CDZ Do you Believe Americans Would ever Turn in Our Guns?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Anathema, Feb 18, 2018.

  1. Humorme
    Offline

    Humorme BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,415
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +887
    This is the whole point the left ignores.

    AFTER the debates and AFTER the Constitution was ratified and AFTER the issue of the Right to keep and bear Arms had been litigated and United States Supreme Court weighed in then THAT IS the law.

    When the United States Supreme Court did not like their previous rulings, I contend that they did not, under our Constitution, have the authority to begin that process of unilaterally declaring themselves to be final arbiters of what the laws is - thereby negating the need for a legislature AND usurping our Rights, as a people, to be the last word on the subject.

    The United States Supreme Court has all but changed the Republic to a Democracy and nullified the Bill of Rights.
     
  2. Humorme
    Offline

    Humorme BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,415
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +887

    Your position was considered and studied. It has found to be false.

    The courts had a problem with jury nullification and so they, not the legislatures, declared it to be illegal. So, the courts can be wrong too. Because the United States Supreme Court is not supposed to legislate from the bench, Trump nominated Gorsuch and I hope that he will bring some sanity to that body.
     
  3. Humorme
    Offline

    Humorme BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,415
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +887
    I can forward the message I got from the mods alerting me to the fact that they did delete my response.

    YOU made the inference that I was advocating disobeying laws simply because I disagree with them. You know better.
     
  4. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,766
    What is one to say to that? You can truly so contend.

    Even as you do so construe the role of the SCOTUS, the fact remains that the verity of the SCOTUS jurists' authority and role as final arbiters of what at any given moment is and is not the apt interpretation of the variously vague and/or ambiguous language of the Constitution, what is referred to in jurisprudence as "broad" language, was anticipated and expected well before the Constitution was itself penned, let alone ratified.

    And, no, I'm not here going to dive into expounding upon what every modern (mid-20th century or later) American high school student surely had to study and about which they likely had to write several essays. Instead, I'm going to point you to the same stuff you surely were called decades ago to read and some analysis that high schoolers likely never read, but that ones of a mind to discuss the matter of strict and loose construction may have:
    Suffice to say that your contention, no matter what I or anyone else, including you, think of its intrinsic merits simply doesn't hold water given the state in which the U.S. after the above noted cases were decided and hundreds of years of subsequent acceptance of the principles therein promulgated have been democratically accepted, implicitly and explicitly. Times change and the interpretation of the Constitution with them. There may again, as there did in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, come a time when your contention that be illegitimate SCOTUS jurists' authority to interpret our laws, of which the Constitution comprises part of them, but that time has yet to come, and I don't see it as nigh.
     
  5. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,766
    Seriously? You put me through all that only to have no other rebuttal than to introduce the esoterica of jury nullification? Really?
     
  6. OldLady
    Offline

    OldLady Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    32,757
    Thanks Received:
    6,069
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Ratings:
    +26,219
    Yes, there need to be "regulations" so the FBI and local law enforcement can act when a person who is regularly violent starts threatening to shoot people. That was prior to his purchasing guns, but the FBI and the current regulations can do nothing until "regulations" are put in place allowing them to.
     
  7. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,766
    Let me be clear, you'll need to carefully read and consider my remarks if you are going to engage with me in a discussion. You need to do that because I accord to you (and anyone to whom I respond in writing) the courtesy of carefully reading and considering their remarks.

    Now, having said that, let me also be clear: I didn't not assert or imply that you misrepresented the verity of your post(s) being deleted. I asked you a question and attested to what be the nature of my awareness of what you have posted and your posts in this thread that I've read to which I replied. All that was needed in response to the question I asked is "yes" or "no." Given the precision of the question I asked, I'd have fully understood what to take from either answer.

    Accepting that a moderator deleted a post of yours that I have neither read nor responded to, what difference does it make, for his/her doing so did not result in my posting comments about remarks you made that are now gone.

    My suggestion to you is that you find a CDZ-compliant way to express whatever notion(s) was in the post(s) that was deleted.
     
  8. Humorme
    Offline

    Humorme BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,415
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +887

    Thank you for getting to the heart of the matter. I have to be long winded, but this is well worth your time.

    The Declaration of Independence states:

    "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"

    That idea meant something to the founding fathers and the citizenry of the time. Consider this:

    [A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity” - (George Mason, founding father)

    What Mason said with respect to these natural rights (sic) is the exact definition of unalienable Rights.

    Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” (Samuel Adams, founding father)

    No honest person can ever claim that the founding fathers would have placed their posterity in a legal position so that government could tyrannize the people and we did not have options beyond complaining about the situation. Quite the converse is true. Consider these statements by the founders:

    "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry

    "[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

    America was founded on the presupposition that you have unalienable Rights. The earliest court decisions were consistent with what the founders had written about the Constitution. The Right to keep and bear Arms was a Right that was not subject to whether the government liked it or not.

    That is part 1 of my response. My next post will clear this up for you once and for all.
     
  9. Humorme
    Offline

    Humorme BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,415
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +887
    The left likes to put up a good smoke and mirror show, but the reality is, ALL of the earliest court decisions supported the idea that our God given, unalienable, inherent, natural Rights were not subject to their review. A few that come to mind was ..."The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.” (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) )


    A few years later, Texas addressed the issue and ruled:

    "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)


    There it is. The Second Amendment guarantee is absolute. The Citizen did not get the Right from the State. Let me share one more court ruling with you before I make my point:


    The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” United States v Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875)


    These, in my opinion, constitute what the law IS because:


    A) It expresses the INTENT of the founders

    B) Those decisions confirm that the government does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms; that it pre-existed

    C) That the founders warned against this process of incrementally changing the laws via the United States Supreme Court.


    "Burlamaqui (Politic c. #, . 15) defines natural liberty as "the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they may judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men;" and therefore it has been justly said, that "absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security--the right of personal liberty--and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and Unalienable." Potter's Dwarris, ch. 13, p. 429.

    You don’t need a degree from Harvard to understand that the laws we have today regarding gun control are 180 degrees opposite of what the Constitution meant when the Bill of Rights were ratified. Yet, the Second Amendment says the exact thing it did when it was ratified.

    The people have to hold the Courts accountable for their actions. The United States Supreme Court does not have the authority to pick and choose what laws they will and will not interpret in accordance with the Constitution. If they don’t like the Second Amendment, then they should quit the Court and start an effort to amend the Constitution
     
  10. Humorme
    Offline

    Humorme BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,415
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +887
    The FBI could have investigated and IF they had, there was plenty to sustain an arrest for terroristic threats.

    Furthermore, if people were working with me (I'm doing more than keyboard pecking), ALL of Cruz's misdeeds could have been put into a single database. There a county official could have sent DFACS in to inspect the home he lived in, alert his parents to Cruz's activities and try to determine if an intervention was necessary.

    Cruz could have undergone an IQ test, been assessed by two different mental health officials and they could have determined that he needed help.

    In any event, NOBODY seems to want to hold the system accountable for its failures and incompetency.
     

Share This Page