danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #221
There is no appeal to ignorance.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CDZ 2nd amendmant and arms
- Thread starter there4eyeM
- Start date
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #222
The Right is simply clueless and Causeless regarding gun grabbers:
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That is how it was intended.The people are the militia."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the MILITIA, shall not be infringed
No.
Only males between the ages of 16-45 could be in the militia.
You exclude all females, and males under 16, over 45 , from the right to keep and bear arms.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #224
The Right is simply clueless and Causeless regarding gun grabbers:That is how it was intended.The people are the militia."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the MILITIA, shall not be infringed
No.
Only males between the ages of 16-45 could be in the militia.
You exclude all females, and males under 16, over 45 , from the right to keep and bear arms.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Josf
Active Member
- Apr 20, 2015
- 379
- 21
- 26
The criminals, as a rule, must disarm their victims, that is as much a natural law as gravity. Those who effectively defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminals, no matter what flag the criminals wave, no matter which lies the criminals speak or write, must secure and maintain sufficient arms constituting an effective deterrence against any thoughts or actions aimed by guilty criminals upon innocent victims. That is irrevocable natural law.
Failure to secure and maintain sufficient arms constituting an effective deterrence ensures the perpetration of crime by guilty criminals upon innocent victims because the lack of defensive power constitutes opportunity no different than ignorant parents sending their children to be "taught" by a pedophile who also happens to be a relative of the local dictator. At the point of discovery of the fact that a criminal - who is protected by those you pay for your protection from criminals - is busy injuring your personal posterity, where you are then completely defenseless in spirit, in body, and in arms, at that point, the individual may realize the foolishness of believing these lies that continuously credit the worst liars ever, now called euphemistically "politicians," with earnings amounting to more than half of each productive individuals productive capacity, so they can then spend what you once had for your own secure productive and happy life, where those criminals spend that money disarming you in spirit, disarming you in body, disarming you in productive capacity, disarming you in knowledge, disarming you in belief, disarming you in mind, disarming your offspring, having already disarmed your parents, and ensuring total collapse of any concept of civilization whatsoever, unless, once again, enough people realize, in time, the need to get back to basic common sense.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
Bear Arms
" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms
Failure to secure and maintain sufficient arms constituting an effective deterrence ensures the perpetration of crime by guilty criminals upon innocent victims because the lack of defensive power constitutes opportunity no different than ignorant parents sending their children to be "taught" by a pedophile who also happens to be a relative of the local dictator. At the point of discovery of the fact that a criminal - who is protected by those you pay for your protection from criminals - is busy injuring your personal posterity, where you are then completely defenseless in spirit, in body, and in arms, at that point, the individual may realize the foolishness of believing these lies that continuously credit the worst liars ever, now called euphemistically "politicians," with earnings amounting to more than half of each productive individuals productive capacity, so they can then spend what you once had for your own secure productive and happy life, where those criminals spend that money disarming you in spirit, disarming you in body, disarming you in productive capacity, disarming you in knowledge, disarming you in belief, disarming you in mind, disarming your offspring, having already disarmed your parents, and ensuring total collapse of any concept of civilization whatsoever, unless, once again, enough people realize, in time, the need to get back to basic common sense.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
Bear Arms
" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #226
Only the Right prefers to be clueless and Causeless.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
Josf
Active Member
- Apr 20, 2015
- 379
- 21
- 26
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
— Tench Coxe, in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1).
— Tench Coxe, in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1).
- Mar 7, 2014
- 45,137
- 9,155
- 2,030
Americans must be a scared and insecure people? Consider our history from the British are coming, the natives are surrounding the covered wagons, the communists are taking over, the Japanese are controlling our economy, Sharia law is coming, terrorists are everywhere, and meanwhile Americans are shooting each other everywhere. Get under your desks, hide under the bed, get under those covers, America is scared. Our new motto: be afraid be very afraid. Arm yourself, arm yourself. Get a gun, get a gun.
America has become a killing field. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Banning AR-15 s Doesn t Make Sense To Me US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
How do we curtail gun violence US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What right does he have to demand I lose my rights Page 67 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Being afraid is what the right want you.
