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

[Humorme]

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.

What in the Hell is wrong with you? Did you eat a bowl of stupid? Get your head out of your ass and quit repeating the same thing over and over. Provide something besides a silly ass circular argument that is not supported in history or law.

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution. The RIGHT to keep and bear Arms existed before the Constitution and is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence

2) Forget the Constitution. You don't need the Second Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. The RIGHT exists without it

3) The word "secure" as it relates to state governments simply means to insure the RIGHT.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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

 

[danielpalos]

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.

What in the Hell is wrong with you? Did you eat a bowl of stupid? Get your head out of your ass and quit repeating the same thing over and over. Provide something besides a silly ass circular argument that is not supported in history or law.

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution. The RIGHT to keep and bear Arms existed before the Constitution and is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence

2) Forget the Constitution. You don't need the Second Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. The RIGHT exists without it

3) The word "secure" as it relates to state governments simply means to insure the RIGHT.

The concept of natural rights predates our Constitutions. Concepts may or may not be enforcible in a open court; or applied consistently without recourse to social justice.

 

[Humorme]

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.

What in the Hell is wrong with you? Did you eat a bowl of stupid? Get your head out of your ass and quit repeating the same thing over and over. Provide something besides a silly ass circular argument that is not supported in history or law.

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution. The RIGHT to keep and bear Arms existed before the Constitution and is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence

2) Forget the Constitution. You don't need the Second Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. The RIGHT exists without it

3) The word "secure" as it relates to state governments simply means to insure the RIGHT.

The concept of natural rights predates our Constitutions. Concepts may or may not be enforcible in a open court; or applied consistently without recourse to social justice.

What in the Hell is wrong with you? Did you eat a bowl of stupid? Get your head out of your ass and quit repeating the same thing over and over. Provide something besides a silly ass circular argument that is not supported in history or law.

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution. The RIGHT to keep and bear Arms existed before the Constitution and is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence

2) Forget the Constitution. You don't need the Second Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. The RIGHT exists without it

3) The word "secure" as it relates to state governments simply means to insure the RIGHT.

If you are going to post the same nonsensical posts over and over, I'm going to keep giving you the same response over and over.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

What in the Hell is wrong with you? Did you eat a bowl of stupid? Get your head out of your ass and quit repeating the same thing over and over. Provide something besides a silly ass circular argument that is not supported in history or law.

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution. The RIGHT to keep and bear Arms existed before the Constitution and is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence

2) Forget the Constitution. You don't need the Second Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. The RIGHT exists without it

3) The word "secure" as it relates to state governments simply means to insure the RIGHT.

The concept of natural rights predates our Constitutions. Concepts may or may not be enforcible in a open court; or applied consistently without recourse to social justice.

What in the Hell is wrong with you? Did you eat a bowl of stupid? Get your head out of your ass and quit repeating the same thing over and over. Provide something besides a silly ass circular argument that is not supported in history or law.

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution. The RIGHT to keep and bear Arms existed before the Constitution and is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence

2) Forget the Constitution. You don't need the Second Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. The RIGHT exists without it

3) The word "secure" as it relates to state governments simply means to insure the RIGHT.

If you are going to post the same nonsensical posts over and over, I'm going to keep giving you the same response over and over.

Concepts may or may not be enforcible in a open court; or applied consistently without recourse to social justice.

 

[Humorme]

For the benefit of other posters:

danielpalos has been trying to sell nonsense for a number of years. His arguments try to hijack gun threads without making a relevant point... or any point for that matter.

Each of you go to the bathroom every day and take a dump without a license from the government; without anybody's permission; without worrying about "due process" or anything else. Ditto for when you buy a book, join a church, criticize your elected leaders, own a firearm, or buy a house.

There is no "due process" involved in the normal course of business. Due Process comes into play when crimes are committed or maybe someone is trying to circumvent your Rights.

The entire Bill of Rights is a limitation on government. Owning, bearing and using a firearm is not related to the Second Amendment, except to the extent that the government is prohibited from infringing upon your Rights.

