the United States Supreme Court that the Right to keep and bear Arms existed before the ratification of the Second Amendment; that it is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence; that you have an inherent Right to own firearms.

You are the one who has proven nothing. You keep yapping about state constitutions. Well, let us take one and see how the courts ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed 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 (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power.

The argument advanced against the constitutionality of this law is, that any discrimination made by the legislature, in punishing the abuse of this right, in regard to a particular weapon, is an impairing of the right of its lawful use."

Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

The courts clearly and unequivocally disagree with the snake oil you keep trying to sell. NOBODY, not even on your own side, is buying whatever you're selling - unless they just don't understand. And, to add insult to injury, you have not been able to produce one, single, solitary fact from ANY source to back up your claims with.

I keep forgetting you are on the right wing; let's try to keep it simpler.

The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".

You out of your mind.

"."But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance. Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.

The founding fathers taught by example. Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?

What is your point? You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc. You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them. Due Process doesn't come into play unless you misuse your Rights or are denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint.

You are talking irrelevant nonsense.

Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved. You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.

The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.

And,

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

People always have a Right to rebel against tyranny.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

No, you don't. You have to exhaust all legals means, not take "matters into your own hands".

The militia exists to protect Government.

 

[Faun]

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".

You out of your mind.

"."But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance. Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.

The founding fathers taught by example. Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?

What is your point? You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc. You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them. Due Process doesn't come into play unless you misuse your Rights or are denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint.

You are talking irrelevant nonsense.

Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved. You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.

The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.

And,

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

People always have a Right to rebel against tyranny.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

There was no tyranny.

 

[Humorme]

Natural Rights don't have to be covered by the Second Amendment. You already have the Rights. All the Bill of Rights does is limit what government can do to the individual.

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You've already been proven wrong once before. There is NO due process involved if you want to exercise a constitutional guarantee.

You don't have to go and petition courts in order to join a church

You have not proven anything. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment. Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

I have proven, from court decisions all the way up to the United States Supreme Court that the Right to keep and bear Arms existed before the ratification of the Second Amendment; that it is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence; that you have an inherent Right to own firearms.

You are the one who has proven nothing. You keep yapping about state constitutions. Well, let us take one and see how the courts ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed 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 (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power.

The argument advanced against the constitutionality of this law is, that any discrimination made by the legislature, in punishing the abuse of this right, in regard to a particular weapon, is an impairing of the right of its lawful use."

Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

The courts clearly and unequivocally disagree with the snake oil you keep trying to sell. NOBODY, not even on your own side, is buying whatever you're selling - unless they just don't understand. And, to add insult to injury, you have not been able to produce one, single, solitary fact from ANY source to back up your claims with.

I keep forgetting you are on the right wing; let's try to keep it simpler.

The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.

When a tyrannical government is shooting and enslaving people, the First Amendment is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.

I'm not on the right or the left. I'm me.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You've already been proven wrong once before. There is NO due process involved if you want to exercise a constitutional guarantee.

You don't have to go and petition courts in order to join a church

You have not proven anything. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment. Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

I have proven, from court decisions all the way up to the United States Supreme Court that the Right to keep and bear Arms existed before the ratification of the Second Amendment; that it is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence; that you have an inherent Right to own firearms.

You are the one who has proven nothing. You keep yapping about state constitutions. Well, let us take one and see how the courts ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed 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 (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power.

The argument advanced against the constitutionality of this law is, that any discrimination made by the legislature, in punishing the abuse of this right, in regard to a particular weapon, is an impairing of the right of its lawful use."

Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

The courts clearly and unequivocally disagree with the snake oil you keep trying to sell. NOBODY, not even on your own side, is buying whatever you're selling - unless they just don't understand. And, to add insult to injury, you have not been able to produce one, single, solitary fact from ANY source to back up your claims with.

I keep forgetting you are on the right wing; let's try to keep it simpler.

The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.

When a tyrannical government is shooting and enslaving people, the First Amendment is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.

I'm not on the right or the left. I'm me.

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[justinacolmena]

Are you on the right wing?

No. Advocating for and insisting on rights for LGBT and other minorities does not under any circumstances put me "on the right wing" of politics in America.

The right to bear arms is a right.

Therefore it is lawful to bear arms in the United States.

