2nd Amendment Discussion

[danielpalos]

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"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, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“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, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

“(C)onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular States, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.”
-Roger Sherman, Debates on 1790 Militia Act

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” —Alexander Hamilton

"the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure." Thomas Jefferson in a 1787 letter to William Stephens

So, the author of the Declaration of Independence, the father of the Constitution and a host of other founders / framers and legal authorities have weighed in on the Right to keep and bear Arms. I guess they are all a "right wing fantasy????"

lol. our federal Constitution is very well expressed and not implied in any fantastical, right wing way.

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL

You need to come of with valid arguments. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

That made no sense at all in English, dannyboy. If you're challenging the validity of the arguments, they were upheld in the courts until an illegal act separated us from the constitutional Republic promised in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution.

Maybe it's YOU that needs to get his head out the left's ass, quit sniffing that pungent aroma and say something valid, provable, and honest.

And for crying out fucking loud YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL. Even people that agree with you are embarrassed by your posts. IF there is such a thing as a right wing fantasy, you feed it and keep them in power. Nobody wants the burden of trying to explain the horseshit that you post.

lol. your English is even worse; nobody can take your appeal to ignorance seriously.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"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, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“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, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

“(C)onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular States, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.”
-Roger Sherman, Debates on 1790 Militia Act

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” —Alexander Hamilton

"the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure." Thomas Jefferson in a 1787 letter to William Stephens

So, the author of the Declaration of Independence, the father of the Constitution and a host of other founders / framers and legal authorities have weighed in on the Right to keep and bear Arms. I guess they are all a "right wing fantasy????"

lol. our federal Constitution is very well expressed and not implied in any fantastical, right wing way.

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL

You need to come of with valid arguments. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

That made no sense at all in English, dannyboy. If you're challenging the validity of the arguments, they were upheld in the courts until an illegal act separated us from the constitutional Republic promised in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution.

Maybe it's YOU that needs to get his head out the left's ass, quit sniffing that pungent aroma and say something valid, provable, and honest.

And for crying out fucking loud YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL. Even people that agree with you are embarrassed by your posts. IF there is such a thing as a right wing fantasy, you feed it and keep them in power. Nobody wants the burden of trying to explain the horseshit that you post.

lol. your English is even worse; nobody can take your appeal to ignorance seriously.

How many times have I got to tell your dumb ass that I'm NOT appealing to your ignorance? I'm making fun of you. English is my first language. It obviously is not yours. Most people understand what I'm writing. Your shit is sentence fragments and words strung together, just as you admitted to earlier. They don't mean shit to anyone except you.

I just wonder who in the Hell you're trying to appeal to? Everybody here is sick of trying to educate your dumb ass and I am only living in the space between your ears rent free. I keep telling you that you have your head so far up the liberals ass, they have to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air. And everybody that disagrees with your horseshit is "right wing" EVEN WHEN THE POINTS BEING MADE ARE OPPOSED BY THE RIGHT WING!!! What a raging idiot you are!!!

Like it or not, the Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution. There are over 400 million weapons in the United States that are in private hands. When you and I are pushing up daisies or floating as ashes in the river, there will still be people owning firearms... privately held firearms.

 

[SavannahMann]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

The Second Amendment was written when there were ten times the number of Cannon in private hands as there were in Military possession. Seriously. There were literally ten times the number of privately owned cannon in Privateers sailing under American Letters of Marque as there were in the entire US Navy. Every ship sailing was armed with cannon.

Repeating firearms were already in existence. The Puckett Gun as one well known example. Henry the 8th who predated the Revolution had a collection of rapid reloading firearms.

Benjamin Franklin who during the Revolution was in France begging support saw drawings from Leonardo Da Vinci including the sketch of the man in a Parachute. Franklin was inspired and asked in a letter to imagine how much chaos a battalion of men could cause if they were dropped behind enemy lines before a sufficient force could be raised to stop them. Benjamin Franklin, before the Revolutionary War was over, in this time, imagined a future of Paratroopers and described the events of June 6th 1944 but was so ignorant and unimaginative that he and the rest could not imagine a repeating rifle already in existence.

Are you substantially different from the Humans of the revolutionary era? If we can imagine a future like in Star Trek, what makes you think that these peasants were so dumb stupid that they couldn’t imagine a future that was already coming into existence.

Percussion caps came about thanks to fulminate of Mercury, which was invented in 1807. Pretty much everyone who signed onto the Constitution was still alive then.

If you do not know the history, you should refrain from speaking definitively about what people knew, imagined, or expected. Because the Founders imagined we would want to change the Constitution. They gave us the mechanism to do so. It was not the principle of Judicial Review and a interpretation. It was the Amendment. Want to get rid of the Second, do it right.

The Pucket Gun had as much of a chance of blowing up in your face as it did sending a ball down range. It was a terrible and dangerous design. It was offered to the US Navy who bought the small cannons instead because they worked and didn't blow up the shooter usually.

As for canons in the hands of Civilians, those were purchased by companies to protect their assets. You would find one per community. And only the Rich owned them. If you were to give one to a normal person, he would take it home and reforge it into something useful (they didn't give them to normal people since that lesson was learned hundreds of years ago, swords to plowshares). The cost of that single canon would be the total income of a normal person for many years. So you don't make sense here either.

