CDZ Food for thought: Right to keep and bear arms.

[WinterBorn]

Ok Daniel, you have dodged questions over and over.

Let's try again.

What are the "natural rights" you keep claiming are not in the US Constitution but are in state constitutions?

What part did "natural rights" play in getting Dred Scott overruled and removed?

And what, specific, tall stories have I told?

Can you answer these question without dancing around? I mean specific and concise answers to direct questions about what you have claimed.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State. We merely need, more well regulated militia to ensure crime drops.

So a military answer to crime? For how long? Until there is no crime?

The militia delineated in the US Constitution is about protecting and defending the nation. Not about police work.

Why not learn more about what we are debating?

the militia; why not look it up.

I don't need to look it up. I know what is required to police our streets. Pulling armed civilians in and setting them out there to write tickets and make drug busts is not what the 2nd amendment is about.

You have bounced all over the place trying to oppose the 2nd amendment. From claiming "people" means a collective right, that the SCOTUS ruling in DC v. Heller is both judicial activism and proof of your assertions, to going on and on about natural rights and claiming that the US Constitution can be overruled by the state constitutions.

You have been wrong every step of the may.

no, you don't. you only know how to tell, tall stories.

Yeah? What tall stories have I told? Come on, answer this question straight.

simply repeating right wing appeals to ignorance is not, critical reasoning.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

And? You keep saying that. But it has no bearing on the topic.

yes, it does. natural rights are in State Constitutions not our federal Constitution, for quibbling purposes.

Y'all are simply, full of fallacy.

Horseshit. Exactly what are these "natural rights" that you claim do not exist in the US Constitution, but in the state constitutions and are the supreme law? Tell us, exactly. No more vague nonsense.

They are in State Constitutions.

Lots of things are in state constitutions, including the details on how to elect officials, who outranks who, ect.

Tell us what these natural rights are that are in state constitutions but not the US Constitution.

I already have, several times. You need to do your own research now. Look it up in your own State Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

it matters since it eliminates a reason for natural and individual rights being in our federal Constitution.

The US Constitution provides a list of basic rights for all our citizens. Natural laws are not what matters. And we are not 50 individual nations with 50 individual governments.

State constitutions provide what they provide. But they do so under the US Constitution.

lol. you don't know what you are talking about; like usual for the right wing. just make it up.

How did Dred Scott happen?

How did Dred Scott happen? The SCOTUS made a ruling. That was opposed and through steps outlines in the US Constitution, it was overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.

What role did any state constitution or "natural rights" in those constitutions play in Dred Scott being removed?

yet, the right wing claims there are Individual and natural rights in our federal Constitution.

I see you refuse to answer the question, yet again.

I said the US Constitution is over the state constitutions. Your reply was to ask how Dred Scott happened.

I answered and asked what role the state constitution and "natural rights" played in overturning Dred Scott. Can you answer that question or not?

The point is, Dred Scott could not have happened, if natural and Individual rights were expressly recognized in our federal Constitution, and not dependent upon, Due Process.

 

[Ame®icano]

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

George Mason, of Virginia:
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia?

They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification
convention, 1788

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787





Are we all clear now on the Founder's intent now whether the 2nd Amendment was JUST about a militia or National Guard?

In fact, the 2nd Amendment was written to concisely COMBINE two concepts into one Amendment. The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms. And the right of the States to field militias.. It's that simple if you actually read their words and speeches..

They also had legal slavery then. Times change.

Slavery got fixed toute suite. This doesn't NEED to get fixed. Did you read the Jefferson quote? It translate to "if you take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens -- then only criminals will have guns"...

Did you think the NRA just made up that slogan? The entire basis of PROTECTING the Constitution in the minds of the founders was to GUARANTEE an armed citizenry.. As a deterrent to both tyranny and crime.

how did Dred Scott happen, if natural rights are in our federal Constitution?

how did Dred Scott happen, if natural rights are in our federal Constitution?

Ca n't seem to find Dred Scott in the Constitution, much less the BoR.


ae you losing sight of the discussion?

