2nd Amendment Discussion

[danielpalos]

We should have no security problems in our free States if we organize more militia.

 

[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...

Bullshit. There was a 20 round capacity rifle being imported into the United States in the late 1780s. The founders and framers were well aware of technology.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You are a pathological liar. In all the time you've been on this board, you have NEVER given a citation to any constitution that purports to support your position.

All you do is bitch about some "right wing fantasy" so perhaps you have your head stuck so far up Chuck Schumer's ass, he has to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air.

For me, this is not some right v. left wing propaganda way. It's about wrong v. right; truth v. lies; Liberty v. Tyranny. You just post the same shit over and over, which serves no purpose. The reality is that any person who does the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result is the textbook definition of an idiot.

danielpalos, you need some new material. If you have a fact, put it on the table. If you're just here to spew some leftist message that NOBODY gets except you, then you are an ineffective spokesman for the left and probably encouraging people to look to the right for new responses.

Only hypocrites say what you do. I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All You have is appeals to ignorance.

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

So you can not link to a State Constitution that says what you claim BUT we are to believe your delusional rantings anyway?

I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a pathological liar. You now have TWO posters telling you that in all the time here you have NOT cited anything. You made a baseless claim. You've never read a state constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

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...

Bullshit. There was a 20 round capacity rifle being imported into the United States in the late 1780s. The founders and framers were well aware of technology.

I already have a one liner that covers this.

Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You are a pathological liar. In all the time you've been on this board, you have NEVER given a citation to any constitution that purports to support your position.

All you do is bitch about some "right wing fantasy" so perhaps you have your head stuck so far up Chuck Schumer's ass, he has to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air.

For me, this is not some right v. left wing propaganda way. It's about wrong v. right; truth v. lies; Liberty v. Tyranny. You just post the same shit over and over, which serves no purpose. The reality is that any person who does the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result is the textbook definition of an idiot.

danielpalos, you need some new material. If you have a fact, put it on the table. If you're just here to spew some leftist message that NOBODY gets except you, then you are an ineffective spokesman for the left and probably encouraging people to look to the right for new responses.

Only hypocrites say what you do. I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All You have is appeals to ignorance.

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

You're an idiot, danielpalos. I personally don't have anything to do with the right wing. I'm not into partisan politics. You repost the same couple of lines over and over, then when challenged to prove it, you can't.

You claim you have. But you haven't. The only thing you've been right about is that we can't appeal to your ignorance. Your worship it too much.

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I'm not a political hack. I work in a firm that does legal research, shepardizing, legal investigations, and prepares briefs. How about you?

You can talk about the militia all day long. I'm talking about the Right to keep and bear Arms. Since neither the right nor the left concern themselves with the elements of Freedom, Liberty and Justice, it leaves a void wherein I can share something besides the typical political dumbassery that you apparently dabble in on a daily basis.

As someone familiar with the history of legal precedents, I try to follow the reasoning of how the Constitution today means 180 degrees opposite of what it did when the framers put their signature on it.

There is a higher principle in play. Nobody is ever required to disobey an unconstitutional law. The challenge is, we have to know when the United States Supreme Court oversteps their boundaries and give their unconscionable actions the same respect we'd give to any other illegal act.

Nonsense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

The Framers understood this, which is why they codified the doctrine of judicial review in Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

And those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment likewise did not presume to have a comprehensive understanding as to the meaning of the rights enshrined in the Amendment, of what weapons were subject to government regulation and what weapons were not, and what is the scope of lawful self-defense – matters that later generations would determine through the political process and eventually in the courts.

Was that a warning when you began that post? I agree it was NONSENSE. You strung some words together and they didn't make a damn bit of sense.

Here's some plain old common horse sense for those of you with an IQ above your shoe size:

If everybody who owns a firearm today knew that the United States Supreme Court could tomorrow unilaterally decide your weapon was illegal because it didn't fit some category they came up with AND that they could jail you (though ex post facto laws are illegal) what would you do?

That my friend would activate the most heavily armed army in the world.

One would hope so. But we have these people on Internet discussion boards that never litigated a case in their life, pretending to be legal scholars while selling you this bullshit that the United States Supreme Court is within their rights to over-turn their own decisions and to grant powers to other branches of the government.

Again, it's plain common horse sense: If the United States Supreme Court rules on a law, they should NOT be able to come back and reverse their own decision. Because they can do that, you don't know what the law is and you couldn't abide by the law, given those parameters. Under our de jure Constitution, the legislature serves a purpose.