The Cold War was perfect, it was a proxy war that allowed them to make everyone scared of commies, to make their political careers much easier just by shouting their mouths off about commies, it allowed them to give a shed load of money to their friends the defense contractors, and to put through laws which limited people's rights and liberties while claiming they were pro-constitution and Bill of Rights and all of that.
They lost that. Reagan, the hero for winning the war that lost them their best selling point. I don't get why right wingers think he's a hero when he supposedly took down communism in the USSR (Okay, he didn't, but they think he did), when it destroyed the right for a while.
Then Bush got in power. Damn it, need another common enemy. One came to the doorstep, then Bush pushed it for all it was worth and more. He managed to destabilise the world and the right still think he's great. Probably because they know the right can start taking away liberties and spending a shed load on the military, and all "legitimately" too.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #229
The Battle of Athens, Tennessee only happened due to the wellness of regulation of homecoming veterans; not, gun lovers without a clue or a Cause."As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
— Tench Coxe, in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1).
Josf
Active Member
- Apr 20, 2015
- 379
- 21
- 26
"...gun lovers without a clue or a Cause."
That can mean anything one second, and according to the intended meaning of whoever intends those words to means something, those words can mean the opposite thing the next second.
When I ran for congress is 1996, in District 40, of California, the Democrat candidate was vocal about his intention to infringe upon the right of the people (moral people who are defenders of the innocent, not guilty criminals whose intention is to destroy life), AND, as it happened during the election process, the challenging, NRA backed, Republican candidate was also expressing words of his intention to infringe upon the right of the people to bear arms, having done so while I was in the audience of his speaking engagement with the NRA membership in District 40 California.
The incumbent, also a Republican, had perpetrated the felony beyond reasonable doubt, as he perpetrated numerous capital crimes in order to do so.
Jerry Lewis on Gun Control
The switch from District 40, which includes San Bernardino County, became District 41 since the election cycle in which my name was by my effort placed on that ballot in 1996.
That switch from District 40 to District 41 happened during the effort to issue lawful demands of redress of grievances in every single federal District in these United States of America. I ended up delivering, by hand, the signed petitions to the wrong District office as a result of my failure to know that the numbers where switched.
During the election, during the campaign of the Republican "gun grabbing" candidate who was challenging the Republican "gun grabbing" incumbent candidate, during the NRA meeting where I was a member of the NRA, and I was the non "gun grabbing" Libertarian candidate, I raised my hand after the "gun grabbing" Republican candidate spoke, while I sat in my seat in the audience. I was able to speak and I was able to inform all present that no piece of paper ever removes my power to defend myself, to which there was then absolute silence, no response from anyone, as I sat down, and remained unchallenged by anyone as if what I said contained absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
I did not renew my membership in the NRA. Of course I did not win the election. The incumbent was able to spend his share of the loot collected through fraud and extortion on making sure that he faced no competition from anywhere in District 40. There was never a debate where the incumbent thought he ought to be present as his position in false government was obviously secured well by his investments spent by him from the collective FUND of extorted wealth.
"1996 On November 5, 1996, Jerry Lewis won re-election to the United States House. He defeated Bob Conaway (D), Hale McGee (American Independent) and Joseph Kelley (L) in the general election.[10]"
Sign the Petitions For Redress Of Grievances
February, 2011
WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL EDUCATION:
FIRST AMENDMENT PETITIONS FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES REGARDING VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Back to the subject:
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
— William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
Bullets to Save Ballots Honorable Mention
Bullets to Save Ballots Honorable Mention
What Lessons Can Modern Americans Learn from the Battle of Athens, Tennessee?
By Joe Kelley
That can mean anything one second, and according to the intended meaning of whoever intends those words to means something, those words can mean the opposite thing the next second.
When I ran for congress is 1996, in District 40, of California, the Democrat candidate was vocal about his intention to infringe upon the right of the people (moral people who are defenders of the innocent, not guilty criminals whose intention is to destroy life), AND, as it happened during the election process, the challenging, NRA backed, Republican candidate was also expressing words of his intention to infringe upon the right of the people to bear arms, having done so while I was in the audience of his speaking engagement with the NRA membership in District 40 California.
