Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
TRANSLATION: All governments break their own laws.All governments limit rights.
TRANSLATION: All governments break their own laws.the theory of Human Rights has evolved.
TRANSLATION: All governments break their own laws.All governments limit rights.
TRANSLATION: All governments break their own laws.the theory of Human Rights has evolved.
TRANSLATION: All governments break their own laws.All governments limit rights.
TRANSLATION: All governments break their own laws.the theory of Human Rights has evolved.
No, Translation: I understand what the theory of rights is.
TRANSLATION: I don't care if you are harmed because the government broke its own laws. I need the flexibility to take away your rights when I think it's a good idea.No, Translation: I understand what the theory of rights is.
TRANSLATION: All governments break their own laws.All governments limit rights.
TRANSLATION: All governments break their own laws.the theory of Human Rights has evolved.
No, Translation: I understand what the theory of rights is.
No you don't.
Fascism is the INCORRECT theory of rights
TRANSLATION: I don't care if you are harmed because the government broke its own laws. I need the flexibility to take away your rights when I think it's a good idea.No, Translation: I understand what the theory of rights is.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment, where that case law acknowledges an individual right to possess a firearm and a right to self-defense.
I'm not a coward nor paranoid, so defending my life is about exercise and eating well. I don't feel the need to carry a gun to the grocery store, why do you?
OK then, was it so hard to admit that you are an ignorant fuck?
Continue eating well and exercising.
I do not interfere with your approach to longevity - why the fuck do you interfere with mine?
.
I don't. I didn't write the law, in my career I enforced the laws. You don't like the law where you live, get your ass of the coach and seek elected office, make speeches and stop whining.
I have heard the " I was following Orders" bullshit excuse a million times. If you are an American then you know that the Supremacy clause states that the CONSTITUTION (1787) is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Consequently, statutes and case "law" that transgress upon our rights are VOID.
If it is true that you are in LAW enforcement then the SUPREMACY CLAUSE applies to you. Stop using stupid pretexts to harass our people.
.
Well then, are you another who believes Marbury v. Madison usurped COTUS?
BTW, I retired over ten years ago.
Yes, indeed. Marbury vs Madison is bullshit case law
The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution
In his most famous decision, Marbury vs. Madison, Marshall gave the federal judiciary the power to rule on the constitutionality of both statutory law and the behavior of the executive branch. "[T]his means that the Supreme Court granted itself the authority to declare the will of the people . . . null and void . . ." This of course has caused endless mischief and tyranny. This principle of a monopoly in reviewing constitutionality was not widely accepted, however, until after Lincoln’s war of 1861—1865 destroyed state sovereignty once and for all. Until that point, many Americans believed that the citizens of the states, as well as the president and Congress, should have equally legitimate claims on interpreting the Constitution. As President Andrew Jackson famously said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it if he can."
One cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater; obscenity, child pornography, and speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are not entitled to First Amendment protections, they do not manifest as free speech.
The exact same thing is true for the Second Amendment, possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are not entitled to Second Amendment protections, they do not manifest as arms one has a right to bear.
Not comparable.
You cannot exercise a right, in order to unjustly cause harm to others. The examples that you give of “free speech” are abuses of speech, in order to cause harm.
Merely possessing and carrying a weapon does not cause harm to anyone, nor does it violate anyone's rights. It is not comparable to abusing “free speech” in a manner as to cause harm. If someone handles or uses a weapon carelessly or with malicious intent, so as to cause harm, danger, or threat to others, then that is comparable to your “free speech” examples. And I don't think you'll find anyone who claims that the right to keep and bear arms includes a right to abuse those arms in a manner that unjustly harms, threatens, or endangers others; any more than the right to free speech includes the right to abuse that speech in a manner that causes harm to others.
Correct.The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?
The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".
Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."
But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such exceptions. As written, it allows NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.
Why?
The first amendment says you have the right to free speech, yet you can be jailed for treason, slander, endangerment and so on. It also says you have the freedom of religion, yet you can't perform the sun dance or have two wives.