We have our Ninth and Tenth amendments.

They are irrelevant to your claim. You need some new material. And dannyboy, The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are not state constitutions.

 

[strollingbones]

seems providing links for claims is no longer needed....i assume you are talking about the austrian

 

[danielpalos]

Only hypocrites say what you do. I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All You have is appeals to ignorance.

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

You're an idiot, danielpalos. I personally don't have anything to do with the right wing. I'm not into partisan politics. You repost the same couple of lines over and over, then when challenged to prove it, you can't.

You claim you have. But you haven't. The only thing you've been right about is that we can't appeal to your ignorance. Your worship it too much.

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

You need a valid rebuttal not the simple bigotry of rejection.

 

[danielpalos]

Only hypocrites say what you do. I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All You have is appeals to ignorance.

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

You're an idiot, danielpalos. I personally don't have anything to do with the right wing. I'm not into partisan politics. You repost the same couple of lines over and over, then when challenged to prove it, you can't.

You claim you have. But you haven't. The only thing you've been right about is that we can't appeal to your ignorance. Your worship it too much.

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

Nonsense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

The Framers understood this, which is why they codified the doctrine of judicial review in Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

And those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment likewise did not presume to have a comprehensive understanding as to the meaning of the rights enshrined in the Amendment, of what weapons were subject to government regulation and what weapons were not, and what is the scope of lawful self-defense – matters that later generations would determine through the political process and eventually in the courts.

Was that a warning when you began that post? I agree it was NONSENSE. You strung some words together and they didn't make a damn bit of sense.

Here's some plain old common horse sense for those of you with an IQ above your shoe size:

If everybody who owns a firearm today knew that the United States Supreme Court could tomorrow unilaterally decide your weapon was illegal because it didn't fit some category they came up with AND that they could jail you (though ex post facto laws are illegal) what would you do?

That my friend would activate the most heavily armed army in the world.

One would hope so. But we have these people on Internet discussion boards that never litigated a case in their life, pretending to be legal scholars while selling you this bullshit that the United States Supreme Court is within their rights to over-turn their own decisions and to grant powers to other branches of the government.

Again, it's plain common horse sense: If the United States Supreme Court rules on a law, they should NOT be able to come back and reverse their own decision. Because they can do that, you don't know what the law is and you couldn't abide by the law, given those parameters. Under our de jure Constitution, the legislature serves a purpose.

We have our Ninth and Tenth amendments.

They are irrelevant to your claim. You need some new material. And dannyboy, The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are not state constitutions.

dear, you are simply clueless and Causeless. I cited our supreme law of the State land. There is nothing you can Imply, that is more supreme.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

You're an idiot, danielpalos. I personally don't have anything to do with the right wing. I'm not into partisan politics. You repost the same couple of lines over and over, then when challenged to prove it, you can't.

You claim you have. But you haven't. The only thing you've been right about is that we can't appeal to your ignorance. Your worship it too much.

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

You need a valid rebuttal not the simple bigotry of rejection.

That is what they call projecting, dannyboy. And you're not very good at it when the other posters here can see you're a lying troll.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

You're an idiot, danielpalos. I personally don't have anything to do with the right wing. I'm not into partisan politics. You repost the same couple of lines over and over, then when challenged to prove it, you can't.

You claim you have. But you haven't. The only thing you've been right about is that we can't appeal to your ignorance. Your worship it too much.

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

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.

Those are unalienable Rights for me.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Was that a warning when you began that post? I agree it was NONSENSE. You strung some words together and they didn't make a damn bit of sense.

Here's some plain old common horse sense for those of you with an IQ above your shoe size:

If everybody who owns a firearm today knew that the United States Supreme Court could tomorrow unilaterally decide your weapon was illegal because it didn't fit some category they came up with AND that they could jail you (though ex post facto laws are illegal) what would you do?

That my friend would activate the most heavily armed army in the world.

One would hope so. But we have these people on Internet discussion boards that never litigated a case in their life, pretending to be legal scholars while selling you this bullshit that the United States Supreme Court is within their rights to over-turn their own decisions and to grant powers to other branches of the government.

Again, it's plain common horse sense: If the United States Supreme Court rules on a law, they should NOT be able to come back and reverse their own decision. Because they can do that, you don't know what the law is and you couldn't abide by the law, given those parameters. Under our de jure Constitution, the legislature serves a purpose.

We have our Ninth and Tenth amendments.

They are irrelevant to your claim. You need some new material. And dannyboy, The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are not state constitutions.

dear, you are simply clueless and Causeless. I cited our supreme law of the State land. There is nothing you can Imply, that is more supreme.

You haven't cited anything you flaming faggot. I'm not your dear. You have made an assertion and not cited a damn thing even once to back your bullshit. And when people disagree with you, you go back to that causeless, clueless, liberal right wing fantasy mantra. Dude, you need some new material. Not even Chuck Schumer believes you.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

You're an idiot, danielpalos. I personally don't have anything to do with the right wing. I'm not into partisan politics. You repost the same couple of lines over and over, then when challenged to prove it, you can't.

You claim you have. But you haven't. The only thing you've been right about is that we can't appeal to your ignorance. Your worship it too much.

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

You need a valid rebuttal not the simple bigotry of rejection.

That is what they call projecting, dannyboy. And you're not very good at it when the other posters here can see you're a lying troll.

dear, you need a valid argument.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

You're an idiot, danielpalos. I personally don't have anything to do with the right wing. I'm not into partisan politics. You repost the same couple of lines over and over, then when challenged to prove it, you can't.

You claim you have. But you haven't. The only thing you've been right about is that we can't appeal to your ignorance. Your worship it too much.

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

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.

Those are unalienable Rights for me.

Codified in a State supreme law of the State land.

 

[danielpalos]

That my friend would activate the most heavily armed army in the world.

One would hope so. But we have these people on Internet discussion boards that never litigated a case in their life, pretending to be legal scholars while selling you this bullshit that the United States Supreme Court is within their rights to over-turn their own decisions and to grant powers to other branches of the government.

Again, it's plain common horse sense: If the United States Supreme Court rules on a law, they should NOT be able to come back and reverse their own decision. Because they can do that, you don't know what the law is and you couldn't abide by the law, given those parameters. Under our de jure Constitution, the legislature serves a purpose.

We have our Ninth and Tenth amendments.

They are irrelevant to your claim. You need some new material. And dannyboy, The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are not state constitutions.

dear, you are simply clueless and Causeless. I cited our supreme law of the State land. There is nothing you can Imply, that is more supreme.

You haven't cited anything you flaming faggot. I'm not your dear. You have made an assertion and not cited a damn thing even once to back your bullshit. And when people disagree with you, you go back to that causeless, clueless, liberal right wing fantasy mantra. Dude, you need some new material. Not even Chuck Schumer believes you.

dear, you are simply clueless and Causeless.

thanks for the practice.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You're an idiot, danielpalos. I personally don't have anything to do with the right wing. I'm not into partisan politics. You repost the same couple of lines over and over, then when challenged to prove it, you can't.

You claim you have. But you haven't. The only thing you've been right about is that we can't appeal to your ignorance. Your worship it too much.

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

You need a valid rebuttal not the simple bigotry of rejection.

That is what they call projecting, dannyboy. And you're not very good at it when the other posters here can see you're a lying troll.

dear, you need a valid argument.

You sick faggot. You need some new material.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You're an idiot, danielpalos. I personally don't have anything to do with the right wing. I'm not into partisan politics. You repost the same couple of lines over and over, then when challenged to prove it, you can't.

You claim you have. But you haven't. The only thing you've been right about is that we can't appeal to your ignorance. Your worship it too much.

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

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.

Those are unalienable Rights for me.

Codified in a State supreme law of the State land.

Wrong. Cite your source. You need some new material.

 

[danielpalos]

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

You need a valid rebuttal not the simple bigotry of rejection.

That is what they call projecting, dannyboy. And you're not very good at it when the other posters here can see you're a lying troll.

dear, you need a valid argument.

You sick faggot. You need some new material.

you have nothing but ad hominems, hypocrite.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All these deaths and not a gun in sight
HEALTH
8,007,862Communicable disease deaths this year
4,688,763Deaths of children under 5 this year
26,179,879Abortions this year
190,663Deaths of mothers during birth this year
41,096,601HIV/AIDS infected people
1,036,975Deaths caused by HIV/AIDS this year
5,066,198Deaths caused by cancer this year
605,064Deaths caused by malaria this year
3,083,728Deaths caused by smoking this year
1,542,837Deaths caused by alcohol this year
832,700Road traffic accident fatalities this year
Worldometers - real time world statistics

We lose around a corps of unorganized militia every year due to gun violence.

No we don't