The incumbent, also a Republican, had perpetrated the felony beyond reasonable doubt, as he perpetrated numerous capital crimes in order to do so.
Jerry Lewis on Gun Control
The switch from District 40, which includes San Bernardino County, became District 41 since the election cycle in which my name was by my effort placed on that ballot in 1996.
That switch from District 40 to District 41 happened during the effort to issue lawful demands of redress of grievances in every single federal District in these United States of America. I ended up delivering, by hand, the signed petitions to the wrong District office as a result of my failure to know that the numbers where switched.
During the election, during the campaign of the Republican "gun grabbing" candidate who was challenging the Republican "gun grabbing" incumbent candidate, during the NRA meeting where I was a member of the NRA, and I was the non "gun grabbing" Libertarian candidate, I raised my hand after the "gun grabbing" Republican candidate spoke, while I sat in my seat in the audience. I was able to speak and I was able to inform all present that no piece of paper ever removes my power to defend myself, to which there was then absolute silence, no response from anyone, as I sat down, and remained unchallenged by anyone as if what I said contained absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
I did not renew my membership in the NRA. Of course I did not win the election. The incumbent was able to spend his share of the loot collected through fraud and extortion on making sure that he faced no competition from anywhere in District 40. There was never a debate where the incumbent thought he ought to be present as his position in false government was obviously secured well by his investments spent by him from the collective FUND of extorted wealth.
"1996 On November 5, 1996, Jerry Lewis won re-election to the United States House. He defeated Bob Conaway (D), Hale McGee (American Independent) and Joseph Kelley (L) in the general election.[10]"
Sign the Petitions For Redress Of Grievances
February, 2011
WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL EDUCATION:
FIRST AMENDMENT PETITIONS FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES REGARDING VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Back to the subject:
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
— William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
Bullets to Save Ballots Honorable Mention
Bullets to Save Ballots Honorable Mention
What Lessons Can Modern Americans Learn from the Battle of Athens, Tennessee?
By Joe Kelley
Last edited:
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #231
Here is the declaration of rights in our California State supreme law of the land:
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
You have it in writing; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
You have it in writing; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
Josf
Active Member
- Apr 20, 2015
- 379
- 21
- 26
"You have it in writing; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law."
Moving somewhat off topic, but remaining, gladly, within the general subject matter of self defense.
The California State Constitution was formed as a Republic (meaning of the people, by the people, and for the people, not of the criminals, by the criminals, and for the criminals) as an independent Republic before it was incorporated into the false federation, or before it was possibly incorporated into a true, voluntary federation, as a result of the current battle, of the day, involving the issue of criminal slavery which was supposedly made legal in 1789 by the criminals who took over government.
The original Constitution of the State of California 1849 the engrossed copy with the official Spanish translation California. Constitution 1849 Free Download Streaming Internet Archive
". . . People ought to enjoy Peace and Tranquillity, that they may be in a
condition to attend the Worship of God, and the good Works prescribed by
the Christian Religion, and not to be diverted from the sacraments by being
condemned to continual Labor. Which state of Peace and Rest can not
subsist without preserving to every Man his Property, and guarding him from
all assaults of Injury and Injustice. The Governors of Commonwealths are
bound by the Law of God to remove all Obstructions to so necessary a Peace
. . . This good order is necessary in every Christian Republic, but there espe-
cially where the Christian Faith has been but lately introduced."
What did Jesus Christ say about the law?
That is easy, and that is simple.
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
The original California Constitution (documenting a voluntary mutual defense association formation) read this way:
"We, the people of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution."
Constitution of the State of California 1849 California Secretary of State
The current version reads this way:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.preamble
"We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution."
Here is a copy of the 1880 version:
http://archives.cdn.sos.ca.gov/collections/1879/archive/1879-constitution.pdf
"We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution."
Note the difference please:
Original:
"We, the people of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution."
Altered:
"We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution."