To make or enforce any law against bearing arms is to infringe on a right which under the supreme law of the land "shall not be infringed." The Constitution of the United States, including its duly ratified amendments, is the supreme law of the land in the United States. It really is that simple.

The classes of persons prohibited from bearing arms are overwhelmingly composed of minority citizens.

Persons arbitrarily considered "felons" or "dishonorable" -- without any adequate standard of due process of law -- the "mentally ill" -- again, without due process of law, and then there are those, in practice always men, subject to the whole slew of allegations generally made by women, those accused of wife-beating misdemeanors, or under one or another of the various sorts of civil restraining order or no-contact order or protective order from some bitch or whore; again, without any adequate standard of due process of law.

I'm not going to sit here and go off about "men's rights" or anything like that: it's just that the right to bear arms is sometimes seen as stereotypically "masculine" and owning a gun is symbolic of manhood to some men. Don't get me wrong: plenty of women and girls own firearms; it's just that mainly men are being deprived of that right in what is really a frontal assault on American masculinity, (the mandatory circumcision of boys at birth being part of that.)

After all, over 90% of U.S. prisoners are men, according to B.O.P.

BOP Statistics: Inmate Gender

The inescapable conclusion from this is that the police forces in the United States are Philistines, and that they are cutting hair and putting out eyes. I can only refer to the Holy Scripture on that.

JUDGES CHAPTER 16 KJV

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.)

"Subject only to the police power?" Ha, ha. Goodness no, they wouldn't take away Al Capone's right to possess firearms, now, would they?

 

[Humorme]

You out of your mind.

"."But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance. Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.

The founding fathers taught by example. Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?

What is your point? You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc. You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them. Due Process doesn't come into play unless you misuse your Rights or are denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint.

You are talking irrelevant nonsense.

Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved. You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.

The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.

And,

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

People always have a Right to rebel against tyranny.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

No, you don't. You have to exhaust all legals means, not take "matters into your own hands".

The militia exists to protect Government.

You have to exhaust all nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. But, a free people are never required to submit to a yoke of tyranny.

THAT is one of the foundational principles upon which this Republic was founded.

Why does the militia exist? Who should I rely on? Founding fathers who participated in articulating the Right OR danielpalos?

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” Richard Henry Lee American Statesman, 1788

“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” — Tench Coxe, An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” Tench Coxe — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” Noah Webster — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” Alexander Hamilton— The Federalist, No. 29

“What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” — Elbridge Gerry Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

 

[Humorme]

You've already been proven wrong once before. There is NO due process involved if you want to exercise a constitutional guarantee.

You don't have to go and petition courts in order to join a church

You have not proven anything. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment. Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

I have proven, from court decisions all the way up to the United States Supreme Court that the Right to keep and bear Arms existed before the ratification of the Second Amendment; that it is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence; that you have an inherent Right to own firearms.

You are the one who has proven nothing. You keep yapping about state constitutions. Well, let us take one and see how the courts ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed 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 (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power.

The argument advanced against the constitutionality of this law is, that any discrimination made by the legislature, in punishing the abuse of this right, in regard to a particular weapon, is an impairing of the right of its lawful use."

Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

The courts clearly and unequivocally disagree with the snake oil you keep trying to sell. NOBODY, not even on your own side, is buying whatever you're selling - unless they just don't understand. And, to add insult to injury, you have not been able to produce one, single, solitary fact from ANY source to back up your claims with.

I keep forgetting you are on the right wing; let's try to keep it simpler.

The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.

When a tyrannical government is shooting and enslaving people, the First Amendment is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.

I'm not on the right or the left. I'm me.

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia is necessary to insure the security of a free state... but, the Right to keep and bear Arms already existed. The government has a vested interest in guaranteeing the Right; however, the Right exists even without the Second Amendment and it is above the law.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you on the right wing?

No. Advocating for and insisting on rights for LGBT and other minorities does not under any circumstances put me "on the right wing" of politics in America.

The right to bear arms is a right.

Therefore it is lawful to bear arms in the United States.

To make or enforce any law against bearing arms is to infringe on a right which under the supreme law of the land "shall not be infringed." The Constitution of the United States, including its duly ratified amendments, is the supreme law of the land in the United States. It really is that simple.

