Own guns, learn how to use them, fight the anti-gun nimrods.

[Nuthin' Fancy]

I thanked your post not because I agree with your view on the rights but I definitely agree with your view on M14 Shooter's previous comments. He appears to now be saying that the government has the ability to strip any right it wants.

Once we concede that the government can strip a person of their rights then all that's left is to argue about which rights and when. And, ultimately, it is all rights and whenever the government wishes.

Agreed.
Amendment 28 or entire abolishment?
Start over?
Who knows what could take place.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You are both wrong. The 5th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights; not the Bill of Government Authorities. Its purpose is not to define or create rights for government but, instead, enumerates some of the rights of the people. Again, no power is granted or created for the government in the Bill of Rights; it serves only to restrict their authority and to protect the rights of the people.

The phrase, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" cannot be construed as an authorization for the government to take away any right from anyone, as long as due process is permitted. The phrase is in the context of judicial punishment, following the protections against self-incrimination, double-jeopardy, and protection by a grand jury.

William Rawle wrote, in A View of the Constitution, "It follows from all the antecedent precautions, that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and the repetition of this declaration, is only valuable, as it exhibits the summary of the whole, and the anxiety that it should never be forgotten." As he states, the due process phrase is only valuable when considered in the context of the previous statements in the 5th and in his writing.



In fact, from Congress.gov, it is clearly the intent and interpretation of the due process clause that it does NOT give congress the power to do anything it wishes simply by creating a process:

Standing by itself, the phrase due process would seem to refer solely and simply to procedure, to process in court, and therefore to be so limited that due process of law would be what the legislative branch enacted it to be. But that is not the interpretation which has been placed on the term. It is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave Congress free to make any process ‘due process of law’ by its mere will.

Overview | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

An annotation about Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

Interestingly, the 5th also secures protection against the government taking property without just compensation, often called the "takings clause". In the same way as the due process clause does not grant any power to the government, the takings clause does not grant power to take property. Just like the 2nd Amendment assumes and acknowledges the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, the 5th Amendment talks about pre-existing rights of government: to jail criminals and to take property as necessary for the function of government.

The right to take someone's liberty, or, in case of certain crimes, even their life is implied in common law and are among many implied powers of government. The due process clause is intended to limit government's power to before locking up a criminal or fining them or taking their property or executing them. To assume that the government has the power to take someone's life without cause but with due process is just about the most asinine thing I have ever read on this forum. The power to take a life comes from the common law to punish certain crimes. The power to take someone's liberty by imprisoning them for crimes comes from common law.

Please provide documentation where common law would permit the stripping of the right to free speech or freedom of religion. It doesn't exist in common law, therefore the government has no power to take those rights. Therefore the due process clause does not give the government the right to strip someone of their right to free speech or freedom of religion. In fact, the clause grants no authority at all to the government. It only limits authority that they would otherwise have.

Based on the arguments you both make, there is no constitutional protection of any right and the 2nd Amendment is meaningless. To suggest that the right to keep and bear arms can be stripped is to agree with the left that rights are not rights, they're privileges to be given or taken at the will of the government.

See above.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You know full well you cannot demonstrate how anything I said is wrong, much less a lie.
You just want to avoid aahaving to give a ,eaminful respons,e because you know you cannot.

Like I stated, you don't like the answer, just like Trump, that who you remind me of.

You need to pay better attention.

This is a lie, as you know rights are not granted by the government.

WTF?
Then who do you think grants people rights? GOD?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

View attachment 600596
Hmmmm.........................TOS violation.



No, again the principle is conferred powers and retained rights.

"We the People" conferred the power to acquire, keep and bear weapons of open indiscriminate warfare to Congress (along with other strictly defined powers, see Article I, Section 8; "Congress shall have the power . . . ".

WTF?
Just because you claim to have this "power" doesn't make it so.

In the obverse, government can not claim any powers that were not granted, which in this instance is the retained right to keep and bear the personal arms of the private citizen.

Yes they can.

This principle of conferred powers and retained rights is the core of the rules of constitutional interpretation represented in the 9th and 10th Amendments (which you apparently never learned about).

Your "interpretation" is wrong.

• Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. Congress 17 specifically “enumerated” powers, along with unspecified “implied” powers considered “necessary and proper” to carry out the enumerated powers.
• The rights and powers have been amended 27 times.