The post I was replying to said that the Founders could not imagine and certainly never intended. The most powerful weapons of the era, cannon, were in private hands. You admit that, and then downplay that fact with some of the truth. Yes, they were expensive. Just as true Machine Guns are expensive today.

But, let’s continue on with what the Founders intended. Show me in the Constitution where the Founders intended our rights to be adjudicated by the Courts. The First Amendment does not say that The Supreme Court Shall rule as invalid any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press..... you get the idea. It says Congress shall pass no law.

Since it specifies Congress. Does that mean the States can have an official Religion? Does that mean the States can restrict a Speech or the Press?

Or is it understood that the Founders intended it to be an individual right?

The Founders intended that if we had an issue with the Constitution that we would amend it, not litigate and have the Court rule on the nuances. Why don’t the anti-gun folks go that way? Why not amend the Constitution?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

The Second Amendment was written when there were ten times the number of Cannon in private hands as there were in Military possession. Seriously. There were literally ten times the number of privately owned cannon in Privateers sailing under American Letters of Marque as there were in the entire US Navy. Every ship sailing was armed with cannon.

Repeating firearms were already in existence. The Puckett Gun as one well known example. Henry the 8th who predated the Revolution had a collection of rapid reloading firearms.

Benjamin Franklin who during the Revolution was in France begging support saw drawings from Leonardo Da Vinci including the sketch of the man in a Parachute. Franklin was inspired and asked in a letter to imagine how much chaos a battalion of men could cause if they were dropped behind enemy lines before a sufficient force could be raised to stop them. Benjamin Franklin, before the Revolutionary War was over, in this time, imagined a future of Paratroopers and described the events of June 6th 1944 but was so ignorant and unimaginative that he and the rest could not imagine a repeating rifle already in existence.

Are you substantially different from the Humans of the revolutionary era? If we can imagine a future like in Star Trek, what makes you think that these peasants were so dumb stupid that they couldn’t imagine a future that was already coming into existence.

Percussion caps came about thanks to fulminate of Mercury, which was invented in 1807. Pretty much everyone who signed onto the Constitution was still alive then.

If you do not know the history, you should refrain from speaking definitively about what people knew, imagined, or expected. Because the Founders imagined we would want to change the Constitution. They gave us the mechanism to do so. It was not the principle of Judicial Review and a interpretation. It was the Amendment. Want to get rid of the Second, do it right.

The Pucket Gun had as much of a chance of blowing up in your face as it did sending a ball down range. It was a terrible and dangerous design. It was offered to the US Navy who bought the small cannons instead because they worked and didn't blow up the shooter usually.

As for canons in the hands of Civilians, those were purchased by companies to protect their assets. You would find one per community. And only the Rich owned them. If you were to give one to a normal person, he would take it home and reforge it into something useful (they didn't give them to normal people since that lesson was learned hundreds of years ago, swords to plowshares). The cost of that single canon would be the total income of a normal person for many years. So you don't make sense here either.

The post I was replying to said that the Founders could not imagine and certainly never intended. The most powerful weapons of the era, cannon, were in private hands. You admit that, and then downplay that fact with some of the truth. Yes, they were expensive. Just as true Machine Guns are expensive today.

But, let’s continue on with what the Founders intended. Show me in the Constitution where the Founders intended our rights to be adjudicated by the Courts. The First Amendment does not say that The Supreme Court Shall rule as invalid any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press..... you get the idea. It says Congress shall pass no law.

Since it specifies Congress. Does that mean the States can have an official Religion? Does that mean the States can restrict a Speech or the Press?

Or is it understood that the Founders intended it to be an individual right?

The Founders intended that if we had an issue with the Constitution that we would amend it, not litigate and have the Court rule on the nuances. Why don’t the anti-gun folks go that way? Why not amend the Constitution?

The Bill of Rights was, unfortunately, nullified by the 14th Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. our federal Constitution is very well expressed and not implied in any fantastical, right wing way.

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL

You need to come of with valid arguments. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

That made no sense at all in English, dannyboy. If you're challenging the validity of the arguments, they were upheld in the courts until an illegal act separated us from the constitutional Republic promised in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution.

Maybe it's YOU that needs to get his head out the left's ass, quit sniffing that pungent aroma and say something valid, provable, and honest.

And for crying out fucking loud YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL. Even people that agree with you are embarrassed by your posts. IF there is such a thing as a right wing fantasy, you feed it and keep them in power. Nobody wants the burden of trying to explain the horseshit that you post.

lol. your English is even worse; nobody can take your appeal to ignorance seriously.

How many times have I got to tell your dumb ass that I'm NOT appealing to your ignorance? I'm making fun of you. English is my first language. It obviously is not yours. Most people understand what I'm writing. Your shit is sentence fragments and words strung together, just as you admitted to earlier. They don't mean shit to anyone except you.

