What Part Of "Shall Not Be Infringed" Does She Not Understand?

[bendog]

absolute is not synonomous with unalienable

unalienable

What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied


. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


To find the origins of the word unalienable, we can look at the root,alien, which comes from the Latin alienus, meaning "of or belonging to another." This provides the basis for our word, with the prefix un-providing the turnaround "not," and the suffix -able providing the idea of capability. Therefore, we get “not able to be denied.” Oh, and if you are wondering about the common argument as to whether it is "unalienable" or "inalienable," either is correct.

You don't even have an absolute right to live

Now you know the meaning go forth and stop being a dumb ass.


.

you are more ignorant than uncivil, which should be an impossibility

 

[martybegan]

THAT is an answer. Thank you.

So my question is, if NYC is the "gold standard" for some gun control supporters, why should I trust ANY further gun control proposals when this one is still allowed to stand?

Not all those seeking some new regulation act in good faith, nor do the NRA or gun mfters. The NRA has not sued over NY. So I think we have to approach each individually. Law abiding folk oughtta be able to buy all non-military firearms they want

A right is a right is a right. If I don't get to exercise it, everyone loses, as it emboldens others to remove said rights from the rest of us.

you and the nra should sue

They should. but the national NRA considers NYC a lost cause. The law has been challenged, and local judges have allowed the law to stand.

There are no judges. They are merely fascists government agents - politicians in black robes.


.

Judges serve a purpose, however when they go from interpretation to creation, then the balance between the branches and levels of government goes away.

 

[martybegan]

THAT is an answer. Thank you.

So my question is, if NYC is the "gold standard" for some gun control supporters, why should I trust ANY further gun control proposals when this one is still allowed to stand?

Not all those seeking some new regulation act in good faith, nor do the NRA or gun mfters. The NRA has not sued over NY. So I think we have to approach each individually. Law abiding folk oughtta be able to buy all non-military firearms they want

A right is a right is a right. If I don't get to exercise it, everyone loses, as it emboldens others to remove said rights from the rest of us.

you and the nra should sue

They should. but the national NRA considers NYC a lost cause. The law has been challenged, and local judges have allowed the law to stand.

it can be appealed all thr way. I think the nra loves the law for the fear factor

Then why not get rid of it, and take away the NRA's ammunition?

The answer is that the true blue gun controllers want NYC's regs for EVERYONE, except government agents, and of course anyone who protects the people in power.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

What part of "the Second Amendment is not unlimited" do you not understand.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court

The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people


The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln,11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Well which is it…

You can’t in one post make the errant, moronic claim that the Supreme Court has ‘no authority’ to determine what the Constitution means and then in another post cite a Supreme Court ruling.

Too funny – you can’t have it both ways.

As for Cruikshank, there’s nothing in its holding that prohibits government from placing restrictions on citizens’ rights, including the Second Amendment right.

In McDonald v. Chicago, incorporating the Second Amendment to the states and local governments pursuant to 14th Amendment jurisprudence, the Court reaffirmed that fact:

[T]his Court’s decisions in Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller do not preclude us from considering whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right binding on the States. See Heller, 554 U. S., at ___, n. 23 (slip op., at 48, n. 23). None of those cases “engage[d] in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.” Ibid. As explained more fully below, Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller all preceded the era in which the Court began the process of “selective incorporation” under the Due Process Clause, and we have never previously addressed the question whether the right to keep and bear arms applies to the States under that theory.
[…]
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.

McDonald v. Chicago 561 U.S. ___ (2010)

 

[Flash]

[

Methinks your post / rant above is a very good example of unreasonableness.

You are confused Moon Bat.

Unreasonableness is like the SAFE Act in New York where a veteran went to the doctor because he had a little insomnia and the doctor reported him to the filthy ass unreasonable government and the government thugs came to his house and confiscated his legally owned firearms.

Unreasonableness is the stupid Libtards in California passing a bill to ban all semi automatic firearms.

Unreasonable is when the decorated veteran in New York was arrested and sent to jail because he had an empty standard capitacy magazine in the trunk of his car.

Unreasonableness is the city of DC banning all handguns, even in the home for self defense, and having to be told to knock it off by the Supreme Court.

You stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats wouldn't know what the term "reasonable" meant if it bit you in the ass and that is why you sorry ass bastards can't be trusted with the Bill of Rights..

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

The courts determine what is or is not reasonable and Constitutional, and ultimately the Supreme Court when the lower court are in conflict, not you and other ignorant rightists predicated solely on your subjective, uninformed opinions.

And until such time as the Supreme Court rules on the prohibition of certain firearms, such as AR platform rifles, laws prohibiting their possession are indeed Constitutional, consistent with the fact that all rights are subject to regulation, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

If your argument is that the courts can be oppressive and take away our Constitutional freedoms by being unreasonable idiots if we let them then you will have no disagreement there. We see the Federal government, states and locals try to do that all the time.

My contention is that the 2nd amendment is damn near fool proof ("shall not be infringed" is pretty damn idiot proof) and that we should never give foolish uneducated low information Libtards the right to be unreasonable because they have a record of screwing up our Liberties.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."

Our courts agree with her .....even the Heller decision written by Scalia

There is a big big difference to what Scalia thought was reasonable and what the typical Libtard Moon Bat thinks is reasonable.

You can't ever trust the stupid Moon Bats with a definition of reasonable because they are dumbass unreasonable dickheads.

I can give several recent examples of their unreasonableness if you are confused about this point.

exactly...that was the biggest mistake he made.......now they think they can do whatever they want......say "Reasonable" at every step and it is okay......

Libtards have no idea what the word reasonable means. That is why we can't trust the assholes with our Constitutional rights.

More ignorance, stupidity, and lies.

Liberals correctly understand that the Supreme Court determines what is reasonable and Constitutional, and they respect and follow those decisions consistent with the rule of law.

Something most conservatives fail to understand and often refuse to do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

What part of reasonable regulation don't YOU understand?

Show me the "reasonable regulation" clause in the Constitution.

There doesn't have to be one, since the Constitution and subsequent case law gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
Once in possession of that power, the Court had the prerogative to make judgments as to whether or not reasonable regulation could be applied to the exercise of rights.

Correct.

Indeed, the doctrine of judicial review predates the Constitution, where the doctrine was practiced in Colonial courts for well over a century before the advent of the Foundation Era.

And those who framed the Constitution fully expected the courts to continue to review laws and invalidate those repugnant to the Constitution.

 

[Flash]

[

A right is a right is a right. If I don't get to exercise it, everyone loses, as it emboldens others to remove said rights from the rest of us.

The only thing that separates us from being a banana republic or any of the other oppressive governments is our Bill of Rights.

These Liberals have a driving desire to destroy those Liberties by expanding government to the point of destroying them. We constantly see that with Left's attack on freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms.

The Liberals can't stand that Liberties are protected because it interferes with their imposition of a socialist shithole with a massive controlling government.

They will always be looking to find ways to circumvent our freedoms because they think we all should be subservient to the state and that we don't have inalienable rights endowed by the Creator.

The attack on the right to keep and bear arms is imperative to making us all slaves of the welfare state. That is why we can't trust them to define "reasonable" when it comes to our Liberties because they will always be unreasonable like we saw in California last week when the filthy ass Democrat controlled legislature passed a bill ban all semi auto firearms..

 

[bendog]

Not all those seeking some new regulation act in good faith, nor do the NRA or gun mfters. The NRA has not sued over NY. So I think we have to approach each individually. Law abiding folk oughtta be able to buy all non-military firearms they want

A right is a right is a right. If I don't get to exercise it, everyone loses, as it emboldens others to remove said rights from the rest of us.

you and the nra should sue

They should. but the national NRA considers NYC a lost cause. The law has been challenged, and local judges have allowed the law to stand.

it can be appealed all thr way. I think the nra loves the law for the fear factor

Then why not get rid of it, and take away the NRA's ammunition?

The answer is that the true blue gun controllers want NYC's regs for EVERYONE, except government agents, and of course anyone who protects the people in power.

imo ny pols like the law. And if it went to the sup ct, NY would pt to pre-gulini and after gulini NY. I'd say it was the maximum sentencing for gun crimes and not gun control, but its maybe the only case the gummit could lose. I rode the subway back in the bad days, and an NY turned a corner smewhere

 

[bendog]

[

A right is a right is a right. If I don't get to exercise it, everyone loses, as it emboldens others to remove said rights from the rest of us.

