Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I can tell you've NEVER been to court on this issue:

"Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights." Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You cannot surrender or forfeit an unalienable Right.

"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)

Cockrum does not make the point you are alleging.

Government cannot pass laws to infringe or impair in/unalienable rights.

All rights can be surrendered by consent. All rights can be forfeited by an individual through actions that infringe on the rights of others.

You're saying that no one can be jailed for beat the shit out of another?

You're NOT making the distinction you apparently believe.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I can tell you've NEVER been to court on this issue:

"Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights." Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You cannot surrender or forfeit an unalienable Right.

"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)

Cockrum does not make the point you are alleging.

Government cannot pass laws to infringe or impair in/unalienable rights.

All rights can be surrendered by consent.

You're NOT making the distinction you apparently believe.

.

Do you want a complete brief just so others will realize you're wrong? Let them check out the link AND it's internal links:

Stolen Rights

BTW, what did you do, read the first post in that link?

 

[Slade3200]

That’s another interesting point however when I see a situation like in Dayton... where a stoner bought body armor and a 100 round mag for his psycho buddy who shot nearly 40 people in 32 seconds... well that kind of weaponry is totally unnecessary and reckless to sell like that in my opinion. So y’all fighting to deregulate guns should probably hold your breath for a bit... at least wait for the blood to dry.

In the fantasy world of liberals citizens should not own guns. Let us suppose that a shooter was limited to a .357 revolver. And let us say that a shooter carries two of these .357 revolvers to a mass shooting and gets all 12 shots to be fatal. Would that be acceptable in the fight against gun violence?

The problem is NOT firearms. The problem is people. And most mass shooters are young kids - and they have sent warning signals for quite some time before committing an act of violence. It's strange, but nobody wants to talk about the prevention side of this discussion.

Ok so now you jump to the absolutist argument. How is that relevant at all to what I’ve been saying. I support gun rights so if you want to debate me then use my positions don’t bring in the straw man “Left” that’s weak

If you use a left wing argument, that is not my fault NOR is it a straw man argument. There are two approaches to the issue:

You can debate how many bullets a gun may hold - 5, 6, 20, 50, 100 rounds and it is a leftist argument. If a man had two .38 Special Charter Arms snub nose revolvers and killed 10 people, the left would rail against Saturday Night Specials. YOU are making a left wing argument. There isn't an acceptable number of people to be killed in a mass shooting. Sooooooo....

You can focus on what guns a person should or should not have (which you cannot control) OR you can put another idea on the table. That's what I did. I can reduce mass shootings by 90 percent without any more taxes, no more bureaucracies, and NO GUN CONTROL.

The powers that be didn't think up the idea and it don't fit on a bumper sticker or in a Tweet. So, you get to play the left's game, on their turf, and with their language.

OR you can decide not to play the absolutist one side or the other partisan games and simply think independently. Support gun rights and also support regulations that you think make us safer. You can also support external efforts in education and mental health care. #mindblown

Of course, Everyone has their own opinion on the subject.
But the fact remains, the system is not broken. Don’t fix what’s not broken.

Legislating on pure emotion, Always ends up as a shit storm of total foolishness and childish behavior.

The average American almost has zero chance of being killed by someone using an AR or the like firearm. And there are millions of ARs and the like in this country, What is the percentage of those being used in violent criminal activity… A percentage of a percentage tops.

This country has much bigger fish to fry

That’s a dumb statement... a car might still run but that doesn’t mean you don’t take it in for oil changes and tune ups. Our system might not be broken but it’s also not perfect and can always be improved

 

[Porter Rockwell]

In the fantasy world of liberals citizens should not own guns. Let us suppose that a shooter was limited to a .357 revolver. And let us say that a shooter carries two of these .357 revolvers to a mass shooting and gets all 12 shots to be fatal. Would that be acceptable in the fight against gun violence?

The problem is NOT firearms. The problem is people. And most mass shooters are young kids - and they have sent warning signals for quite some time before committing an act of violence. It's strange, but nobody wants to talk about the prevention side of this discussion.