I just wonder who in the Hell you're trying to appeal to? Everybody here is sick of trying to educate your dumb ass and I am only living in the space between your ears rent free. I keep telling you that you have your head so far up the liberals ass, they have to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air. And everybody that disagrees with your horseshit is "right wing" EVEN WHEN THE POINTS BEING MADE ARE OPPOSED BY THE RIGHT WING!!! What a raging idiot you are!!!

Like it or not, the Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution. There are over 400 million weapons in the United States that are in private hands. When you and I are pushing up daisies or floating as ashes in the river, there will still be people owning firearms... privately held firearms.

You are "appealing to ignorance to yourself" because you are being incompetent, with me.

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL

You need to come of with valid arguments. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

That made no sense at all in English, dannyboy. If you're challenging the validity of the arguments, they were upheld in the courts until an illegal act separated us from the constitutional Republic promised in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution.

Maybe it's YOU that needs to get his head out the left's ass, quit sniffing that pungent aroma and say something valid, provable, and honest.

And for crying out fucking loud YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL. Even people that agree with you are embarrassed by your posts. IF there is such a thing as a right wing fantasy, you feed it and keep them in power. Nobody wants the burden of trying to explain the horseshit that you post.

lol. your English is even worse; nobody can take your appeal to ignorance seriously.

How many times have I got to tell your dumb ass that I'm NOT appealing to your ignorance? I'm making fun of you. English is my first language. It obviously is not yours. Most people understand what I'm writing. Your shit is sentence fragments and words strung together, just as you admitted to earlier. They don't mean shit to anyone except you.

I just wonder who in the Hell you're trying to appeal to? Everybody here is sick of trying to educate your dumb ass and I am only living in the space between your ears rent free. I keep telling you that you have your head so far up the liberals ass, they have to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air. And everybody that disagrees with your horseshit is "right wing" EVEN WHEN THE POINTS BEING MADE ARE OPPOSED BY THE RIGHT WING!!! What a raging idiot you are!!!

Like it or not, the Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution. There are over 400 million weapons in the United States that are in private hands. When you and I are pushing up daisies or floating as ashes in the river, there will still be people owning firearms... privately held firearms.

You are "appealing to ignorance to yourself" because you are being incompetent, with me.

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

dannyboy, that doesn't in any way, shape, fashion or form make ANY sense whatsoever. I can't appeal to myself unless I'm talking to myself. So that made no sense. I'm not being "incompetent" with you as all I can do is tell you what the law is. Unless you've gotten divorced, I can tell you now you've never been IN a courtroom. If anyone on this board is incompetent, it is you. Telling people the truth is NEVER incompetent... unless you're talking to an idiot that won't look it up and read it. You are so fucking stupid that you think the only people who understand the law are right wingers in a fantasy - whatever in the Hell that means AND THAT IS NOT AN ENGLISH statement.

The courts have disagreed with you dannyboy. You cannot hold me responsible for their rulings. You're such a fucking idiot you don't even ASK other posters if they necessarily agree with the laws on the books.

When you tell someone they cannot appeal to ignorance when they just addressed you, it means that they cannot appeal to YOUR ignorance. The idiocy you spew on this board is incorrect; it is in factual error; it does not line up with court holdings (which are the final law in this country.) If you disagree, the proper remedy is to cite your source. The wrong thing is to keep posting meaningless horseshit over and over and over again.

 

[danielpalos]

You need to come of with valid arguments. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

That made no sense at all in English, dannyboy. If you're challenging the validity of the arguments, they were upheld in the courts until an illegal act separated us from the constitutional Republic promised in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution.

Maybe it's YOU that needs to get his head out the left's ass, quit sniffing that pungent aroma and say something valid, provable, and honest.

And for crying out fucking loud YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL. Even people that agree with you are embarrassed by your posts. IF there is such a thing as a right wing fantasy, you feed it and keep them in power. Nobody wants the burden of trying to explain the horseshit that you post.

lol. your English is even worse; nobody can take your appeal to ignorance seriously.

How many times have I got to tell your dumb ass that I'm NOT appealing to your ignorance? I'm making fun of you. English is my first language. It obviously is not yours. Most people understand what I'm writing. Your shit is sentence fragments and words strung together, just as you admitted to earlier. They don't mean shit to anyone except you.

I just wonder who in the Hell you're trying to appeal to? Everybody here is sick of trying to educate your dumb ass and I am only living in the space between your ears rent free. I keep telling you that you have your head so far up the liberals ass, they have to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air. And everybody that disagrees with your horseshit is "right wing" EVEN WHEN THE POINTS BEING MADE ARE OPPOSED BY THE RIGHT WING!!! What a raging idiot you are!!!

Like it or not, the Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution. There are over 400 million weapons in the United States that are in private hands. When you and I are pushing up daisies or floating as ashes in the river, there will still be people owning firearms... privately held firearms.

You are "appealing to ignorance to yourself" because you are being incompetent, with me.

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

dannyboy, that doesn't in any way, shape, fashion or form make ANY sense whatsoever. I can't appeal to myself unless I'm talking to myself. So that made no sense. I'm not being "incompetent" with you as all I can do is tell you what the law is. Unless you've gotten divorced, I can tell you now you've never been IN a courtroom. If anyone on this board is incompetent, it is you. Telling people the truth is NEVER incompetent... unless you're talking to an idiot that won't look it up and read it. You are so fucking stupid that you think the only people who understand the law are right wingers in a fantasy - whatever in the Hell that means AND THAT IS NOT AN ENGLISH statement.