SCOTUS usually issues decisions heard in the fall term, in June of the following year.

The case is NYSRPA v Bruen. Look for SCOTUS to invalidate the "two-step" doctrine used by Courts of Appeals to uphold dozens of gun laws, including the state assault weapon bans and large capacity magazine bans and many other laws that all will be thrown in the dumpster . . .

Read THIS POST and the couple of mine that follow it, for an explanation.

 

[Abatis]

WTF?
Just because you claim to have this "power" doesn't make it so.

WTF?
I'm not claiming "I" have the power; I'm trying to explain to you the most foundational (Lockean) principle of the US Constitution --- that all power originally resides in the people and "We the People" created government by popular consent, granting government certain express (thus limited) powers, assigning government specific duties to be performed for our benefit and protection.

The entire Constitutional experiment is based on the principle that government can not legitimately exercise powers not granted to it.

Under your philosophy of US federal governmental authority, what is the definition of an "unalienable right"?

Following your philosophy of US federal governmental authority, what does the 9th Amendment mean to you? I'm especially interested in your understanding of the 9th's statement on the existence of "retained" rights beyond those that are enumerated. I argue the 9th stands to tell (the government and the people) that the usual limitation of "enumeration" does not apply to rights because the principle of retained rights is, the people retain EVERYTHING not conferred to government.

Following your philosophy of US federal governmental authority, what does the 10th Amendment mean to you? I argue the 10th unequivocally stands to tell everyone that the usual limitation of "enumeration" does apply to powers . . .

What possible oppositional argument could you present to those positions?

Yes they can.

That the federal government can not legitimately exercise powers not granted to it was the basis of Federalist arguments against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution. As Hamilton said:

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"​

Of course the Federalist's "lost" the argument over adding a bill of rights but Madison saw to it that Federalist argument was codified in the Constitution in the 9th and 10th Amendments. The 9th and 10th Amendments stand as affirmation of, and permanent testament to, the Federalist's argument about the fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights, and the importance of permanently recognizing those principles in the Constitution.

That absolute truth exists and continues in the face of you not understanding those principles and even your obstinate, anti-Constitution allegiance to modern leftist / collectivist politics that demands you reject those principles.

Your "interpretation" is wrong.

• Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. Congress 17 specifically “enumerated” powers, along with unspecified “implied” powers considered “necessary and proper” to carry out the enumerated powers.
• The rights and powers have been amended 27 times.

Words have meanings . . . You wrote, "the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. Congress 17 specifically “enumerated” powers, along with unspecified “implied” powers considered “necessary and proper” to carry out the enumerated powers."

Apparently you do not understand and completely fail to see the significance of, the unavoidable specificity and limitations of "specifically enumerated powers".

You also fail to understand that the exercise of "unspecified implied powers" is only authorized to fulfill the "specific enumerated powers", not for whatever the government decides it wants to do beyond the enumerated powers.

 

[whitehall]

There are cases where a shotgun is the best thing to have. When 5 or more home invaders crash through your door in the middle of the night, though, you want an AR-15. There's no one best tool that covers all scenarios. Since most guns will never be used in any defensive or offensive role, mostly our guns are like insurance, they make us feel safe. Each person must evaluate their own risks, their own fears, and what it takes for them to feel the safest and take whatever legal steps needed for their own. When the time comes to use the guns, should it ever come, they can only hope that they either made the right tools available or that they're successful in improvising with what is still a great tool even if not the ideal tool for the circumstance in which they find themselves.

5 or more invaders? A 12 ga #4 shell has 21 .22 cal pellets. While the (5) invaders are ducking and reeling from the blast, another shell can be loaded in a second. Depending on where you live you might be killing half a dozen innocent neighbors if you start blasting with 20 rounds of .223 AR 15

 

[woodwork201]

Like I stated, you don't like the answer, just like Trump, that who you remind me of.

WTF?
Then who do you think grants people rights? GOD?

Your creator - whether or not you believe your creator is God or nature. The rights are natural rights. How can the government grant rights? Where do they get that power? Are they born above us? Royalty?