State governments through their courts have ruled on the Right to keep and bear Arms. It's perfectly legal to own a firearm for your personal use, safety, and to preserve your Freedoms and Liberties. When danielpalos tries to claim your rights are secured by state constitutions, he seems to be implying that the state grants you a right... they most assuredly do not.

The governor in your state can call up the militia in an emergency and that force constitutes all those citizens who have firearms and answer the call. But, that power in no way, shape, fashion, or form involves denying the individual the Right to keep and bear Arms. It's a separate issue. YOU AND YOU ALONE "SECURE" THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS(AS DANIELPALOS USES THE TERM) IF / WHEN TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENTS SEEK TO DISARM YOU.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't know what you are talking; you cannot exclude the concept of social justice, in our Republic.

 

[Humorme]

You don't know what you are talking; you cannot exclude the concept of social justice, in our Republic.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Social justice don't have squat to do with unalienable Rights.

EVERYTHING you've been talking about is related to crimes and torts, not Rights. You've always had one problem. You post the same nonsensical shit over and over and over and over and over and over... AND NONE OF IT ADDRESS THE ISSUES AT HAND!!!!!

Fact is, you've never made a post that was relevant to the gun control debate. You keep yapping about something not related to the infringements on gun owners as if there is something people can take away from it. Your feeble ass attempt to conflate unrelated issues and create strawmen while creating imaginary issues to pit your strawmen against doesn't fool anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size.

Pretending to act as if I made some objection to your imaginary issues is a joke; it's a waste of bandwidth; it insults the intelligence of your fellow posters and most of them can see that you have no factual information and relevant opinions to share.

The government has no business interfering with the Second Amendment Rights of gun owners and today's takeaway is simply this:

Tomorrow, shipping of the slide fire stocks resumes and those who want one before round two of this saga gets under way will be buying them. So, all of your irrelevant jibber jabber was all for naught.

 

[danielpalos]

Social justice has to do with our evolving civil rights. You are simply clueless and Causeless.

 

[Humorme]

Social justice has to do with our evolving civil rights. You are simply clueless and Causeless.

Back to your old worn out canard I see. If anyone is clueless, it is definitely YOU.

Social justice don't have squat to do with your Rights.

Social justice is defined as followed:

"a state or doctrine of egalitarianism"

Definition of SOCIAL JUSTICE

Egalitarianism is "a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
:a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.

NONE OF THAT IS RELATIVE TO YOUR INHERENT, ABSOLUTE, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, NATURAL RIGHTS EXCEPT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS AGREED TO PROTECT THEM.

 

[Humorme]

For the benefit of other posters:

danielpalos has been trying to sell nonsense for a number of years. His arguments try to hijack gun threads without making a relevant point... or any point for that matter.

Each of you go to the bathroom every day and take a dump without a license from the government; without anybody's permission; without worrying about "due process" or anything else. Ditto for when you buy a book, join a church, criticize your elected leaders, own a firearm, or buy a house.

There is no "due process" involved in the normal course of business. Due Process comes into play when crimes are committed or maybe someone is trying to circumvent your Rights.

The entire Bill of Rights is a limitation on government. Owning, bearing and using a firearm is not related to the Second Amendment, except to the extent that the government is prohibited from infringing upon your Rights.

State governments through their courts have ruled on the Right to keep and bear Arms. It's perfectly legal to own a firearm for your personal use, safety, and to preserve your Freedoms and Liberties. When danielpalos tries to claim your rights are secured by state constitutions, he seems to be implying that the state grants you a right... they most assuredly do not.

The governor in your state can call up the militia in an emergency and that force constitutes all those citizens who have firearms and answer the call. But, that power in no way, shape, fashion, or form involves denying the individual the Right to keep and bear Arms. It's a separate issue. YOU AND YOU ALONE "SECURE" THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS(AS DANIELPALOS USES THE TERM) IF / WHEN TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENTS SEEK TO DISARM YOU.

If the board troll is going to keep repeating the same post over and over, so can I.