The courts have disagreed with you dannyboy. You cannot hold me responsible for their rulings. You're such a fucking idiot you don't even ASK other posters if they necessarily agree with the laws on the books.

When you tell someone they cannot appeal to ignorance when they just addressed you, it means that they cannot appeal to YOUR ignorance. The idiocy you spew on this board is incorrect; it is in factual error; it does not line up with court holdings (which are the final law in this country.) If you disagree, the proper remedy is to cite your source. The wrong thing is to keep posting meaningless horseshit over and over and over again.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. The first clause clearly enumerates the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

That made no sense at all in English, dannyboy. If you're challenging the validity of the arguments, they were upheld in the courts until an illegal act separated us from the constitutional Republic promised in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution.

Maybe it's YOU that needs to get his head out the left's ass, quit sniffing that pungent aroma and say something valid, provable, and honest.

And for crying out fucking loud YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL. Even people that agree with you are embarrassed by your posts. IF there is such a thing as a right wing fantasy, you feed it and keep them in power. Nobody wants the burden of trying to explain the horseshit that you post.

lol. your English is even worse; nobody can take your appeal to ignorance seriously.

How many times have I got to tell your dumb ass that I'm NOT appealing to your ignorance? I'm making fun of you. English is my first language. It obviously is not yours. Most people understand what I'm writing. Your shit is sentence fragments and words strung together, just as you admitted to earlier. They don't mean shit to anyone except you.

I just wonder who in the Hell you're trying to appeal to? Everybody here is sick of trying to educate your dumb ass and I am only living in the space between your ears rent free. I keep telling you that you have your head so far up the liberals ass, they have to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air. And everybody that disagrees with your horseshit is "right wing" EVEN WHEN THE POINTS BEING MADE ARE OPPOSED BY THE RIGHT WING!!! What a raging idiot you are!!!

Like it or not, the Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution. There are over 400 million weapons in the United States that are in private hands. When you and I are pushing up daisies or floating as ashes in the river, there will still be people owning firearms... privately held firearms.

You are "appealing to ignorance to yourself" because you are being incompetent, with me.

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

dannyboy, that doesn't in any way, shape, fashion or form make ANY sense whatsoever. I can't appeal to myself unless I'm talking to myself. So that made no sense. I'm not being "incompetent" with you as all I can do is tell you what the law is. Unless you've gotten divorced, I can tell you now you've never been IN a courtroom. If anyone on this board is incompetent, it is you. Telling people the truth is NEVER incompetent... unless you're talking to an idiot that won't look it up and read it. You are so fucking stupid that you think the only people who understand the law are right wingers in a fantasy - whatever in the Hell that means AND THAT IS NOT AN ENGLISH statement.

The courts have disagreed with you dannyboy. You cannot hold me responsible for their rulings. You're such a fucking idiot you don't even ASK other posters if they necessarily agree with the laws on the books.

When you tell someone they cannot appeal to ignorance when they just addressed you, it means that they cannot appeal to YOUR ignorance. The idiocy you spew on this board is incorrect; it is in factual error; it does not line up with court holdings (which are the final law in this country.) If you disagree, the proper remedy is to cite your source. The wrong thing is to keep posting meaningless horseshit over and over and over again.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. The first clause clearly enumerates the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

Neither the state governments OR the federal government created nor granted the Right to keep and bear Arms. BOTH have ruled as such. With or without the Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right that existed BEFORE the Constitution. The courts have said so.

The authority of the government only extends to guaranteeing the Right and insuring that individuals do not misuse the Right. Due process deals with criminal activity, not to the insuring of Rights.

While the government has the power to claim it bestows upon you your Rights, it does not. Our forefathers warned against the practice and said that it will destroy the government. That is exactly what is happening.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

He's trolling you, dude.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

The Second Amendment was written when there were ten times the number of Cannon in private hands as there were in Military possession. Seriously. There were literally ten times the number of privately owned cannon in Privateers sailing under American Letters of Marque as there were in the entire US Navy. Every ship sailing was armed with cannon.

Repeating firearms were already in existence. The Puckett Gun as one well known example. Henry the 8th who predated the Revolution had a collection of rapid reloading firearms.

Benjamin Franklin who during the Revolution was in France begging support saw drawings from Leonardo Da Vinci including the sketch of the man in a Parachute. Franklin was inspired and asked in a letter to imagine how much chaos a battalion of men could cause if they were dropped behind enemy lines before a sufficient force could be raised to stop them. Benjamin Franklin, before the Revolutionary War was over, in this time, imagined a future of Paratroopers and described the events of June 6th 1944 but was so ignorant and unimaginative that he and the rest could not imagine a repeating rifle already in existence.

Are you substantially different from the Humans of the revolutionary era? If we can imagine a future like in Star Trek, what makes you think that these peasants were so dumb stupid that they couldn’t imagine a future that was already coming into existence.