The only thing that separates us from being a banana republic or any of the other oppressive governments is our Bill of Rights.

These Liberals have a driving desire to destroy those Liberties by expanding government to the point of destroying them. We constantly see that with Left's attack on freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms.

The Liberals can't stand that Liberties are protected because it interferes with their imposition of a socialist shithole with a massive controlling government.

They will always be looking to find ways to circumvent our freedoms because they think we all should be subservient to the state and that we don't have inalienable rights endowed by the Creator.

The attack on the right to keep and bear arms is imperative to making us all slaves of the welfare state. That is why we can't trust them to define "reasonable" when it comes to our Liberties because they will always be unreasonable like we saw in California last week when the filthy ass Democrat controlled legislature passed a bill ban all semi auto firearms..

umm its not just liberals, assuming its abortion or even contraceptive rights, not to mention voting

 

[martybegan]

A right is a right is a right. If I don't get to exercise it, everyone loses, as it emboldens others to remove said rights from the rest of us.

you and the nra should sue

They should. but the national NRA considers NYC a lost cause. The law has been challenged, and local judges have allowed the law to stand.

it can be appealed all thr way. I think the nra loves the law for the fear factor

Then why not get rid of it, and take away the NRA's ammunition?

The answer is that the true blue gun controllers want NYC's regs for EVERYONE, except government agents, and of course anyone who protects the people in power.

imo ny pols like the law. And if it went to the sup ct, NY would pt to pre-gulini and after gulini NY. I'd say it was the maximum sentencing for gun crimes and not gun control, but its maybe the only case the gummit could lose. I rode the subway back in the bad days, and an NY turned a corner smewhere

It was increased policing, the gun laws remained effectively the same. What happened was Guiliani went after petty crimes as well as major ones, and flooded bad areas with cops.

 

[TNHarley]

It is amazing the trust people have with our federal government. DESPITE their constant bitching about it.. Fuckin idiots

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not all those seeking some new regulation act in good faith, nor do the NRA or gun mfters. The NRA has not sued over NY. So I think we have to approach each individually. Law abiding folk oughtta be able to buy all non-military firearms they want

A right is a right is a right. If I don't get to exercise it, everyone loses, as it emboldens others to remove said rights from the rest of us.

you and the nra should sue

They should. but the national NRA considers NYC a lost cause. The law has been challenged, and local judges have allowed the law to stand.

it can be appealed all thr way. I think the nra loves the law for the fear factor

Then why not get rid of it, and take away the NRA's ammunition?

The answer is that the true blue gun controllers want NYC's regs for EVERYONE, except government agents, and of course anyone who protects the people in power.

Straw man fallacy; ridiculous, delusional nonsense.

 

[martybegan]

A right is a right is a right. If I don't get to exercise it, everyone loses, as it emboldens others to remove said rights from the rest of us.

you and the nra should sue

They should. but the national NRA considers NYC a lost cause. The law has been challenged, and local judges have allowed the law to stand.

it can be appealed all thr way. I think the nra loves the law for the fear factor

Then why not get rid of it, and take away the NRA's ammunition?

The answer is that the true blue gun controllers want NYC's regs for EVERYONE, except government agents, and of course anyone who protects the people in power.

Straw man fallacy; ridiculous, delusional nonsense.

Vapid response, no content, moronic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

IMO

???

imo the NY regulation is overbroad and unconstitutional

THAT is an answer. Thank you.

So my question is, if NYC is the "gold standard" for some gun control supporters, why should I trust ANY further gun control proposals when this one is still allowed to stand?

Not all those seeking some new regulation act in good faith, nor do the NRA or gun mfters. The NRA has not sued over NY. So I think we have to approach each individually. Law abiding folk oughtta be able to buy all non-military firearms they want

A right is a right is a right. If I don't get to exercise it, everyone loses, as it emboldens others to remove said rights from the rest of us.

Agreed.

That would include the right of same-sex couples to marry and the privacy rights of women.