 

[danielpalos]

Social justice has to do with our evolving civil rights. You are simply clueless and Causeless.

Back to your old worn out canard I see. If anyone is clueless, it is definitely YOU.

Social justice don't have squat to do with your Rights.

Social justice is defined as followed:

"a state or doctrine of egalitarianism"

Definition of SOCIAL JUSTICE

Egalitarianism is "a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
:a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.

NONE OF THAT IS RELATIVE TO YOUR INHERENT, ABSOLUTE, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, NATURAL RIGHTS EXCEPT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS AGREED TO PROTECT THEM.

Social justice has to do with our evolving civil rights. You are simply clueless and Causeless.

 

[danielpalos]

For the benefit of other posters:

danielpalos has been trying to sell nonsense for a number of years. His arguments try to hijack gun threads without making a relevant point... or any point for that matter.

Each of you go to the bathroom every day and take a dump without a license from the government; without anybody's permission; without worrying about "due process" or anything else. Ditto for when you buy a book, join a church, criticize your elected leaders, own a firearm, or buy a house.

There is no "due process" involved in the normal course of business. Due Process comes into play when crimes are committed or maybe someone is trying to circumvent your Rights.

The entire Bill of Rights is a limitation on government. Owning, bearing and using a firearm is not related to the Second Amendment, except to the extent that the government is prohibited from infringing upon your Rights.

State governments through their courts have ruled on the Right to keep and bear Arms. It's perfectly legal to own a firearm for your personal use, safety, and to preserve your Freedoms and Liberties. When danielpalos tries to claim your rights are secured by state constitutions, he seems to be implying that the state grants you a right... they most assuredly do not.

The governor in your state can call up the militia in an emergency and that force constitutes all those citizens who have firearms and answer the call. But, that power in no way, shape, fashion, or form involves denying the individual the Right to keep and bear Arms. It's a separate issue. YOU AND YOU ALONE "SECURE" THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS(AS DANIELPALOS USES THE TERM) IF / WHEN TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENTS SEEK TO DISARM YOU.

If the board troll is going to keep repeating the same post over and over, so can I.

The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed as a result.

There is no such protection for the unorganized militia.

 

[Humorme]

For the benefit of other posters:

danielpalos has been trying to sell nonsense for a number of years. His arguments try to hijack gun threads without making a relevant point... or any point for that matter.

Each of you go to the bathroom every day and take a dump without a license from the government; without anybody's permission; without worrying about "due process" or anything else. Ditto for when you buy a book, join a church, criticize your elected leaders, own a firearm, or buy a house.

There is no "due process" involved in the normal course of business. Due Process comes into play when crimes are committed or maybe someone is trying to circumvent your Rights.

The entire Bill of Rights is a limitation on government. Owning, bearing and using a firearm is not related to the Second Amendment, except to the extent that the government is prohibited from infringing upon your Rights.

State governments through their courts have ruled on the Right to keep and bear Arms. It's perfectly legal to own a firearm for your personal use, safety, and to preserve your Freedoms and Liberties. When danielpalos tries to claim your rights are secured by state constitutions, he seems to be implying that the state grants you a right... they most assuredly do not.

The governor in your state can call up the militia in an emergency and that force constitutes all those citizens who have firearms and answer the call. But, that power in no way, shape, fashion, or form involves denying the individual the Right to keep and bear Arms. It's a separate issue. YOU AND YOU ALONE "SECURE" THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS(AS DANIELPALOS USES THE TERM) IF / WHEN TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENTS SEEK TO DISARM YOU.

If the board troll is going to keep repeating the same post over and over, so can I.

The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed as a result.

There is no such protection for the unorganized militia.

danielpalos,

You talk in a vocabulary that only you understand. You've preached the same nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit to the point that most people don't want to communicate with you in any way, shape, fashion, or form..

The unorganized militia needs no "protection" from the government. You seem to be the only person on the entire Internet that does not understand the basics of American Civics 101. Government does not grant Rights.