Doesn't say anything about exceptions. Why? Because they're assumed, because anyone who knows anything about rights knows they always have exceptions.
One cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater; obscenity, child pornography, and speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are not entitled to First Amendment protections, they do not manifest as free speech.
The exact same thing is true for the Second Amendment, possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are not entitled to Second Amendment protections, they do not manifest as arms one has a right to bear.
Incorrect.
It's is a lot better to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater than to err on the side of censorship. There is no such thing as obscenity , although the majority of SCOTUS case law certainly would qualify beginning with Marbury vs Madison. Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are definitely entitled to First Amendment protections, they do manifest as free speech.
The exact same thing is true for our ABSOLUTE RIGHT to life and to defend the same . Possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are entitled to Constitutional (1787) protections, .
Do not confused the Constitutional provisos with UNCONSTITUTIONAL case law.
.
Rights are man made, and men determine what they are. Who do we believe? You, or Supreme Court justices?
TRANSLATION: I can't refute anything you said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll scream and curse, call you names, bring up irrelevancies, and try to fool someone somewhere into thinking there's something wrong with what you said even though I can't name anything.You lying scumbag piece of shit. You relate the part of the story to fit your purposes, but omit those parts that put the lie to your horseshit!Slippery slope arguments are not logical, nor instructive.
Wrong (as usual).
The first major so-called "gun control" law in this country was the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). It imposed, among other things, huge taxes on every sale or transfer of certain types of guns and accessories.
Cops took a short-barreled shotgun from a man named Jack Miller with no current evidence he had committed any crime (though he was a known bootlegger during Prohibition), citing this law as their authority. Miller sued with a pro-bono lawyer, and a Federal judge took about 20 minutes to find the NFA unconstitutional.
The Feds took the unusual step of appealing directly to the Supreme Court, in 1939. The pro bono lawyer couldn't find his client (Miller was found later, dead in a stream bed with four bullets in his chest), and didn't want to go to the huge amount of work required to prepare a Supreme Court case he probably wouldn't be paid for. So while the government brought in the usual battery of high-powered lawyers to prosecute the case, nobody showed up for the defense. One side of the courtroom was completely empty.
The government took advantage of this windfall, and read several flat lies into the record (the 2nd amendment only applies to military-style weapons, only applies to members of a militia or other military unit, etc.). The Justices, having no one to disprove them, rubber-stamped them into an "opinion" and declared Miller guilty in absentia. This "opinion" is full of twisted and apologetic language such as "In the absence of any evidence showing.....", "We cannot say that...", and "It is not within judicial notice that..." as the Justices tried to point out that they had heard only one side of the case.
Since then, the Govt has put more and more "gun control" laws into place, defending them every time by citing the 1939 miscarriage of justice US v. Miller. It's one of the most obvious examples of a "slippery slope" where, once the gun-rights-haters got a toehold in the realm of unconstitutional gun legislation, proceeded to put in more and more.
Little wrycatch frantically denies that this is happening, though he is unable to back up his assertions (again as usual).
1. You made no mention of Frank Layton who was Miller's co-defendant at trial.
2. You made no mention that both Miller and Layton had the same attorney at trial.
3. You made no mention that the NFA (1934) required paperwork and a stamp to take a sawed-off shotgun across State lines (Commerce Clause).
4. You made no mention that their attorney, Paul Gutensohn, informed SCOTUS his clients Miller & Layton had failed to provide money for travel to DC.
5. You failed to mention the failure Miller & Layton and/or their lawyer to appear before SCOTUS as required on March 30, 1939 at oral arguments.
6. You failed to mention that State and Federal Courts have no responsibility to wait for defendants, complainants or appellants and juggle the Court docket.
7. You failed to mention that Miller used another sawed-off shotgun in a robbery on April 3, 1939 four days after oral arguments before SCOTUS.