Percussion caps came about thanks to fulminate of Mercury, which was invented in 1807. Pretty much everyone who signed onto the Constitution was still alive then.

If you do not know the history, you should refrain from speaking definitively about what people knew, imagined, or expected. Because the Founders imagined we would want to change the Constitution. They gave us the mechanism to do so. It was not the principle of Judicial Review and a interpretation. It was the Amendment. Want to get rid of the Second, do it right.

The Pucket Gun had as much of a chance of blowing up in your face as it did sending a ball down range. It was a terrible and dangerous design. It was offered to the US Navy who bought the small cannons instead because they worked and didn't blow up the shooter usually.

As for canons in the hands of Civilians, those were purchased by companies to protect their assets. You would find one per community. And only the Rich owned them. If you were to give one to a normal person, he would take it home and reforge it into something useful (they didn't give them to normal people since that lesson was learned hundreds of years ago, swords to plowshares). The cost of that single canon would be the total income of a normal person for many years. So you don't make sense here either.

The post I was replying to said that the Founders could not imagine and certainly never intended. The most powerful weapons of the era, cannon, were in private hands. You admit that, and then downplay that fact with some of the truth. Yes, they were expensive. Just as true Machine Guns are expensive today.

But, let’s continue on with what the Founders intended. Show me in the Constitution where the Founders intended our rights to be adjudicated by the Courts. The First Amendment does not say that The Supreme Court Shall rule as invalid any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press..... you get the idea. It says Congress shall pass no law.

Since it specifies Congress. Does that mean the States can have an official Religion? Does that mean the States can restrict a Speech or the Press?

Or is it understood that the Founders intended it to be an individual right?

The Founders intended that if we had an issue with the Constitution that we would amend it, not litigate and have the Court rule on the nuances. Why don’t the anti-gun folks go that way? Why not amend the Constitution?

I think you just answered your own question. Congress shouldn't pass laws to restrict as that would be against the first 10 amendments that exist to limit the powers of the Congress and the President. But it doesn't limit the powers of the State.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

lol. your English is even worse; nobody can take your appeal to ignorance seriously.

How many times have I got to tell your dumb ass that I'm NOT appealing to your ignorance? I'm making fun of you. English is my first language. It obviously is not yours. Most people understand what I'm writing. Your shit is sentence fragments and words strung together, just as you admitted to earlier. They don't mean shit to anyone except you.

I just wonder who in the Hell you're trying to appeal to? Everybody here is sick of trying to educate your dumb ass and I am only living in the space between your ears rent free. I keep telling you that you have your head so far up the liberals ass, they have to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air. And everybody that disagrees with your horseshit is "right wing" EVEN WHEN THE POINTS BEING MADE ARE OPPOSED BY THE RIGHT WING!!! What a raging idiot you are!!!

Like it or not, the Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution. There are over 400 million weapons in the United States that are in private hands. When you and I are pushing up daisies or floating as ashes in the river, there will still be people owning firearms... privately held firearms.

You are "appealing to ignorance to yourself" because you are being incompetent, with me.

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

dannyboy, that doesn't in any way, shape, fashion or form make ANY sense whatsoever. I can't appeal to myself unless I'm talking to myself. So that made no sense. I'm not being "incompetent" with you as all I can do is tell you what the law is. Unless you've gotten divorced, I can tell you now you've never been IN a courtroom. If anyone on this board is incompetent, it is you. Telling people the truth is NEVER incompetent... unless you're talking to an idiot that won't look it up and read it. You are so fucking stupid that you think the only people who understand the law are right wingers in a fantasy - whatever in the Hell that means AND THAT IS NOT AN ENGLISH statement.

The courts have disagreed with you dannyboy. You cannot hold me responsible for their rulings. You're such a fucking idiot you don't even ASK other posters if they necessarily agree with the laws on the books.

When you tell someone they cannot appeal to ignorance when they just addressed you, it means that they cannot appeal to YOUR ignorance. The idiocy you spew on this board is incorrect; it is in factual error; it does not line up with court holdings (which are the final law in this country.) If you disagree, the proper remedy is to cite your source. The wrong thing is to keep posting meaningless horseshit over and over and over again.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. The first clause clearly enumerates the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

Neither the state governments OR the federal government created nor granted the Right to keep and bear Arms. BOTH have ruled as such. With or without the Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right that existed BEFORE the Constitution. The courts have said so.

The authority of the government only extends to guaranteeing the Right and insuring that individuals do not misuse the Right. Due process deals with criminal activity, not to the insuring of Rights.

While the government has the power to claim it bestows upon you your Rights, it does not. Our forefathers warned against the practice and said that it will destroy the government. That is exactly what is happening.

Then who bestows those rights on you? Is it God? IF so, which God. And does that mean that an Athiest has no rights? Just tell me who or what gave you those rights in the first place. And don't say just because.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. your English is even worse; nobody can take your appeal to ignorance seriously.

How many times have I got to tell your dumb ass that I'm NOT appealing to your ignorance? I'm making fun of you. English is my first language. It obviously is not yours. Most people understand what I'm writing. Your shit is sentence fragments and words strung together, just as you admitted to earlier. They don't mean shit to anyone except you.