When the criminals take over they claim to be in command of the official, authorized, exclusive, meanings of words, and they claim that their power is absolute; meaning only they - the criminals - reserve this exclusive power to enforce their meanings (which change as the wind blows) within their exclusive membership.
That is the warning offered by those such as George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and others, concerning precisely how the criminal tyrants take over.
You can claim that no one offered warnings. False claims are easy to demonstrate as false claims.
You have it in writing; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
True or false?
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
Moving somewhat off topic, but remaining, gladly, within the general subject matter of self defense.
The California State Constitution was formed as a Republic (meaning of the people, by the people, and for the people, not of the criminals, by the criminals, and for the criminals) as an independent Republic before it was incorporated into the false federation, or before it was possibly incorporated into a true, voluntary federation, as a result of the current battle, of the day, involving the issue of criminal slavery which was supposedly made legal in 1789 by the criminals who took over government.
The original Constitution of the State of California 1849 the engrossed copy with the official Spanish translation California. Constitution 1849 Free Download Streaming Internet Archive
". . . People ought to enjoy Peace and Tranquillity, that they may be in a
condition to attend the Worship of God, and the good Works prescribed by
the Christian Religion, and not to be diverted from the sacraments by being
condemned to continual Labor. Which state of Peace and Rest can not
subsist without preserving to every Man his Property, and guarding him from
all assaults of Injury and Injustice. The Governors of Commonwealths are
bound by the Law of God to remove all Obstructions to so necessary a Peace
. . . This good order is necessary in every Christian Republic, but there espe-
cially where the Christian Faith has been but lately introduced."
What did Jesus Christ say about the law?
That is easy, and that is simple.
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
The original California Constitution (documenting a voluntary mutual defense association formation) read this way:
"We, the people of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution."
Constitution of the State of California 1849 California Secretary of State
The current version reads this way:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.preamble
"We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution."
Here is a copy of the 1880 version:
http://archives.cdn.sos.ca.gov/collections/1879/archive/1879-constitution.pdf
"We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution."
Note the difference please:
Original:
"We, the people of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution."
Altered:
"We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution."
When the criminals take over they claim to be in command of the official, authorized, exclusive, meanings of words, and they claim that their power is absolute; meaning only they - the criminals - reserve this exclusive power to enforce their meanings (which change as the wind blows) within their exclusive membership.
That is the warning offered by those such as George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and others, concerning precisely how the criminal tyrants take over.
You can claim that no one offered warnings. False claims are easy to demonstrate as false claims.
You have it in writing; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
True or false?
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
Last edited:
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #233
All you need is a good argument.
Josf
Active Member
- Apr 20, 2015
- 379
- 21
- 26
"You have it in writing; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law."
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
That is a warning as well as it is instructions. The order is not an order to be obeyed without question. The idea is to understand, to know, and not to ignore that which is the law in fact, not that which is a criminal order to be obeyed without question.
"All you need is a good argument."
What is the point of offerings those words to anyone?
If the subject matter is any man made statute that suggests a cause for action, such as the Second Amendment, then what does arguing have to do with the subject matter? If arguing has something to do with the subject matter, and ignorance of the law (Matthew 7:11) might suggest a need to hear more than your own man-made viewpoint.
One way communication is called dictation for a reason.
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
That is a warning as well as it is instructions. The order is not an order to be obeyed without question. The idea is to understand, to know, and not to ignore that which is the law in fact, not that which is a criminal order to be obeyed without question.
"All you need is a good argument."
What is the point of offerings those words to anyone?
If the subject matter is any man made statute that suggests a cause for action, such as the Second Amendment, then what does arguing have to do with the subject matter? If arguing has something to do with the subject matter, and ignorance of the law (Matthew 7:11) might suggest a need to hear more than your own man-made viewpoint.
One way communication is called dictation for a reason.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #235
Good arguments usually win cases in legal venues; only the clueless and the Causeless (in legal venues) don't get it.
- Dec 9, 2013
- 16,826
- 4,777
- 265
I always have a point; the People are the Militia. Only well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia) are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the entirety of the Militias of the United States.Because, it Only and merely means; Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union.If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?
You might have a point if it gave the right to the militias, instead of the people.