Ok so now you jump to the absolutist argument. How is that relevant at all to what I’ve been saying. I support gun rights so if you want to debate me then use my positions don’t bring in the straw man “Left” that’s weak

If you use a left wing argument, that is not my fault NOR is it a straw man argument. There are two approaches to the issue:

You can debate how many bullets a gun may hold - 5, 6, 20, 50, 100 rounds and it is a leftist argument. If a man had two .38 Special Charter Arms snub nose revolvers and killed 10 people, the left would rail against Saturday Night Specials. YOU are making a left wing argument. There isn't an acceptable number of people to be killed in a mass shooting. Sooooooo....

You can focus on what guns a person should or should not have (which you cannot control) OR you can put another idea on the table. That's what I did. I can reduce mass shootings by 90 percent without any more taxes, no more bureaucracies, and NO GUN CONTROL.

The powers that be didn't think up the idea and it don't fit on a bumper sticker or in a Tweet. So, you get to play the left's game, on their turf, and with their language.

OR you can decide not to play the absolutist one side or the other partisan games and simply think independently. Support gun rights and also support regulations that you think make us safer. You can also support external efforts in education and mental health care. #mindblown

Of course, Everyone has their own opinion on the subject.
But the fact remains, the system is not broken. Don’t fix what’s not broken.

Legislating on pure emotion, Always ends up as a shit storm of total foolishness and childish behavior.

The average American almost has zero chance of being killed by someone using an AR or the like firearm. And there are millions of ARs and the like in this country, What is the percentage of those being used in violent criminal activity… A percentage of a percentage tops.

This country has much bigger fish to fry

That’s a dumb statement... a car might still run but that doesn’t mean you don’t take it in for oil changes and tune ups. Our system might not be broken but it’s also not perfect and can always be improved

Then pass an Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s another interesting point however when I see a situation like in Dayton... where a stoner bought body armor and a 100 round mag for his psycho buddy who shot nearly 40 people in 32 seconds... well that kind of weaponry is totally unnecessary and reckless to sell like that in my opinion. So y’all fighting to deregulate guns should probably hold your breath for a bit... at least wait for the blood to dry.

In the fantasy world of liberals citizens should not own guns. Let us suppose that a shooter was limited to a .357 revolver. And let us say that a shooter carries two of these .357 revolvers to a mass shooting and gets all 12 shots to be fatal. Would that be acceptable in the fight against gun violence?

The problem is NOT firearms. The problem is people. And most mass shooters are young kids - and they have sent warning signals for quite some time before committing an act of violence. It's strange, but nobody wants to talk about the prevention side of this discussion.

Ok so now you jump to the absolutist argument. How is that relevant at all to what I’ve been saying. I support gun rights so if you want to debate me then use my positions don’t bring in the straw man “Left” that’s weak

If you use a left wing argument, that is not my fault NOR is it a straw man argument. There are two approaches to the issue:

You can debate how many bullets a gun may hold - 5, 6, 20, 50, 100 rounds and it is a leftist argument. If a man had two .38 Special Charter Arms snub nose revolvers and killed 10 people, the left would rail against Saturday Night Specials. YOU are making a left wing argument. There isn't an acceptable number of people to be killed in a mass shooting. Sooooooo....

You can focus on what guns a person should or should not have (which you cannot control) OR you can put another idea on the table. That's what I did. I can reduce mass shootings by 90 percent without any more taxes, no more bureaucracies, and NO GUN CONTROL.

The powers that be didn't think up the idea and it don't fit on a bumper sticker or in a Tweet. So, you get to play the left's game, on their turf, and with their language.

OR you can decide not to play the absolutist one side or the other partisan games and simply think independently. Support gun rights and also support regulations that you think make us safer. You can also support external efforts in education and mental health care. #mindblown

LMAO. You ARE a leftie. Once they get the Red Flag Laws, they will take your weapons without Due Process and then a psychologist or psychiatrist will have to sign off on you getting a gun. Those people are to a man (or woman) anti-gun and your gun Rights are history once you get in their back yard.

With the Republicans cow towing to the left (like you) this is NOT a partisan issue. The only regulations to make us safer is to identify potential shooters before they act and get them the help they need OR keep them in protective custody.

I don’t really care what you call me. I have many liberal views I also have many conservative views. What I don’t do is play the partisan fear tactic games that you like to play. You hate government and think they are going to take your guns. Fine. You are free to live with that paranoia and fight against the man. I don’t see it that way.