I just wonder who in the Hell you're trying to appeal to? Everybody here is sick of trying to educate your dumb ass and I am only living in the space between your ears rent free. I keep telling you that you have your head so far up the liberals ass, they have to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air. And everybody that disagrees with your horseshit is "right wing" EVEN WHEN THE POINTS BEING MADE ARE OPPOSED BY THE RIGHT WING!!! What a raging idiot you are!!!

Like it or not, the Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution. There are over 400 million weapons in the United States that are in private hands. When you and I are pushing up daisies or floating as ashes in the river, there will still be people owning firearms... privately held firearms.

You are "appealing to ignorance to yourself" because you are being incompetent, with me.

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

dannyboy, that doesn't in any way, shape, fashion or form make ANY sense whatsoever. I can't appeal to myself unless I'm talking to myself. So that made no sense. I'm not being "incompetent" with you as all I can do is tell you what the law is. Unless you've gotten divorced, I can tell you now you've never been IN a courtroom. If anyone on this board is incompetent, it is you. Telling people the truth is NEVER incompetent... unless you're talking to an idiot that won't look it up and read it. You are so fucking stupid that you think the only people who understand the law are right wingers in a fantasy - whatever in the Hell that means AND THAT IS NOT AN ENGLISH statement.

The courts have disagreed with you dannyboy. You cannot hold me responsible for their rulings. You're such a fucking idiot you don't even ASK other posters if they necessarily agree with the laws on the books.

When you tell someone they cannot appeal to ignorance when they just addressed you, it means that they cannot appeal to YOUR ignorance. The idiocy you spew on this board is incorrect; it is in factual error; it does not line up with court holdings (which are the final law in this country.) If you disagree, the proper remedy is to cite your source. The wrong thing is to keep posting meaningless horseshit over and over and over again.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. The first clause clearly enumerates the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

Neither the state governments OR the federal government created nor granted the Right to keep and bear Arms. BOTH have ruled as such. With or without the Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right that existed BEFORE the Constitution. The courts have said so.

The authority of the government only extends to guaranteeing the Right and insuring that individuals do not misuse the Right. Due process deals with criminal activity, not to the insuring of Rights.

While the government has the power to claim it bestows upon you your Rights, it does not. Our forefathers warned against the practice and said that it will destroy the government. That is exactly what is happening.

unfortunately for you, our supreme laws of the land are express not implied.

and, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the police power of a State.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

He's trolling you, dude.

right wingers are the trolls. i can't even take them seriously regarding Any "gospel Truth" even on Sundays.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

He's trolling you, dude.

I'm trying to return the favor.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

He's trolling you, dude.

I'm trying to return the favor.

You're playong chess with a pigeon.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

How many times have I got to tell your dumb ass that I'm NOT appealing to your ignorance? I'm making fun of you. English is my first language. It obviously is not yours. Most people understand what I'm writing. Your shit is sentence fragments and words strung together, just as you admitted to earlier. They don't mean shit to anyone except you.

I just wonder who in the Hell you're trying to appeal to? Everybody here is sick of trying to educate your dumb ass and I am only living in the space between your ears rent free. I keep telling you that you have your head so far up the liberals ass, they have to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air. And everybody that disagrees with your horseshit is "right wing" EVEN WHEN THE POINTS BEING MADE ARE OPPOSED BY THE RIGHT WING!!! What a raging idiot you are!!!

Like it or not, the Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution. There are over 400 million weapons in the United States that are in private hands. When you and I are pushing up daisies or floating as ashes in the river, there will still be people owning firearms... privately held firearms.

You are "appealing to ignorance to yourself" because you are being incompetent, with me.

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

dannyboy, that doesn't in any way, shape, fashion or form make ANY sense whatsoever. I can't appeal to myself unless I'm talking to myself. So that made no sense. I'm not being "incompetent" with you as all I can do is tell you what the law is. Unless you've gotten divorced, I can tell you now you've never been IN a courtroom. If anyone on this board is incompetent, it is you. Telling people the truth is NEVER incompetent... unless you're talking to an idiot that won't look it up and read it. You are so fucking stupid that you think the only people who understand the law are right wingers in a fantasy - whatever in the Hell that means AND THAT IS NOT AN ENGLISH statement.

The courts have disagreed with you dannyboy. You cannot hold me responsible for their rulings. You're such a fucking idiot you don't even ASK other posters if they necessarily agree with the laws on the books.

When you tell someone they cannot appeal to ignorance when they just addressed you, it means that they cannot appeal to YOUR ignorance. The idiocy you spew on this board is incorrect; it is in factual error; it does not line up with court holdings (which are the final law in this country.) If you disagree, the proper remedy is to cite your source. The wrong thing is to keep posting meaningless horseshit over and over and over again.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. The first clause clearly enumerates the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

Neither the state governments OR the federal government created nor granted the Right to keep and bear Arms. BOTH have ruled as such. With or without the Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right that existed BEFORE the Constitution. The courts have said so.

The authority of the government only extends to guaranteeing the Right and insuring that individuals do not misuse the Right. Due process deals with criminal activity, not to the insuring of Rights.