That is not what it says nor what it means which is why you have no point
Josf
Active Member
- Apr 20, 2015
- 379
- 21
- 26
As to the idea that there is no appeal to the ignorance of the law. There is this idea, perhaps, expressed in Latin terms as such:
Mens rea
Actus reus
Google
mens = the mind
rea = guilty
Guilty mind
actus = actions
reus = guilty
"Principles - actus reus - the mental element
"Strictly speaking, though in almost universal use, it derives, I believe, from a mistranslation of the Latin aphorism: "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea."
Properly translated, this means "An act does not make a man guilty of a crime, unless his mind be also guilty."
It is thus not the actus which is "reus," but the man and his mind respectively. Before the understanding of the Latin tongue has wholly died out of these islands, it is as well to record this as it has frequently led to confusion."
Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea Definition
Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea Definition:
Latin: conviction of a crime requires proof of a criminal act and intent.
Latin Dictionary Headword Search Results
actus = a driving, impulse, setting in motion
reus = concerned in a thing, party to an action
An example might be someone parroting the lie that some fraud with a badge has a right to disarm an innocent individual, and in so doing an innocent individual believes the parrot, gives up his gun, and is then defenseless. The parrot parroting the lie is unknowing, ignorant, but does the ignorance constitute criminal ignorance, if the parrot is only a forum member? How about the fraud with the badge? If the fraud with the badge knows that there is a second amendment amending the rules that the fraud uses as his cover story during the taking of the gun, then the fraud is guilt of mind: a criminal.
mens = the mind, disposition, feeling, character, heart, soul
rea = ?
A reason for removing the single man, or the special interest group, from power as the sole dictator, or most powerful dictatorial group, was the idea behind a trial by the whole country, also known as legem terrae, also known as the law of the land, also known as trial by jury according to the common law, also remaining in the Bill of Right which is supposedly something those with badges, offices, in each state in the federation understand; and attest to verbally, and in writing, under oath.
Mens rea
Actus reus
mens = the mind
rea = guilty
Guilty mind
actus = actions
reus = guilty
"Principles - actus reus - the mental element
"Strictly speaking, though in almost universal use, it derives, I believe, from a mistranslation of the Latin aphorism: "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea."
Properly translated, this means "An act does not make a man guilty of a crime, unless his mind be also guilty."
It is thus not the actus which is "reus," but the man and his mind respectively. Before the understanding of the Latin tongue has wholly died out of these islands, it is as well to record this as it has frequently led to confusion."
Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea Definition
Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea Definition:
Latin: conviction of a crime requires proof of a criminal act and intent.
Latin Dictionary Headword Search Results
actus = a driving, impulse, setting in motion
reus = concerned in a thing, party to an action
An example might be someone parroting the lie that some fraud with a badge has a right to disarm an innocent individual, and in so doing an innocent individual believes the parrot, gives up his gun, and is then defenseless. The parrot parroting the lie is unknowing, ignorant, but does the ignorance constitute criminal ignorance, if the parrot is only a forum member? How about the fraud with the badge? If the fraud with the badge knows that there is a second amendment amending the rules that the fraud uses as his cover story during the taking of the gun, then the fraud is guilt of mind: a criminal.
mens = the mind, disposition, feeling, character, heart, soul
rea = ?
A reason for removing the single man, or the special interest group, from power as the sole dictator, or most powerful dictatorial group, was the idea behind a trial by the whole country, also known as legem terrae, also known as the law of the land, also known as trial by jury according to the common law, also remaining in the Bill of Right which is supposedly something those with badges, offices, in each state in the federation understand; and attest to verbally, and in writing, under oath.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #238
Yes, it is; simply because I say so; and, if you don't know it, I am right even when on the left.I always have a point; the People are the Militia. Only well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia) are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the entirety of the Militias of the United States.Because, it Only and merely means; Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union.If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?
You might have a point if it gave the right to the militias, instead of the people.