The states have neither the right nor authority to deny citizens their protected liberties.

The same is true with regard to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, that citizens have an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of self-defense.

Today Americans in every state and jurisdiction have lawful access to firearms, firearms are neither ‘banned’ nor ‘prohibited’ in any state or jurisdiction.

But the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ “t is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Heller Ibid

 

[Syriusly]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

So state laws forbidding felons from owning guns are unconstitutional?

As previously stated, felons lose rights upon conviction. It is part of the penalty for their crimes.

So you agree with Hillary Clinton when she said

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."

No, I don't. A felon losing a right is not regulation, but a penalty through due process.

Actually it is exactly a 'reasonable regulation'.

The only difference is that it is a regulation you consider reasonable- whereas you find others unreasonable.

And that is just a matter of opinion then.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You just don't like the answer

Your community wants thorough background checks and regulations. There are eight million people in NYC, if they believe those regulations are excessive, they have a court system available to them

It's not an answer. Tell my why the restrictions I stated are reasonable.

IMO

???

imo the NY regulation is overbroad and unconstitutional

THAT is an answer. Thank you.

So my question is, if NYC is the "gold standard" for some gun control supporters, why should I trust ANY further gun control proposals when this one is still allowed to stand?

You don’t understand.

You make the mistake of perceiving all ‘advocates’ of ‘gun control’ as the same, they are not.

For example, those who support UBC do not support New York’s Safe Act, or any other measure that prohibits the possession of certain types of semi-auto rifles such as AR 15s.

Consequently, the issue has nothing to do with ‘trust,’ as any firearm regulatory measure can be subject to a court challenge, as is currently the case with regard to the New York measure and other similar measures.

Indeed, it’s likely that Maryland’s restrictive firearm measure might be invalidated by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and if that happens it will be in conflict with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the Safe Act as Constitutional, leading eventually to the Supreme Court.

And should that case reach the Supreme Court, then and only then will we know whether banning AR 15s is Constitutional.

 

[bendog]

It's not an answer. Tell my why the restrictions I stated are reasonable.

IMO

???

imo the NY regulation is overbroad and unconstitutional

THAT is an answer. Thank you.

So my question is, if NYC is the "gold standard" for some gun control supporters, why should I trust ANY further gun control proposals when this one is still allowed to stand?

You don’t understand.

You make the mistake of perceiving all ‘advocates’ of ‘gun control’ as the same, they are not.

For example, those who support UBC do not support New York’s Safe Act, or any other measure that prohibits the possession of certain types of semi-auto rifles such as AR 15s.

Consequently, the issue has nothing to do with ‘trust,’ as any firearm regulatory measure can be subject to a court challenge, as is currently the case with regard to the New York measure and other similar measures.

Indeed, it’s likely that Maryland’s restrictive firearm measure might be invalidated by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and if that happens it will be in conflict with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the Safe Act as Constitutional, leading eventually to the Supreme Court.

And should that case reach the Supreme Court, then and only then will we know whether banning AR 15s is Constitutional.

We'll shoot. I never could figure out why I needed one, but figured I could get one if a riot seemed likely. My daughter's coming home for a month, and I figgered I'D buy her a nice .38 revolver. Can't afford both (-:

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nice non-answer.

You just don't like the answer

Your community wants thorough background checks and regulations. There are eight million people in NYC, if they believe those regulations are excessive, they have a court system available to them

It's not an answer. Tell my why the restrictions I stated are reasonable.

IMO

???

imo the NY regulation is overbroad and unconstitutional

And as is the case with everyone else, you’re entitled to your own opinion, you’re not entitled to your own facts of law, however.

The Safe Act and other similar measures are currently Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

New York, Connecticut, and Maryland, along with all other governments, have the authority to place reasonable restrictions on firearms, including banning AR 15s.

Whether those restrictions are reasonable (Constitutional) or not is a matter for the courts the decide, and indeed that day will likely come when the Supreme Court rules on the matter.

You seem capable of understanding that fact, many others on the right clearly lack that capability.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wasn't there one of these threads about a month ago, about 1000 posts long, where the gun nut constitutional ignoramuses on the right already lost every argument they're now losing all over again?