 

[Slade3200]

Ok so now you jump to the absolutist argument. How is that relevant at all to what I’ve been saying. I support gun rights so if you want to debate me then use my positions don’t bring in the straw man “Left” that’s weak

If you use a left wing argument, that is not my fault NOR is it a straw man argument. There are two approaches to the issue:

You can debate how many bullets a gun may hold - 5, 6, 20, 50, 100 rounds and it is a leftist argument. If a man had two .38 Special Charter Arms snub nose revolvers and killed 10 people, the left would rail against Saturday Night Specials. YOU are making a left wing argument. There isn't an acceptable number of people to be killed in a mass shooting. Sooooooo....

You can focus on what guns a person should or should not have (which you cannot control) OR you can put another idea on the table. That's what I did. I can reduce mass shootings by 90 percent without any more taxes, no more bureaucracies, and NO GUN CONTROL.

The powers that be didn't think up the idea and it don't fit on a bumper sticker or in a Tweet. So, you get to play the left's game, on their turf, and with their language.

OR you can decide not to play the absolutist one side or the other partisan games and simply think independently. Support gun rights and also support regulations that you think make us safer. You can also support external efforts in education and mental health care. #mindblown

Of course, Everyone has their own opinion on the subject.
But the fact remains, the system is not broken. Don’t fix what’s not broken.

Legislating on pure emotion, Always ends up as a shit storm of total foolishness and childish behavior.

The average American almost has zero chance of being killed by someone using an AR or the like firearm. And there are millions of ARs and the like in this country, What is the percentage of those being used in violent criminal activity… A percentage of a percentage tops.

This country has much bigger fish to fry

That’s a dumb statement... a car might still run but that doesn’t mean you don’t take it in for oil changes and tune ups. Our system might not be broken but it’s also not perfect and can always be improved

Then pass an Amendment to the Constitution.

I don’t think that’s necessary. I think our lawmakers have the right to pass laws that they feel benefit the people and I believe opposers have the right to challenge those laws in the Supreme Court. That’s how the constitution defines our process.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I can tell you've NEVER been to court on this issue:

"Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights." Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You cannot surrender or forfeit an unalienable Right.

"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)

Cockrum does not make the point you are alleging.

Government cannot pass laws to infringe or impair in/unalienable rights.

All rights can be surrendered by consent.

You're NOT making the distinction you apparently believe.

.

Do you want a complete brief just so others will realize you're wrong? Let them check out the link AND it's internal links:

Stolen Rights

BTW, what did you do, read the first post in that link?

I looked at the whole thing.

NOWHERE do they provide a case that distinguishes inalienable from unalienable.

The only thing they provide is that Morrison case that, by implication, says inalienable rights can be surrendered or transferred with consent. It apparently makes no distinction between inalienable and unalienable.

Those apparently-untrained legal "experts" are reading in a distinction that was never made.

Just because government cannot pass laws infringing on "unalienable" rights, does not mean those rights cannot be surrendered or transferred by consent.

Show me the case distinguishing inalienable and unalienable. I assume you have some legal authority stating that "unalienable" rights cannot be surrendered or transferred by consent, do you not?

I'll wait.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you use a left wing argument, that is not my fault NOR is it a straw man argument. There are two approaches to the issue:

You can debate how many bullets a gun may hold - 5, 6, 20, 50, 100 rounds and it is a leftist argument. If a man had two .38 Special Charter Arms snub nose revolvers and killed 10 people, the left would rail against Saturday Night Specials. YOU are making a left wing argument. There isn't an acceptable number of people to be killed in a mass shooting. Sooooooo....

You can focus on what guns a person should or should not have (which you cannot control) OR you can put another idea on the table. That's what I did. I can reduce mass shootings by 90 percent without any more taxes, no more bureaucracies, and NO GUN CONTROL.

The powers that be didn't think up the idea and it don't fit on a bumper sticker or in a Tweet. So, you get to play the left's game, on their turf, and with their language.

OR you can decide not to play the absolutist one side or the other partisan games and simply think independently. Support gun rights and also support regulations that you think make us safer. You can also support external efforts in education and mental health care. #mindblown

Of course, Everyone has their own opinion on the subject.
But the fact remains, the system is not broken. Don’t fix what’s not broken.

Legislating on pure emotion, Always ends up as a shit storm of total foolishness and childish behavior.

The average American almost has zero chance of being killed by someone using an AR or the like firearm. And there are millions of ARs and the like in this country, What is the percentage of those being used in violent criminal activity… A percentage of a percentage tops.

This country has much bigger fish to fry

That’s a dumb statement... a car might still run but that doesn’t mean you don’t take it in for oil changes and tune ups. Our system might not be broken but it’s also not perfect and can always be improved

Then pass an Amendment to the Constitution.

I don’t think that’s necessary. I think our lawmakers have the right to pass laws that they feel benefit the people and I believe opposers have the right to challenge those laws in the Supreme Court. That’s how the constitution defines our process.

On that point, the Mormon Bodyguard and I agree. Government cannot pass laws that infringe on an in/unalienable right.

.

.

 

[Blues Man]

But the facts are that straw purchase/sales are very hard to convict because the person guilty can just claim it was a theft, so they usually get off. That means only about 1 of 1000 get convicted. But the number of convictions really has no correlation to lives saved. The vast majority of criminals with illegal guns are not shooting people. They more likely are using them to just intimidate, either to defend drug turf, at a robbery where not shots are fired, etc. It likely is wrong to imply that laws actually save any lives. People are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of what laws exist.

Do you think regulations like licensing and traffic laws along with highway patrol save lives on the road?

Not really because at any one time there are thousands of people driving who don't have a license

You’re right, but why don’t you use that as an argument to eliminate all licensing requirements? Get ride of the DMV and highway patrol all together?

Because as you have been told umpteen times driving is not and will never be a right

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

If your gonna default back to that weak knee jerk argument then stop responding and save your breath. I’ve said several times now that the car comparisons have nothing to with rights vs privilege...that’s a different debate. this debate is about the effectiveness of laws and regulations. Let that sink in and if you still don’t get it then dont engage.

When you compare a right to a privilege it is you who are putting forth the poorer argument as the two are not remotely equivalent

 

[Blues Man]

In the fantasy world of liberals citizens should not own guns. Let us suppose that a shooter was limited to a .357 revolver. And let us say that a shooter carries two of these .357 revolvers to a mass shooting and gets all 12 shots to be fatal. Would that be acceptable in the fight against gun violence?

The problem is NOT firearms. The problem is people. And most mass shooters are young kids - and they have sent warning signals for quite some time before committing an act of violence. It's strange, but nobody wants to talk about the prevention side of this discussion.

Ok so now you jump to the absolutist argument. How is that relevant at all to what I’ve been saying. I support gun rights so if you want to debate me then use my positions don’t bring in the straw man “Left” that’s weak

If everyone would get off their irrational media conditioning about firearms being inherently evil, we can start looking to solutions other than those that deny inalienable rights.

Think about what you are doing. You are freely advocating the complete subversion of a right because you are concerned about a security issue that threatens only 0.0003% of the population.

That is how far this shit has come.

Ask yourself why such a minor risk would be such a huge priority? Who is selling that message?

What could POSSIBLY be the motive?

.

Well that’s an interesting distortion of my position. Please quote or explain what I’ve said that makes you say that I’m advocating for the complete subversion of a Right...

I can’t wait to see how you wiggle around this...

When you require a license to exercise an inalienable right, it is no longer a right.

PERIOD.

You cannot get around that fact.

Rights are held and exercised by individuals without the need for permission. Read this quote:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." —Thomas Jefferson

The only limitation on rights is the limits drawn by the equal rights of others. No permission by government is required.

There is no way around that truth.

.

Owning a gun both protects your right to life but also can threaten others right to life... especially with the types of weapons we have in modern times where dozens can be shot in 32 seconds! So there is justification within that quote to put limits on the power that we hold. Protection and killing power are both factors.

My owning guns has never endangered anyone's life

 

[Blues Man]

Then try sneaking in the rescinding of drug laws in our country, and see what happens.

We were not discussing recinding all drug laws, but just ending the federal War on Drugs, because it is ILLEGAL!

How is it illegal? You can't tell me the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't have any guaranteed rights for drugs.

Drug laws have to be federal in order to work. It's just like states that now have legal pot. People in nearby states will just drive to a legal state to buy dope when things get dry in their own state. And if you have a state of people strung out on dope so badly that half the people don't work, it will be the federal government providing them welfare and medical care.

That’s the same argument being used to federalize gun laws. Gilroy shooter drove to Vegas to get his weapon

We already have federal gun laws and we need to enforce those laws before we add more

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Which federal gun laws do you want to enforce? Which ones do you think are most effective?

I want them all to be enforced but let's start with the fact that everyone illegally possessing a firearm is committing a federal crime and the punishment is 5 years in federal orison

Virginia Project Exile

Study 1
Firearm Homicide Rates, Project Exile
Rosenfeld and colleagues (2005) found a statistically significant intervention effect for Project Exile. Firearm homicides in Richmond exhibited a 22 percent yearly decline, compared with the average reduction of about 10 percent per year for other large U.S. cities. The difference is statistically significant.

 

[Blues Man]

You have to send in a voter registration form in order for them to get your address to mail back to, but that is not very significant.
You ignored the important parts, which is that any gun control or regulations it prohibited from the federal government by the Bill of Rights.
And while it is fine for your address be used for voter registration, it is not fine for government to have the address of all the guns in the country. Government can be better than criminals or foreign invaders, but government do also have a long history of being abusive themselves. No one should want any government to have too much power or private information.

Why is it ok to have your address to vote and not for guns?

Because voting is held locally and the best way to prevent people from voting multiple times is to know where they live and where they should be voting

If a town has 500 residents but 5000 people voted in that town then you know there was voter fraud occurring

Agree, it is a smart thing to regulate.... but isn’t the gun argument saying that it’s wrong to regulate our rights?

I gave you a reason why voting is based on address

There is no need to know the address of anyone who owns a gun

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

That’s your opinion. Some Might say that knowing who bought the gun and how to find them would be a useful thing to do if the gun was found to be used to murder somebody.

It's better to find the person who murdered somebody since the gun can't murder anyone and most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained so it won't be registered or it will have been reported stolen

 

[Blues Man]

Because driving on publicly owned roads is not a right.

Committing battery is not a right -- even with consent. Thus, a person must be licensed by the stated to do so in practicing medicine or in hand-to-hand combat (boxing).

Speaking on behalf of another individual before a court is not a right. Thus, a person must be licensed to do so by the court or court system wherein he/she practices.

We can go on and on.

Keeping an bearing arms is a right that pre-exists government.

.

I’m done with the “rights” argument. I’ve explained several times how it’s not relevant. It’s a weak minded retort. Do better

No. Wrong.

The weak-minded are those who are seeking false security at the expense of liberty.

You do better.

.

I do better by sticking to the argument and giving direct answers. You pivoting to the “rights” argument was a cop out

How is that a cop out?

Is it not a right?

Let's start there, shall we?

Don't tell me you're one of the assholes who argued that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right, but is exercised collectively by militia, are you?

That is unforgivable and ends all discussion, if that is you.

.

The car comparison was being used to justify how laws and regulations make dangerous tools safer in the public arena. That was the point of the debate. Not whether it was a right or not. Your trying to take the conversation in a different direction . I’m not going to explain this again. This is like the 5th time now.

Yes guns are a right and driving is a privilege... I get it... not the point of this convo

Cars are not registered for safety purposes they are registered for tax purposes

Cops don't patrol the highways for safety purposes they do it for revenue collection

 

[Porter Rockwell]

OR you can decide not to play the absolutist one side or the other partisan games and simply think independently. Support gun rights and also support regulations that you think make us safer. You can also support external efforts in education and mental health care. #mindblown

Of course, Everyone has their own opinion on the subject.
But the fact remains, the system is not broken. Don’t fix what’s not broken.

Legislating on pure emotion, Always ends up as a shit storm of total foolishness and childish behavior.

The average American almost has zero chance of being killed by someone using an AR or the like firearm. And there are millions of ARs and the like in this country, What is the percentage of those being used in violent criminal activity… A percentage of a percentage tops.

This country has much bigger fish to fry

That’s a dumb statement... a car might still run but that doesn’t mean you don’t take it in for oil changes and tune ups. Our system might not be broken but it’s also not perfect and can always be improved

Then pass an Amendment to the Constitution.

I don’t think that’s necessary. I think our lawmakers have the right to pass laws that they feel benefit the people and I believe opposers have the right to challenge those laws in the Supreme Court. That’s how the constitution defines our process.

On that point, the Mormon Bodyguard and I agree. Government cannot pass laws that infringe on an in/unalienable right.

.

.

They cannot pass laws infringing on unalienable Rights. You'd have to have some background in how courts interpret and use different words and WHEN they do it. Stick to the original and you'll be safe.

 

[Slade3200]

OR you can decide not to play the absolutist one side or the other partisan games and simply think independently. Support gun rights and also support regulations that you think make us safer. You can also support external efforts in education and mental health care. #mindblown

Of course, Everyone has their own opinion on the subject.
But the fact remains, the system is not broken. Don’t fix what’s not broken.

Legislating on pure emotion, Always ends up as a shit storm of total foolishness and childish behavior.

The average American almost has zero chance of being killed by someone using an AR or the like firearm. And there are millions of ARs and the like in this country, What is the percentage of those being used in violent criminal activity… A percentage of a percentage tops.

This country has much bigger fish to fry

That’s a dumb statement... a car might still run but that doesn’t mean you don’t take it in for oil changes and tune ups. Our system might not be broken but it’s also not perfect and can always be improved

Then pass an Amendment to the Constitution.

I don’t think that’s necessary. I think our lawmakers have the right to pass laws that they feel benefit the people and I believe opposers have the right to challenge those laws in the Supreme Court. That’s how the constitution defines our process.

On that point, the Mormon Bodyguard and I agree. Government cannot pass laws that infringe on an in/unalienable right.

.

.

Who determines whether it infringes or not?

 

[Slade3200]

Do you think regulations like licensing and traffic laws along with highway patrol save lives on the road?

Not really because at any one time there are thousands of people driving who don't have a license

You’re right, but why don’t you use that as an argument to eliminate all licensing requirements? Get ride of the DMV and highway patrol all together?

Because as you have been told umpteen times driving is not and will never be a right

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

If your gonna default back to that weak knee jerk argument then stop responding and save your breath. I’ve said several times now that the car comparisons have nothing to with rights vs privilege...that’s a different debate. this debate is about the effectiveness of laws and regulations. Let that sink in and if you still don’t get it then dont engage.

When you compare a right to a privilege it is you who are putting forth the poorer argument as the two are not remotely equivalent

The argument is whether regulations help the public safety. I can use whatever I want as an example for that. As soon as you pivot to the “rights” argument, you digress

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of course, Everyone has their own opinion on the subject.
But the fact remains, the system is not broken. Don’t fix what’s not broken.

Legislating on pure emotion, Always ends up as a shit storm of total foolishness and childish behavior.

The average American almost has zero chance of being killed by someone using an AR or the like firearm. And there are millions of ARs and the like in this country, What is the percentage of those being used in violent criminal activity… A percentage of a percentage tops.

This country has much bigger fish to fry

That’s a dumb statement... a car might still run but that doesn’t mean you don’t take it in for oil changes and tune ups. Our system might not be broken but it’s also not perfect and can always be improved

Then pass an Amendment to the Constitution.

I don’t think that’s necessary. I think our lawmakers have the right to pass laws that they feel benefit the people and I believe opposers have the right to challenge those laws in the Supreme Court. That’s how the constitution defines our process.

On that point, the Mormon Bodyguard and I agree. Government cannot pass laws that infringe on an in/unalienable right.

.

.

They cannot pass laws infringing on unalienable Rights. You'd have to have some background in how courts interpret and use different words and WHEN they do it. Stick to the original and you'll be safe.

Fine. Whatever.

I still have not seen any legal authority on the distinction.

I assume you can post a transcript of WHEN a court has interpreted the two?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Not really because at any one time there are thousands of people driving who don't have a license

You’re right, but why don’t you use that as an argument to eliminate all licensing requirements? Get ride of the DMV and highway patrol all together?