While the government has the power to claim it bestows upon you your Rights, it does not. Our forefathers warned against the practice and said that it will destroy the government. That is exactly what is happening.

Then who bestows those rights on you? Is it God? IF so, which God. And does that mean that an Athiest has no rights? Just tell me who or what gave you those rights in the first place. And don't say just because.

America was founded on First Principles or foundational principles as we call them now. Thomas Jefferson referred to the Declaration of Independence as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man."

The Declaration of Independence lays out the presuppositions upon which the Republic exists. And, so, from that document:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This foundational principle has its roots in the Bible; however, the Declaration of Independence does not say which God; it says "endowed by their Creator." That term leaves it open as to where your Rights emanated from.

The courts have ruled that words like inherent, natural, absolute, unalienable, God given (given by a Creator) are all synonymous. America was founded as that principle being the first presupposition upon which the Republic rests. According to John Adams:

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." John Adams, second president of the United States

There is that fundamental principle being echoed again. No specific God is mentioned. It's just that all men are born with these presuppositional Rights and those Rights have been declared by our courts to be above the reach of government.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

He's trolling you, dude.

right wingers are the trolls. i can't even take them seriously regarding Any "gospel Truth" even on Sundays.

Good for you dude. I would not want to be in the company of Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, or Nancy Pelosi. So, I can't take them seriously.

It would be more palatable to be around Pillsbury Chris Christie, sell out Marco Rubio, or Mitch McConnell.

You with those nonsensical posts - that IS trolling.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

How many times have I got to tell your dumb ass that I'm NOT appealing to your ignorance? I'm making fun of you. English is my first language. It obviously is not yours. Most people understand what I'm writing. Your shit is sentence fragments and words strung together, just as you admitted to earlier. They don't mean shit to anyone except you.

I just wonder who in the Hell you're trying to appeal to? Everybody here is sick of trying to educate your dumb ass and I am only living in the space between your ears rent free. I keep telling you that you have your head so far up the liberals ass, they have to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air. And everybody that disagrees with your horseshit is "right wing" EVEN WHEN THE POINTS BEING MADE ARE OPPOSED BY THE RIGHT WING!!! What a raging idiot you are!!!



Like it or not, the Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution. There are over 400 million weapons in the United States that are in private hands. When you and I are pushing up daisies or floating as ashes in the river, there will still be people owning firearms... privately held firearms.

You are "appealing to ignorance to yourself" because you are being incompetent, with me.

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

dannyboy, that doesn't in any way, shape, fashion or form make ANY sense whatsoever. I can't appeal to myself unless I'm talking to myself. So that made no sense. I'm not being "incompetent" with you as all I can do is tell you what the law is. Unless you've gotten divorced, I can tell you now you've never been IN a courtroom. If anyone on this board is incompetent, it is you. Telling people the truth is NEVER incompetent... unless you're talking to an idiot that won't look it up and read it. You are so fucking stupid that you think the only people who understand the law are right wingers in a fantasy - whatever in the Hell that means AND THAT IS NOT AN ENGLISH statement.

The courts have disagreed with you dannyboy. You cannot hold me responsible for their rulings. You're such a fucking idiot you don't even ASK other posters if they necessarily agree with the laws on the books.

When you tell someone they cannot appeal to ignorance when they just addressed you, it means that they cannot appeal to YOUR ignorance. The idiocy you spew on this board is incorrect; it is in factual error; it does not line up with court holdings (which are the final law in this country.) If you disagree, the proper remedy is to cite your source. The wrong thing is to keep posting meaningless horseshit over and over and over again.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. The first clause clearly enumerates the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

Neither the state governments OR the federal government created nor granted the Right to keep and bear Arms. BOTH have ruled as such. With or without the Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right that existed BEFORE the Constitution. The courts have said so.

The authority of the government only extends to guaranteeing the Right and insuring that individuals do not misuse the Right. Due process deals with criminal activity, not to the insuring of Rights.

While the government has the power to claim it bestows upon you your Rights, it does not. Our forefathers warned against the practice and said that it will destroy the government. That is exactly what is happening.

unfortunately for you, our supreme laws of the land are express not implied.

and, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the police power of a State.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You need some new material. In the meantime, you'd be well advised to go see Dr. Phil. I'll be looking for the episode featuring you and your one of a kind ideology.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You are "appealing to ignorance to yourself" because you are being incompetent, with me.

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

dannyboy, that doesn't in any way, shape, fashion or form make ANY sense whatsoever. I can't appeal to myself unless I'm talking to myself. So that made no sense. I'm not being "incompetent" with you as all I can do is tell you what the law is. Unless you've gotten divorced, I can tell you now you've never been IN a courtroom. If anyone on this board is incompetent, it is you. Telling people the truth is NEVER incompetent... unless you're talking to an idiot that won't look it up and read it. You are so fucking stupid that you think the only people who understand the law are right wingers in a fantasy - whatever in the Hell that means AND THAT IS NOT AN ENGLISH statement.

The courts have disagreed with you dannyboy. You cannot hold me responsible for their rulings. You're such a fucking idiot you don't even ASK other posters if they necessarily agree with the laws on the books.

When you tell someone they cannot appeal to ignorance when they just addressed you, it means that they cannot appeal to YOUR ignorance. The idiocy you spew on this board is incorrect; it is in factual error; it does not line up with court holdings (which are the final law in this country.) If you disagree, the proper remedy is to cite your source. The wrong thing is to keep posting meaningless horseshit over and over and over again.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. The first clause clearly enumerates the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

Neither the state governments OR the federal government created nor granted the Right to keep and bear Arms. BOTH have ruled as such. With or without the Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right that existed BEFORE the Constitution. The courts have said so.

The authority of the government only extends to guaranteeing the Right and insuring that individuals do not misuse the Right. Due process deals with criminal activity, not to the insuring of Rights.

While the government has the power to claim it bestows upon you your Rights, it does not. Our forefathers warned against the practice and said that it will destroy the government. That is exactly what is happening.

Then who bestows those rights on you? Is it God? IF so, which God. And does that mean that an Athiest has no rights? Just tell me who or what gave you those rights in the first place. And don't say just because.

America was founded on First Principles or foundational principles as we call them now. Thomas Jefferson referred to the Declaration of Independence as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man."

The Declaration of Independence lays out the presuppositions upon which the Republic exists. And, so, from that document:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This foundational principle has its roots in the Bible; however, the Declaration of Independence does not say which God; it says "endowed by their Creator." That term leaves it open as to where your Rights emanated from.

The courts have ruled that words like inherent, natural, absolute, unalienable, God given (given by a Creator) are all synonymous. America was founded as that principle being the first presupposition upon which the Republic rests. According to John Adams:

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." John Adams, second president of the United States

There is that fundamental principle being echoed again. No specific God is mentioned. It's just that all men are born with these presuppositional Rights and those Rights have been declared by our courts to be above the reach of government.

IAW, you don't know. No one knows who the "Creator" is. I have my own, you have yours. The Atheist is a bit more confused than we are but I imagine he has his as well. But I doubt if the "Creator" gave us much more than Life itself. I don't know about YOUR creator but mine must have one hell of a sense of humor. He's sitting back and watching this discussion laughing his ass off.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

dannyboy, that doesn't in any way, shape, fashion or form make ANY sense whatsoever. I can't appeal to myself unless I'm talking to myself. So that made no sense. I'm not being "incompetent" with you as all I can do is tell you what the law is. Unless you've gotten divorced, I can tell you now you've never been IN a courtroom. If anyone on this board is incompetent, it is you. Telling people the truth is NEVER incompetent... unless you're talking to an idiot that won't look it up and read it. You are so fucking stupid that you think the only people who understand the law are right wingers in a fantasy - whatever in the Hell that means AND THAT IS NOT AN ENGLISH statement.

The courts have disagreed with you dannyboy. You cannot hold me responsible for their rulings. You're such a fucking idiot you don't even ASK other posters if they necessarily agree with the laws on the books.

When you tell someone they cannot appeal to ignorance when they just addressed you, it means that they cannot appeal to YOUR ignorance. The idiocy you spew on this board is incorrect; it is in factual error; it does not line up with court holdings (which are the final law in this country.) If you disagree, the proper remedy is to cite your source. The wrong thing is to keep posting meaningless horseshit over and over and over again.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. The first clause clearly enumerates the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

Neither the state governments OR the federal government created nor granted the Right to keep and bear Arms. BOTH have ruled as such. With or without the Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right that existed BEFORE the Constitution. The courts have said so.

The authority of the government only extends to guaranteeing the Right and insuring that individuals do not misuse the Right. Due process deals with criminal activity, not to the insuring of Rights.

While the government has the power to claim it bestows upon you your Rights, it does not. Our forefathers warned against the practice and said that it will destroy the government. That is exactly what is happening.

Then who bestows those rights on you? Is it God? IF so, which God. And does that mean that an Athiest has no rights? Just tell me who or what gave you those rights in the first place. And don't say just because.

America was founded on First Principles or foundational principles as we call them now. Thomas Jefferson referred to the Declaration of Independence as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man."

The Declaration of Independence lays out the presuppositions upon which the Republic exists. And, so, from that document:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This foundational principle has its roots in the Bible; however, the Declaration of Independence does not say which God; it says "endowed by their Creator." That term leaves it open as to where your Rights emanated from.

The courts have ruled that words like inherent, natural, absolute, unalienable, God given (given by a Creator) are all synonymous. America was founded as that principle being the first presupposition upon which the Republic rests. According to John Adams:

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." John Adams, second president of the United States

There is that fundamental principle being echoed again. No specific God is mentioned. It's just that all men are born with these presuppositional Rights and those Rights have been declared by our courts to be above the reach of government.

IAW, you don't know. No one knows who the "Creator" is. I have my own, you have yours. The Atheist is a bit more confused than we are but I imagine he has his as well. But I doubt if the "Creator" gave us much more than Life itself. I don't know about YOUR creator but mine must have one hell of a sense of humor. He's sitting back and watching this discussion laughing his ass off.

The law is based on that presupposition. Until they pass laws to repeal the First Principles, I will keep them in mind. Thanks