That is not what it says nor what it means which is why you have no point
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #239
Willful appeal to ignorance of the law can and may be considered a moral turpitude. You really do just need a good argument.As to the idea that there is no appeal to the ignorance of the law. There is this idea, perhaps, expressed in Latin terms as such:
Mens rea
Actus reus
mens = the mind
rea = guilty
Guilty mind
actus = actions
reus = guilty
"Principles - actus reus - the mental element
"Strictly speaking, though in almost universal use, it derives, I believe, from a mistranslation of the Latin aphorism: "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea."
Properly translated, this means "An act does not make a man guilty of a crime, unless his mind be also guilty."
It is thus not the actus which is "reus," but the man and his mind respectively. Before the understanding of the Latin tongue has wholly died out of these islands, it is as well to record this as it has frequently led to confusion."
Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea Definition
Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea Definition:
Latin: conviction of a crime requires proof of a criminal act and intent.
Latin Dictionary Headword Search Results
actus = a driving, impulse, setting in motion
reus = concerned in a thing, party to an action
An example might be someone parroting the lie that some fraud with a badge has a right to disarm an innocent individual, and in so doing an innocent individual believes the parrot, gives up his gun, and is then defenseless. The parrot parroting the lie is unknowing, ignorant, but does the ignorance constitute criminal ignorance, if the parrot is only a forum member? How about the fraud with the badge? If the fraud with the badge knows that there is a second amendment amending the rules that the fraud uses as his cover story during the taking of the gun, then the fraud is guilt of mind: a criminal.
mens = the mind, disposition, feeling, character, heart, soul
rea = ?
A reason for removing the single man, or the special interest group, from power as the sole dictator, or most powerful dictatorial group, was the idea behind a trial by the whole country, also known as legem terrae, also known as the law of the land, also known as trial by jury according to the common law, also remaining in the Bill of Right which is supposedly something those with badges, offices, in each state in the federation understand; and attest to verbally, and in writing, under oath.
Josf
Active Member
- Apr 20, 2015
- 379
- 21
- 26
"Willful appeal to ignorance of the law can and may be considered a moral turpitude."
So someone doing unto others (such as stealing from others their ability to defend themselves) as they demonstrate they do not want the same done to themselves (or they would be giving, not taking) is someone demonstrating depravity of mind, as their evil shows through their counterfeit goodness, as they claim to be disarming people so as to defend people.
"You really do just need a good argument."
Argument can be argued as to what argument means, and if someone claims that the winner of the argument is winning the defensive capabilities of someone innocent of any wrongdoing, thereby giving the winner all the counterfeit reason the winner needs to disarm his, or her, targeted victim, then that can be claimed to be a "good argument" where the one claiming they win a "good argument" just so happens to end up with the guns previously earned, held, owned, and employed by the victim who is claimed as the loser of the "good argument"?
A good liar can win a good argument according to a good liar?
Yet a problem still exists, does it not, whereby the one claimed to be the one losing the argument is still possessing, still maintaining, still skilled at using, said armament, and the one claiming to "win" the "good argument" has yet to transfer the gun from the "loser" to the "winner."
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
So someone doing unto others (such as stealing from others their ability to defend themselves) as they demonstrate they do not want the same done to themselves (or they would be giving, not taking) is someone demonstrating depravity of mind, as their evil shows through their counterfeit goodness, as they claim to be disarming people so as to defend people.
"You really do just need a good argument."
Argument can be argued as to what argument means, and if someone claims that the winner of the argument is winning the defensive capabilities of someone innocent of any wrongdoing, thereby giving the winner all the counterfeit reason the winner needs to disarm his, or her, targeted victim, then that can be claimed to be a "good argument" where the one claiming they win a "good argument" just so happens to end up with the guns previously earned, held, owned, and employed by the victim who is claimed as the loser of the "good argument"?
A good liar can win a good argument according to a good liar?
Yet a problem still exists, does it not, whereby the one claimed to be the one losing the argument is still possessing, still maintaining, still skilled at using, said armament, and the one claiming to "win" the "good argument" has yet to transfer the gun from the "loser" to the "winner."
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 92
- Views
- 873
- Replies
- 52
- Views
- 706
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 359
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 142
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 177
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 24
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 2
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8060
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 470
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-