 

[woodwork201]

WTF?
I'm not claiming "I" have the power; I'm trying to explain to you the most foundational (Lockean) principle of the US Constitution --- that all power originally resides in the people and "We the People" created government by popular consent, granting government certain express (thus limited) powers, assigning government specific duties to be performed for our benefit and protection.

The entire Constitutional experiment is based on the principle that government can not legitimately exercise powers not granted to it.

Under your philosophy of US federal governmental authority, what is the definition of an "unalienable right"?

Following your philosophy of US federal governmental authority, what does the 9th Amendment mean to you? I'm especially interested in your understanding of the 9th's statement on the existence of "retained" rights beyond those that are enumerated. I argue the 9th stands to tell (the government and the people) that the usual limitation of "enumeration" does not apply to rights because the principle of retained rights is, the people retain EVERYTHING not conferred to government.

Following your philosophy of US federal governmental authority, what does the 10th Amendment mean to you? I argue the 10th unequivocally stands to tell everyone that the usual limitation of "enumeration" does apply to powers . . .

What possible oppositional argument could you present to those positions?



That the federal government can not legitimately exercise powers not granted to it was the basis of Federalist arguments against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution. As Hamilton said:

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"​

Of course the Federalist's "lost" the argument over adding a bill of rights but Madison saw to it that Federalist argument was codified in the Constitution in the 9th and 10th Amendments. The 9th and 10th Amendments stand as affirmation of, and permanent testament to, the Federalist's argument about the fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights, and the importance of permanently recognizing those principles in the Constitution.

That absolute truth exists and continues in the face of you not understanding those principles and even your obstinate, anti-Constitution allegiance to modern leftist / collectivist politics that demands you reject those principles.



Words have meanings . . . You wrote, "the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. Congress 17 specifically “enumerated” powers, along with unspecified “implied” powers considered “necessary and proper” to carry out the enumerated powers."

Apparently you do not understand and completely fail to see the significance of, the unavoidable specificity and limitations of "specifically enumerated powers".

You also fail to understand that the exercise of "unspecified implied powers" is only authorized to fulfill the "specific enumerated powers", not for whatever the government decides it wants to do beyond the enumerated powers.

When you don't blow your whole point by telling everyone how smart you are, and just demonstrate it by explaining the facts, you do a good job. Good job on this post; it's exactly correct.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You said the government can strip any right, anyone's rights, as long as they get due process. Do you now admit you were wrong?

Nope. I am 100% correct.

Now you're saying they can make anything illegal that they wish.

I did? When?
I said the state has the power to pass laws that make certain actions illegal, and the power to enforce those laws.
I am 100% correct.

Can they make it illegal to say "Fuck Joe Biden" at a sporting event? Can they make it illegal to play the guitar? Can they make it illegal to own a gun?

Certainly, you understand the power of the state to make some things illegal is limited by the constitution.
Obviously, I do as well.

They can make reasonable things illegal and they can imprison you for violating the law. That doesn't mean they can strip any right as long as they allow due process.

Good to see you;re finally catching in to what I said.

And, you're lying now. You absolutely stated that the 5th Amendment gives the government the power to strip people's rights.

Not once did I say that.
Disagree? Cite the post and copy/paste the text to that effect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just because you don't like the answer, isn't my problem.

Fact remains:
Your willful failure to meaningfully address the issues put to you confirms you concession.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Like I stated, you don't like the answer,

Your cconcession, acceptted.

WTF?
Then who do you think grants people rights? GOD?

Rights are not granted by anyone, especially the state.
Disagree?
Cite the law that grants you the right to free speech.
I accept you concession in advance.

 

[woodwork201]

5 or more invaders? A 12 ga #4 shell has 21 .22 cal pellets. While the (5) invaders are ducking and reeling from the blast, another shell can be loaded in a second. Depending on where you live you might be killing half a dozen innocent neighbors if you start blasting with 20 rounds of .223 AR 15

There was a news story maybe 7 or 8 years back about a home invader shot straight in the chest with a 12 gauge shotgun. Not a single pellet penetrated the rib cage. He had a bunch of surface wounds but nothing at all life threatening and the shot didn't stop him; he kept attacking the home owner. I'm not an expert on slug performance but, in general, if you're going to use a shotgun for home defense, don't use bird or game shot. Use buck shot or (unless I am mistaken) a slug. One thing about a slug, even though I'm not certain of it's penetration capabilities, it would surely knock someone on their ass so I'll stick with buck shot or a slug.

Also, those 21 pellets, or the lesser number of pellets in a buckshot round, cannot be individually aimed; they all go in pretty much the same direction. You don't stop multiple attackers with a single shot. The whole idea that you point a shotgun in the general direction and kill someone is a myth. Maybe even worse than a myth; it's a lie.

There are definitely scenarios where a shotgun would be the preferred defensive tool and there are potential scenarios where it would be far better to have something like an AR-15 or even a handgun that has high capacity magazines as standard.

The problem, of course, is knowing ahead of time which you need, or even if you have them all quickly available, how do you decide in those couple of seconds you might have to decide? You could very well be in an AR-15 scenario and grab your shotgun and, hopefully, survive - or vice versa. We can only do the best we can and hope that it turns out well.

Of course the greater hope is to have a shotgun, rifle, and handgun all readily available and never, ever, have to touch them in defense or anger.

 

[woodwork201]

Nope. I am 100% correct.

I did? When?
I said the state has the power to pass laws that make certain actions illegal, and the power to enforce those laws.
I am 100% correct.

Certainly, you understand the power of the state to make some things illegal is limited by the constitution.
Obviously, I do as well.

Good to see you;re finally catching in to what I said.

Not once did I say that.
Disagree? Cite the post and copy/paste the text to that effect.

I quoted what you said, in context of my question. I asked, show me where the government gets the authority to take away rights and you responded with a quote from the 5th Amendment. You most certainly made the claim that the government has that right and that it came from the 5th.

Let me give it to you again without the quote attribute so you can see it without having to click to expand:

woodwork201 said:​

​

Where does that say your gun rights or your right to free speech or freedom of religion can be stripped as long as you have due process?​

​

M14 Shooter said: ​

​

Amendment V​

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;​

​

It means state, through its power to punish criminal acts, can restrict or remove rights, but only through due process. ​

Don't act like a Democrat. Now you're adding limitations and context to what you said that you did not include before. You're trying to change up what you said but the record is clear, 100% clear.

Your response was not to a question of how does the Constitution protect from taking rights, the question was where does the Constitution say your rights can be taken. Your answer: Amendment V.

Man up. Either admit you were wrong or stand by your statement that the 5th Amendment empowers the government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I quoted what you said, in context of my question. I asked, show me where the government gets the authority to take away rights and you responded with a quote from the 5th Amendment. You most certainly made the claim that the government has that right and that it came from the 5th.

Allow me to clear up your confusion, as you -clearly- only read what you want to read.

You said:
No, they cannot be taken through due process

The state, though its power to legislate criminal acts and enforce the laws so made, has the power to strip those who break those laws of their rights - life , liberty and property .
The 5th Amendment states that this may only be done when the state strips those rights through due process.
As the 5th Amendment creates this condition, stripping someone of those rights does not violate the constitution.
As such, they -can- be taken through due process.

You can choose to understand this, or you can choose to be wrong.

 

[woodwork201]

Allow me to clear up your confusion, as you -clearly- only read what you want to read.

You said:
No, they cannot be taken through due process

The state, though its power to legislate criminal acts and enforce the laws so made, has the power to strip those who break those laws of their rights - life , liberty and property .
The 5th Amendment states that this may only be done when the state strips those rights through due process.
As the 5th Amendment creates this condition, stripping someone of those rights does not violate the constitution.
As such, they -can- be taken through due process.

You can choose to understand this, or you can choose to be wrong.

Once again, you lie. I asked where they get the authority to take rights and you said Amendment V. That's exactly the context. Quit lying.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Once again, you lie. I asked where they get the authority to take rights and you said Amendment V. That's exactly the context. Quit lying.

You can choose to understand what I said, or you can choose to be wrong.
Let us know.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I've yet to see any "compromise". All I've seen is our rights being infringed.

I’ve always believed, based on my observations, that a liberal defines compromise as conservatives give fifty percent and liberals take fifty percent. I can’t recall liberals living up to any compromise agreements in my adult life.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I’ve always believed, based on my observations, that a liberal defines compromise as conservatives give fifty percent and liberals take fifty percent. I can’t recall liberals living up to any compromise agreements in my adult life.