The classes of persons prohibited from bearing arms are overwhelmingly composed of minority citizens.

Persons arbitrarily considered "felons" or "dishonorable" -- without any adequate standard of due process of law -- the "mentally ill" -- again, without due process of law, and then there are those, in practice always men, subject to the whole slew of allegations generally made by women, those accused of wife-beating misdemeanors, or under one or another of the various sorts of civil restraining order or no-contact order or protective order from some bitch or whore; again, without any adequate standard of due process of law.

I'm not going to sit here and go off about "men's rights" or anything like that: it's just that the right to bear arms is sometimes seen as stereotypically "masculine" and owning a gun is symbolic of manhood to some men. Don't get me wrong: plenty of women and girls own firearms; it's just that mainly men are being deprived of that right in what is really a frontal assault on American masculinity, (the mandatory circumcision of boys at birth being part of that.)

After all, over 90% of U.S. prisoners are men, according to B.O.P.

BOP Statistics: Inmate Gender

The inescapable conclusion from this is that the police forces in the United States are Philistines, and that they are cutting hair and putting out eyes. I can only refer to the Holy Scripture on that.

JUDGES CHAPTER 16 KJV

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.)

"Subject only to the police power?" Ha, ha. Goodness no, they wouldn't take away Al Capone's right to possess firearms, now, would they?

Nothing but a wall of text? Nothing you posted is relevant.

Natural rights have nothing to do with out Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?

What is your point? You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc. You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them. Due Process doesn't come into play unless you misuse your Rights or are denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint.

You are talking irrelevant nonsense.

Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved. You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.

The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.

And,

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

People always have a Right to rebel against tyranny.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

No, you don't. You have to exhaust all legals means, not take "matters into your own hands".

The militia exists to protect Government.

You have to exhaust all nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. But, a free people are never required to submit to a yoke of tyranny.

THAT is one of the foundational principles upon which this Republic was founded.

Why does the militia exist? Who should I rely on? Founding fathers who participated in articulating the Right OR danielpalos?

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” Richard Henry Lee American Statesman, 1788

“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” — Tench Coxe, An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” Tench Coxe — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” Noah Webster — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” Alexander Hamilton— The Federalist, No. 29

“What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” — Elbridge Gerry Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

We have well regulated militia that are armed at all times.

 

[danielpalos]

You have not proven anything. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment. Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

I have proven, from court decisions all the way up to the United States Supreme Court that the Right to keep and bear Arms existed before the ratification of the Second Amendment; that it is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence; that you have an inherent Right to own firearms.

You are the one who has proven nothing. You keep yapping about state constitutions. Well, let us take one and see how the courts ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed 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 (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power.

The argument advanced against the constitutionality of this law is, that any discrimination made by the legislature, in punishing the abuse of this right, in regard to a particular weapon, is an impairing of the right of its lawful use."

Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

The courts clearly and unequivocally disagree with the snake oil you keep trying to sell. NOBODY, not even on your own side, is buying whatever you're selling - unless they just don't understand. And, to add insult to injury, you have not been able to produce one, single, solitary fact from ANY source to back up your claims with.

I keep forgetting you are on the right wing; let's try to keep it simpler.

The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.

When a tyrannical government is shooting and enslaving people, the First Amendment is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.

I'm not on the right or the left. I'm me.

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia is necessary to insure the security of a free state... but, the Right to keep and bear Arms already existed. The government has a vested interest in guaranteeing the Right; however, the Right exists even without the Second Amendment and it is above the law.

No, it didn't. The right to acquire and possess already existed and is recognized in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[Humorme]

Are you on the right wing?

No. Advocating for and insisting on rights for LGBT and other minorities does not under any circumstances put me "on the right wing" of politics in America.

The right to bear arms is a right.

Therefore it is lawful to bear arms in the United States.

To make or enforce any law against bearing arms is to infringe on a right which under the supreme law of the land "shall not be infringed." The Constitution of the United States, including its duly ratified amendments, is the supreme law of the land in the United States. It really is that simple.

The classes of persons prohibited from bearing arms are overwhelmingly composed of minority citizens.