8. You failed to mention that Miller was last seen alive on April 3, 1939, in Oklahoma four days after oral arguments before the High Court.
Those facts above were gleaned from - http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf
Bottom line is, SCOTUS did exactly what they were required to do in United States v. Miller, but your distortion of the facts is an indicator of your vile intent and despicable character.
Decision - United States v. Miller
I don't know how you gun nuts expect to get all gun regulation repealed unless you think we're going to abandon democratic government.
We do not expect to get all gun regulation repealed.
Actually , we believe it will worsen when President Clinton appoints another fascist to SCOTUS.
The new majority will conclude that Heller was wrongly decided, that Americans do not have a right to carry sling shots , let alone firearms.
Our only hope are the Mexican drug Cartels - the blackmarket.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment, where that case law acknowledges an individual right to possess a firearm and a right to self-defense.
If this is the case, how did the constitution exist when the delegates wrote it at the constitutional convention? How did the constitution exist when it was sent to the states for ratification?
TRANSLATION: I can't refute anything you said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll scream and curse, call you names, bring up irrelevancies, and try to fool someone somewhere into thinking there's something wrong with what you said even though I can't name anything.You lying scumbag piece of shit. You relate the part of the story to fit your purposes, but omit those parts that put the lie to your horseshit!Slippery slope arguments are not logical, nor instructive.
Wrong (as usual).
The first major so-called "gun control" law in this country was the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). It imposed, among other things, huge taxes on every sale or transfer of certain types of guns and accessories.
Cops took a short-barreled shotgun from a man named Jack Miller with no current evidence he had committed any crime (though he was a known bootlegger during Prohibition), citing this law as their authority. Miller sued with a pro-bono lawyer, and a Federal judge took about 20 minutes to find the NFA unconstitutional.
The Feds took the unusual step of appealing directly to the Supreme Court, in 1939. The pro bono lawyer couldn't find his client (Miller was found later, dead in a stream bed with four bullets in his chest), and didn't want to go to the huge amount of work required to prepare a Supreme Court case he probably wouldn't be paid for. So while the government brought in the usual battery of high-powered lawyers to prosecute the case, nobody showed up for the defense. One side of the courtroom was completely empty.
The government took advantage of this windfall, and read several flat lies into the record (the 2nd amendment only applies to military-style weapons, only applies to members of a militia or other military unit, etc.). The Justices, having no one to disprove them, rubber-stamped them into an "opinion" and declared Miller guilty in absentia. This "opinion" is full of twisted and apologetic language such as "In the absence of any evidence showing.....", "We cannot say that...", and "It is not within judicial notice that..." as the Justices tried to point out that they had heard only one side of the case.
Since then, the Govt has put more and more "gun control" laws into place, defending them every time by citing the 1939 miscarriage of justice US v. Miller. It's one of the most obvious examples of a "slippery slope" where, once the gun-rights-haters got a toehold in the realm of unconstitutional gun legislation, proceeded to put in more and more.
Little wrycatch frantically denies that this is happening, though he is unable to back up his assertions (again as usual).
1. You made no mention of Frank Layton who was Miller's co-defendant at trial.
2. You made no mention that both Miller and Layton had the same attorney at trial.
3. You made no mention that the NFA (1934) required paperwork and a stamp to take a sawed-off shotgun across State lines (Commerce Clause).
4. You made no mention that their attorney, Paul Gutensohn, informed SCOTUS his clients Miller & Layton had failed to provide money for travel to DC.
5. You failed to mention the failure Miller & Layton and/or their lawyer to appear before SCOTUS as required on March 30, 1939 at oral arguments.
6. You failed to mention that State and Federal Courts have no responsibility to wait for defendants, complainants or appellants and juggle the Court docket.
7. You failed to mention that Miller used another sawed-off shotgun in a robbery on April 3, 1939 four days after oral arguments before SCOTUS.
8. You failed to mention that Miller was last seen alive on April 3, 1939, in Oklahoma four days after oral arguments before the High Court.