That's because there's never been a compromise when it comes to gun control laws.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

WTF?
I'm not claiming "I" have the power; I'm trying to explain to you the most foundational (Lockean) principle of the US Constitution --- that all power originally resides in the people and "We the People" created government by popular consent, granting government certain express (thus limited) powers, assigning government specific duties to be performed for our benefit and protection.

That sounds nice, "that all power originally resides in the people and "We the People" created government".
That was the original principle and was true for a long time.

The entire Constitutional experiment is based on the principle that government can not legitimately exercise powers not granted to it.

Correct.

Under your philosophy of US federal governmental authority, what is the definition of an "unalienable right"?

Rights that can't be taken away without a just cause.

As the main drafter, Thomas Jefferson described – We human beings are born on this planet with these rights, and so these are our birthright.
The Original Source of “Life, Liberty And The Pursuit of Happiness” Is The Philosophy of English Philosopher John Locke. While Discussing On Unalienable Rights, John Locke Said About “Life, Liberty, And Property”. However, When Thomas Jefferson Drafted The Declaration of Independence, He Replaced The “Property” Term With “The Pursuit of Happiness”]

That didn't even make sense when Jefferson included it because the Africans and the American Indians were denied without just cause.

Following your philosophy of US federal governmental authority, what does the 9th Amendment mean to you? I'm especially interested in your understanding of the 9th's statement on the existence of "retained" rights beyond those that are enumerated. I argue the 9th stands to tell (the government and the people) that the usual limitation of "enumeration" does not apply to rights because the principle of retained rights is, the people retain EVERYTHING not conferred to government.

That's what is stated.
Not true anymore, enumerated rights were being expanded beyond retained rights, almost as soon as the ink was dry on the constitution because the government was being expanded with different departments and agencies that addressed different issues that came up.

That's why the constitution was amended 27 times and SCOTUS decisions falling one way or the other.

Following your philosophy of US federal governmental authority, what does the 10th Amendment mean to you? I argue the 10th unequivocally stands to tell everyone that the usual limitation of "enumeration" does apply to powers . . .

What possible oppositional argument could you present to those positions

Sure it does, when the 10th was written, 13 states were in existence, as the country expanded, states tried different rules that infringed for or against people's power or rights, decisions were made by the courts or federal government that gave or stopped those actions.

That the federal government can not legitimately exercise powers not granted to it was the basis of Federalist arguments against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution. As Hamilton said:

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"​

Of course the Federalist's "lost" the argument over adding a bill of rights but Madison saw to it that Federalist argument was codified in the Constitution in the 9th and 10th Amendments. The 9th and 10th Amendments stand as affirmation of, and permanent testament to, the Federalist's argument about the fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights, and the importance of permanently recognizing those principles in the Constitution.

YES, "principles".
Sounds good on paper, not so good in the field.

That absolute truth exists and continues in the face of you not understanding those principles and even your obstinate, anti-Constitution allegiance to modern leftist / collectivist politics that demands you reject those principles.

What you describe as the 'truth" are about as significant as "principles" are.
A nice theory but not reality.

"Anti-constitution"?
As those who supported Trump looked the other way, making excuses, and let him violate the constitution on a daily/monthly basis?

Words have meanings . . . You wrote, "the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. Congress 17 specifically “enumerated” powers, along with unspecified “implied” powers considered “necessary and proper” to carry out the enumerated powers."

Apparently you do not understand and completely fail to see the significance of, the unavoidable specificity and limitations of "specifically enumerated powers".

Apparently, you don't understand "unspecified implied powers" can and are infringing and expanding beyond enumerated powers.
It isn't 1791 anymore.

You also fail to understand that the exercise of "unspecified implied powers" is only authorized to fulfill the "specific enumerated powers", not for whatever the government decides it wants to do beyond the enumerated powers.

I understand it.

You fail to understand those implied powers and enumerated powers were being blurred within the first 100 years of the country and its constitution.

Just like the three branches of government are "equal".
Each has been expanding their powers ever since.
It isn't 1791 anymore.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Fact remains:
Your willful failure to meaningfully address the issues put to you confirms you concession.

NONE was given.
Fact remains: YOU don't like the answer, so you dismiss it, like Trump.

Now, you're doing the same with Woodwork.