Persons arbitrarily considered "felons" or "dishonorable" -- without any adequate standard of due process of law -- the "mentally ill" -- again, without due process of law, and then there are those, in practice always men, subject to the whole slew of allegations generally made by women, those accused of wife-beating misdemeanors, or under one or another of the various sorts of civil restraining order or no-contact order or protective order from some bitch or whore; again, without any adequate standard of due process of law.

I'm not going to sit here and go off about "men's rights" or anything like that: it's just that the right to bear arms is sometimes seen as stereotypically "masculine" and owning a gun is symbolic of manhood to some men. Don't get me wrong: plenty of women and girls own firearms; it's just that mainly men are being deprived of that right in what is really a frontal assault on American masculinity, (the mandatory circumcision of boys at birth being part of that.)

After all, over 90% of U.S. prisoners are men, according to B.O.P.

BOP Statistics: Inmate Gender

The inescapable conclusion from this is that the police forces in the United States are Philistines, and that they are cutting hair and putting out eyes. I can only refer to the Holy Scripture on that.

JUDGES CHAPTER 16 KJV

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.)

"Subject only to the police power?" Ha, ha. Goodness no, they wouldn't take away Al Capone's right to possess firearms, now, would they?

Nothing but a wall of text? Nothing you posted is relevant.

Natural rights have nothing to do with out Second Amendment.

Just because you cannot read does not make the "walls of text" irrelevant. Criticisms without some form of proof is what is not relevant. YOU FAIL.

 

[Humorme]

What is your point? You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc. You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them. Due Process doesn't come into play unless you misuse your Rights or are denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint.

You are talking irrelevant nonsense.

Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved. You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.

The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.

And,

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

People always have a Right to rebel against tyranny.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

No, you don't. You have to exhaust all legals means, not take "matters into your own hands".

The militia exists to protect Government.

You have to exhaust all nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. But, a free people are never required to submit to a yoke of tyranny.

THAT is one of the foundational principles upon which this Republic was founded.

Why does the militia exist? Who should I rely on? Founding fathers who participated in articulating the Right OR danielpalos?

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” Richard Henry Lee American Statesman, 1788

“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” — Tench Coxe, An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” Tench Coxe — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” Noah Webster — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” Alexander Hamilton— The Federalist, No. 29

“What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” — Elbridge Gerry Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

We have well regulated militia that are armed at all times.

A well armed citizenry is the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you on the right wing?

No. Advocating for and insisting on rights for LGBT and other minorities does not under any circumstances put me "on the right wing" of politics in America.

The right to bear arms is a right.

Therefore it is lawful to bear arms in the United States.

To make or enforce any law against bearing arms is to infringe on a right which under the supreme law of the land "shall not be infringed." The Constitution of the United States, including its duly ratified amendments, is the supreme law of the land in the United States. It really is that simple.

The classes of persons prohibited from bearing arms are overwhelmingly composed of minority citizens.

Persons arbitrarily considered "felons" or "dishonorable" -- without any adequate standard of due process of law -- the "mentally ill" -- again, without due process of law, and then there are those, in practice always men, subject to the whole slew of allegations generally made by women, those accused of wife-beating misdemeanors, or under one or another of the various sorts of civil restraining order or no-contact order or protective order from some bitch or whore; again, without any adequate standard of due process of law.

I'm not going to sit here and go off about "men's rights" or anything like that: it's just that the right to bear arms is sometimes seen as stereotypically "masculine" and owning a gun is symbolic of manhood to some men. Don't get me wrong: plenty of women and girls own firearms; it's just that mainly men are being deprived of that right in what is really a frontal assault on American masculinity, (the mandatory circumcision of boys at birth being part of that.)

After all, over 90% of U.S. prisoners are men, according to B.O.P.

BOP Statistics: Inmate Gender

The inescapable conclusion from this is that the police forces in the United States are Philistines, and that they are cutting hair and putting out eyes. I can only refer to the Holy Scripture on that.

JUDGES CHAPTER 16 KJV

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.)

"Subject only to the police power?" Ha, ha. Goodness no, they wouldn't take away Al Capone's right to possess firearms, now, would they?

Nothing but a wall of text? Nothing you posted is relevant.

Natural rights have nothing to do with out Second Amendment.

Just because you cannot read does not make the "walls of text" irrelevant. Criticisms without some form of proof is what is not relevant. YOU FAIL.

Nothing you posted is relevant.

Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment.