Its starting ! The seizing of guns.

[AZrailwhale]

YES, it does.
The cops know, and you and I ..........................DON'T.

No, what it means is that the guns are perfectly legal, but the cops want to make the arrestee

WTF?
So..............before the US constitution, what "rights" did people have?
That were NOT given to you by other people?

look bad in the press.
The people’s rights come from nature, or god if you prefer. They are not granted by any government. Didn’t people have rights between 1776 and 1787 when the Constitution was ratified?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

When the constitution was written, privately owned warships were common. They were called privateers. The constitution specifically allows the federal government to issue “letters of marque and reprisal” which were the authorizations for privateers to capture and sell ships of enemies of the United States and their cargos. Even almost all normal cargo ships were aremed with cannon to defend themselves and many had a letter or marque in their captain’s papers on the off chance they would run into a weaker ship belonging to an American enemy.

"They were called privateers. The constitution specifically allows the federal government to issue “letters of marque and reprisal” which were the authorizations for privateers to capture and sell ships of enemies of the United States and their cargos".

Hmmmm...........Letters and .........Authorizations....................By the US government?

Sounds a lot like regulation to me.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No, what it means is that the guns are perfectly legal, but the cops want to make the arrestee
look bad in the press.
The people’s rights come from nature, or god if you prefer.

Really?
From god or nature?
So what will god or nature do to people if your "rights" are violated?
Do they have a set of rules?

They are not granted by any government.

Really?
The US constitution states otherwise.
Hence: The US constitution.

Didn’t people have rights between 1776 and 1787 when the Constitution was ratified?

But, you stated they did, by god and nature.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is a lie.
Where, in the 2nd amendment, does it allow unlimited amount of guns?
I'll wait.

You tucked tail and ran away from this conversation... and now you're back?
Good. You can address post #76.

 

[AZrailwhale]

"They were called privateers. The constitution specifically allows the federal government to issue “letters of marque and reprisal” which were the authorizations for privateers to capture and sell ships of enemies of the United States and their cargos".

Hmmmm...........Letters and .........Authorizations....................By the US government?

Sounds a lot like regulation to me.

It wasn't regulation, it was international law to keep legitimate privateers being treated like pirates. A ship with a Letter of Marque could take prizes into any seaport for condemnation and sale.

 

[AZrailwhale]

"They were called privateers. The constitution specifically allows the federal government to issue “letters of marque and reprisal” which were the authorizations for privateers to capture and sell ships of enemies of the United States and their cargos".

Hmmmm...........Letters and .........Authorizations....................By the US government?

Sounds a lot like regulation to me.

States issued Letters of Marque as well.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Really?
From god or nature?
So what will god or nature do to people if your "rights" are violated?
Do they have a set of rules?

Really?
The US constitution states otherwise.
Hence: The US constitution.

But, you stated they did, by god and nature.

You're the one claiming that the Constitution grants rights, so if it does, then people had no rights before it was ratified.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Really?
From god or nature?
So what will god or nature do to people if your "rights" are violated?
Do they have a set of rules?

Really?
The US constitution states otherwise.
Hence: The US constitution.

But, you stated they did, by god and nature.

Show me where the original Constitution grants any rights to individuals. Some of the later Amendments grant rights, but the basic Constitution doesn't, it RESTRICTS the government from taking rights away.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Really?
The US constitution states otherwise.
Hence: The US constitution.

Specifically, what rights did the US constitution grant?
Copy/paste the specific text to that effect.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

You left out the fact that the guy was a criminal who was being investigated and searched for stolen property, and that many of the guns seized are disallowed anyway in the New York state of Cuomostan.

Like ruby ridge ?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Like ruby ridge ?

Huh? Ruby Ridge is long way from New York. Randy Weaver had failed to show up for a court hearing. The FBI overreacted, mishandled the situation and tragedy ensued. Weaver was successful in civil court. He died last year.
This guy is a common thief and a teacher who abused his authority.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You tucked tail and ran away from this conversation... and now you're back?
Good. You can address post #76.

I don't respond to stupid Q-NUTS.
Just because you claim a comment has no merit.

"I'll ask a again":
"Why do you think an upper limit on the number of guns, and the amount of ammo, you can have is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation"?

There is a limit federally.
Nor, are are there federal regulations granting unlimited numbers of guns.

The 2nd amendment doesn't prevent a limit, nor does the 2nd amendment allow unlimited guns and ammo.

"Your statement has no basis in fact".

Doesn't mean it doesn't.

THEN, WHERE are they?

You've done this with at least a dozen different people, likely more.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

It wasn't regulation, it was international law to keep legitimate privateers being treated like pirates. A ship with a Letter of Marque could take prizes into any seaport for condemnation and sale.

WTF?

Letters of marque allowed governments to fight their wars using private captains and sailors, akin to mercenary soldiers, to hunt down enemies and fight their wars instead of using their navies.

So..............International law....................regulation.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Show me where the original Constitution grants any rights to individuals. Some of the later Amendments grant rights, but the basic Constitution doesn't, it RESTRICTS the government from taking rights away.

Amendment 1 Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly
Amendment 2 Right to bear arms
Amendment 3 Quartering of soldiers
Amendment 4 Search and arrest
Amendment 5 Rights in criminal cases
Amendment 6 Right to a fair trial
Amendment 7 Rights in civil cases
Amendment 8 Bail, fines, punishment
Amendment 9 Rights retained by the People
Amendment 10 States' rights

SO.................People had ALL these rights, BEFORE 1791?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Specifically, what rights did the US constitution grant?
Copy/paste the specific text to that effect.

Amendment I​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment III​

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV​

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V​

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI​

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII​

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII​

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX​

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Hmmmm............"DELEGATED"?

The process of delegation does not always follow a conformed structure, nor is it straightforward, however there are a number of key aspects which are generally involved. The generalised process of delegation involves some combination of the following:

1. Allocation of duties: the delegator communicates to their subordinate the task which is to be performed. Resources are provided and a time limit is informed.
2. Delegation of authority: In order for the subordinate to perform the task, authority is required. The required authority is granted to the employee when the task is delegated.
3. Assignment of responsibilities: When authority is delegated, the subordinate is assigned with the responsibility of this task. When someone is given the rights to complete a task, they are assigned with the corresponding obligation to perform. Responsibility itself cannot be entirely delegated; a manager must still operate under equal responsibility to the delegated authority.
4. Creation of accountability: At the completion of the delegation process, it is essential that the manager creates accountability, meaning that subordinates must be answerable for the tasks which they have been authorised to carry out.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You're the one claiming that the Constitution grants rights, so if it does, then people had no rights before it was ratified.

People had rights.
The rights granted by the British kingdom, colonies, territories, and settlements.

The constitution codified some.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't respond to stupid Q-NUTS.
Just because you claim a comment has no merit.

You;re just trying to cover up the fact you know you have no effective response.
And you know it.

There is a limit federally.

This is a lie. There is no federal law limiting the number of guns, or amount of ammo, someone can own.
And you know it.

Nor, are are there federal regulations granting unlimited numbers of guns.

The absence of a limit means there is no limit.
And you know it.

"Your statement has no basis in fact".
Doesn't mean it doesn't.

Yes,. It does.
You cannot show in any way shape or form how the 2nd Amendment allows for a limit on the number of guns someone can own.
And you know it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Amendment I​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in here is language that grants a right.

Amendment IV​

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Nowhere in here is language that grants a right.

Amendment X​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Hmmmm............"DELEGATED"?

Yes. Powers not delegated to the federal government
Not rights... delegated to the people.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You;re just trying to cover up the fact you know you have no effective response.
And you know it.

Just because you SAY SO?

This is a lie. There is no federal law limiting the number of guns, or amount of ammo, someone can own.
And you know it.

NO, shit.

The absence of a limit means there is no limit.
And you know it.

No, shit.

Yes,. It does.
You cannot show in any way shape or form how the 2nd Amendment allows for a limit on the number of guns someone can own.
And you know it.

It doesn't, Q-NUT.
The 2nd amendment also doesn't prohibit limits either.

Amendment X​

States' rights

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So.............the states or municipalities within the state, can set limits.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Nowhere in here is language that grants a right.

Good luck, getting your $$$ back from the Trump U. reading "comprehension" correspondence course.

Nowhere in here is language that grants a right.

Again..........Good luck.

Yes. Powers not delegated to the federal government
Not rights... delegated to the people.

Sure Q-NUT.