Because as you have been told umpteen times driving is not and will never be a right

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

If your gonna default back to that weak knee jerk argument then stop responding and save your breath. I’ve said several times now that the car comparisons have nothing to with rights vs privilege...that’s a different debate. this debate is about the effectiveness of laws and regulations. Let that sink in and if you still don’t get it then dont engage.

When you compare a right to a privilege it is you who are putting forth the poorer argument as the two are not remotely equivalent

The argument is whether regulations help the public safety. I can use whatever I want as an example for that. As soon as you pivot to the “rights” argument, you digress

All kinds of shit can help public safety. Throwing everyone in jail will greatly improve public safety, but look what you have do to achieve it.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I can tell you've NEVER been to court on this issue:

"Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights." Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You cannot surrender or forfeit an unalienable Right.

"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)

Cockrum does not make the point you are alleging.

Government cannot pass laws to infringe or impair in/unalienable rights.

All rights can be surrendered by consent.

You're NOT making the distinction you apparently believe.

.

Do you want a complete brief just so others will realize you're wrong? Let them check out the link AND it's internal links:

Stolen Rights

BTW, what did you do, read the first post in that link?

I looked at the whole thing.

NOWHERE do they provide a case that distinguishes inalienable from unalienable.

The only thing they provide is that Morrison case that, by implication, says inalienable rights can be surrendered or transferred with consent. It apparently makes no distinction between inalienable and unalienable.

Those apparently-untrained legal "experts" are reading in a distinction that was never made.

Just because government cannot pass laws infringing on "unalienable" rights, does not mean those rights cannot be surrendered or transferred by consent.

Show me the case distinguishing inalienable and unalienable. I assume you have some legal authority stating that "unalienable" rights cannot be surrendered or transferred by consent, do you not?

I'll wait.

.

If you're that stupid, I suppose that there would be no way to educate you, but that link IIRC makes the distinction clear. Let me check... Yep. Posts 5, 6 and 12 were pretty inclusive.

The courts interpreted the words inherent, natural, absolute, and unalienable the same way. There is no court case interpreting the word inalienable as being "above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." That is exactly the opposite of what you're arguing. If a Right is above the lawmaking power, it is only common sense that you don't have a Right to forfeit something above the reach of government.

The lawyer lobby (aka The American (sic) Bar Association) has gone to great lengths to cover up the subtle change. The ABA is the most liberal body on the face of the earth. So, when looking at the original word unalienable in court decisions, that word had a very specific meaning - and that meaning included being above the law.

Inalienable came along AFTER passage of the 14th Amendment and was always used afterward because inalienable rights ARE subject to alienation. People of tremendous ignorance argue the point, but the one thing they cannot do is show you, in any case law at the federal level, wherein an unalienable Right was subject to alienation if you consented. NOT being subject to alienation was the very essence of he word.

Furthermore, unalienable is the word used in the Declaration of Independence - which is at the head of the United States Code; therefore it is the official and legal word whose meaning is so important. Lo and behold, the lawyer lobby is just as opposed to that word as you are. So, they even removed it from legal dictionaries.

So, if we can forfeit inalienable rights, we have no defense against gun control. A majority can vote to forfeit it for the rest of us. And you said that inalienable rights are subject to alienation, so the left only has to remind you of their de facto "democracy" and you have no legal case.

Sorry, you fail counselor.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

That’s a dumb statement... a car might still run but that doesn’t mean you don’t take it in for oil changes and tune ups. Our system might not be broken but it’s also not perfect and can always be improved

Then pass an Amendment to the Constitution.

I don’t think that’s necessary. I think our lawmakers have the right to pass laws that they feel benefit the people and I believe opposers have the right to challenge those laws in the Supreme Court. That’s how the constitution defines our process.

On that point, the Mormon Bodyguard and I agree. Government cannot pass laws that infringe on an in/unalienable right.

.

.

They cannot pass laws infringing on unalienable Rights. You'd have to have some background in how courts interpret and use different words and WHEN they do it. Stick to the original and you'll be safe.

Fine. Whatever.

I still have not seen any legal authority on the distinction.

I assume you can post a transcript of WHEN a court has interpreted the two?

.

You were provided with same. They just didn't do so at the same time.