Having read your idiocy for a number of years, I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot and have you explain to us what YOUR cause is. You like telling people how clueless and causeless they are - as if you're the only swinging Richard on the face of the earth competent enough to tell others what they believe in.

What is it YOU believe in? Do you think that government grants you your Rights and you are beholden to them? Do you really think that one must worship the government? If you're going to judge everybody on this earth and claim that you're some kind of God (albeit indirectly) "clue" us all in on the Holy Word according to danielpalos.

 

[danielpalos]

just right wing legal fantasy, right winger?

Only one subset of the militia is necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed for that purpose.

 

[Humorme]

1 - The people have a Right to keep and bear Arms

2 - The Right to keep and bear Arms is NOT a Right granted by the Constitution, according to the United States Supreme Court

3 - The whole people, not just the military constitute the militia according to more court rulings than I can cite

4 - The unorganized militia is composed of every able bodied person NOT in the regular militia who declares their intent to be in the militia

5 - Whether you are in the militia or not, you have a constitutionally guaranteed Right to keep and bear Arms

6 - At the STATE level, the states have ruled that the Right is above the law; that it absolute; that you don't even have to be in the militia in order to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms

7 - If you have a firearm and the country needs you as a last line of defense and / or to prevent tyranny in government, you have the Right to keep and bear Arms AND a Right, Duty, and Obligation to defend the country and our Freedoms / Liberties

8 - You need not be in the militia to own a firearm

9 - Since military style firearms are the the tools most used to insure the security of a FREE STATE, they are the most protected FIREARMS

10 - Having an unqualified Right to keep and bear Arms, the whole bogus argument regarding the myth that states secure your Rights is unfounded and without any proof.

 

[Humorme]

just right wing legal fantasy, right winger?

Only one subset of the militia is necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed for that purpose.

Quit pecking your keyboard you flaming communist and answer the freaking questions:

You talk in a vocabulary that only you understand. You've preached the same nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit to the point that most people don't want to communicate with you in any way, shape, fashion, or form..

The unorganized militia needs no "protection" from the government. You seem to be the only person on the entire Internet that does not understand the basics of American Civics 101. Government does not grant Rights.

Having read your idiocy for a number of years, I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot and have you explain to us what YOUR cause is. You like telling people how clueless and causeless they are - as if you're the only swinging Richard on the face of the earth competent enough to tell others what they believe in.

What is it YOU believe in? Do you think that government grants you your Rights and you are beholden to them? Do you really think that one must worship the government? If you're going to judge everybody on this earth and claim that you're some kind of God (albeit indirectly) "clue" us all in on the Holy Word according to danielpalos.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia.

States have State militias and State militias have commanders in chief of the militia of the State, not just the organized, State militia.

 

[Humorme]

The People are the Militia.

States have State militias and State militias have commanders in chief of the militia of the State, not just the organized, State militia.

Let me ask you again:

You talk in a vocabulary that only you understand. You've preached the same nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit to the point that most people don't want to communicate with you in any way, shape, fashion, or form..

The unorganized militia needs no "protection" from the government. You seem to be the only person on the entire Internet that does not understand the basics of American Civics 101. Government does not grant Rights.

Having read your idiocy for a number of years, I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot and have you explain to us what YOUR cause is. You like telling people how clueless and causeless they are - as if you're the only swinging Richard on the face of the earth competent enough to tell others what they believe in.

What is it YOU believe in? Do you think that government grants you your Rights and you are beholden to them? Do you really think that one must worship the government? If you're going to judge everybody on this earth and claim that you're some kind of God (albeit indirectly) "clue" us all in on the Holy Word according to danielpalos.

You shouldn't try bullshitting the people on this thread. I belong to the oldest and most continuous state militia in the United States... and have three decades of service under my belt. You don't know what you're talking about.

What you just said is absolute nonsense. It makes zero sense whether you have three decades of militia experience or never heard of one.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about the security of a free State.

States have State militias and State militias have commanders in chief of the militia of the State, not just the organized, State militia.