Those facts above were gleaned from - http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf
Bottom line is, SCOTUS did exactly what they were required to do in United States v. Miller, but your distortion of the facts is an indicator of your vile intent and despicable character.
Decision - United States v. Miller
Do you, or do you not support all forms of gun control? A simple yes or no is sufficient and necessary (otherwise one must conclude you are dishonest and vacuous).
Correct.The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?
The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".
Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."
But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such exceptions. As written, it allows NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.
Why?
The first amendment says you have the right to free speech, yet you can be jailed for treason, slander, endangerment and so on. It also says you have the freedom of religion, yet you can't perform the sun dance or have two wives.
Doesn't say anything about exceptions. Why? Because they're assumed, because anyone who knows anything about rights knows they always have exceptions.
One cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater; obscenity, child pornography, and speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are not entitled to First Amendment protections, they do not manifest as free speech.
The exact same thing is true for the Second Amendment, possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are not entitled to Second Amendment protections, they do not manifest as arms one has a right to bear.
Incorrect.
It's is a lot better to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater than to err on the side of censorship. There is no such thing as obscenity , although the majority of SCOTUS case law certainly would qualify beginning with Marbury vs Madison. Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are definitely entitled to First Amendment protections, they do manifest as free speech.
The exact same thing is true for our ABSOLUTE RIGHT to life and to defend the same . Possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are entitled to Constitutional (1787) protections, .
Do not confused the Constitutional provisos with UNCONSTITUTIONAL case law.
.
Rights are man made, and men determine what they are. Who do we believe? You, or Supreme Court justices?
No...rights are God given...
Correct.The first amendment says you have the right to free speech, yet you can be jailed for treason, slander, endangerment and so on. It also says you have the freedom of religion, yet you can't perform the sun dance or have two wives.
Doesn't say anything about exceptions. Why? Because they're assumed, because anyone who knows anything about rights knows they always have exceptions.
One cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater; obscenity, child pornography, and speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are not entitled to First Amendment protections, they do not manifest as free speech.
The exact same thing is true for the Second Amendment, possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are not entitled to Second Amendment protections, they do not manifest as arms one has a right to bear.
Incorrect.
It's is a lot better to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater than to err on the side of censorship. There is no such thing as obscenity , although the majority of SCOTUS case law certainly would qualify beginning with Marbury vs Madison. Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness and violence are definitely entitled to First Amendment protections, they do manifest as free speech.
The exact same thing is true for our ABSOLUTE RIGHT to life and to defend the same . Possessing a machine gun, bringing guns into sensitive venues such as schools and government buildings, and possessing a gun if one is a convicted felon or undocumented immigrant are entitled to Constitutional (1787) protections, .
Do not confused the Constitutional provisos with UNCONSTITUTIONAL case law.
.
Rights are man made, and men determine what they are. Who do we believe? You, or Supreme Court justices?
No...rights are God given...
Then, there are no rights for those who don't believe in 'God'?
By your own standard, you have, again, proven yourself a foolish child.I have already concluded, as have many others, that M14 is both dishonest and vacuous as well as an asshole.
2aguy is mentally deranged; he is out of touch with reality.
Check it out.Do you, or do you not support all forms of gun control? A simple yes or no is sufficient and necessary (otherwise one must conclude you are dishonest and vacuous).
TRANSLATION: He keeps winning all the debates with me, and I can never refute what he says. And I hate that, so he must be wrong.I have already concluded, as have many others, that M14 is both dishonest and vacuous as well as an asshole. All of which is proved by his finding a simple question funny, one which he lacks the integrity to answer.
TRANSLATION: He keeps winning all the debates with me, and I can never refute what he says. And I hate that, so he must be wrong.[/QUOTE]I have already concluded, as have many others, that M14 is both dishonest and vacuous as well as an asshole. All of which is proved by his finding a simple question funny, one which he lacks the integrity to answer.