He never had it, since his first post here.

 

[danielpalos]

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

George Mason, of Virginia:
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia?

They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification
convention, 1788

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787





Are we all clear now on the Founder's intent now whether the 2nd Amendment was JUST about a militia or National Guard?

In fact, the 2nd Amendment was written to concisely COMBINE two concepts into one Amendment. The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms. And the right of the States to field militias.. It's that simple if you actually read their words and speeches..

They also had legal slavery then. Times change.

Slavery got fixed toute suite. This doesn't NEED to get fixed. Did you read the Jefferson quote? It translate to "if you take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens -- then only criminals will have guns"...

Did you think the NRA just made up that slogan? The entire basis of PROTECTING the Constitution in the minds of the founders was to GUARANTEE an armed citizenry.. As a deterrent to both tyranny and crime.

how did Dred Scott happen, if natural rights are in our federal Constitution?

how did Dred Scott happen, if natural rights are in our federal Constitution?

Ca n't seem to find Dred Scott in the Constitution, much less the BoR.


ae you losing sight of the discussion?

He never had it, since his first post here.

Constitutional law, is about collective rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

So a military answer to crime? For how long? Until there is no crime?

The militia delineated in the US Constitution is about protecting and defending the nation. Not about police work.

Why not learn more about what we are debating?

the militia; why not look it up.

I don't need to look it up. I know what is required to police our streets. Pulling armed civilians in and setting them out there to write tickets and make drug busts is not what the 2nd amendment is about.

You have bounced all over the place trying to oppose the 2nd amendment. From claiming "people" means a collective right, that the SCOTUS ruling in DC v. Heller is both judicial activism and proof of your assertions, to going on and on about natural rights and claiming that the US Constitution can be overruled by the state constitutions.

You have been wrong every step of the may.

no, you don't. you only know how to tell, tall stories.

Yeah? What tall stories have I told? Come on, answer this question straight.

simply repeating right wing appeals to ignorance is not, critical reasoning.

Unable to answer? Typical.

 

[WinterBorn]

And? You keep saying that. But it has no bearing on the topic.

yes, it does. natural rights are in State Constitutions not our federal Constitution, for quibbling purposes.

Y'all are simply, full of fallacy.

Horseshit. Exactly what are these "natural rights" that you claim do not exist in the US Constitution, but in the state constitutions and are the supreme law? Tell us, exactly. No more vague nonsense.

They are in State Constitutions.

Lots of things are in state constitutions, including the details on how to elect officials, who outranks who, ect.

Tell us what these natural rights are that are in state constitutions but not the US Constitution.

I already have, several times. You need to do your own research now. Look it up in your own State Constitution.

No, you have not. You have not defined "natural laws" in any way. You have simply insisted that they are in state constitutions and not in the US Constitution.

Define what you are calling natural laws.

 

[Ame®icano]

And this matters why?

for legal purposes.

What legal purposes? The US Constitution is the law of the land.

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Let me clarify something. If I ask you a question. And then you post an answer. Unless it is actually an answer to what I asked, it is irrelevant.

Now, as far as "natural rights", whatever that means, state constitutions do not, repeat DO NOT, overrule the US Constitution. So whether state constitutions are where you find "natural rights" or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

lol. Our federal Constitution says nothing about natural rights.

Declaration of Independence that led to The Constitution does.

 

[WinterBorn]

The US Constitution provides a list of basic rights for all our citizens. Natural laws are not what matters. And we are not 50 individual nations with 50 individual governments.

State constitutions provide what they provide. But they do so under the US Constitution.

lol. you don't know what you are talking about; like usual for the right wing. just make it up.

How did Dred Scott happen?

How did Dred Scott happen? The SCOTUS made a ruling. That was opposed and through steps outlines in the US Constitution, it was overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.

What role did any state constitution or "natural rights" in those constitutions play in Dred Scott being removed?

yet, the right wing claims there are Individual and natural rights in our federal Constitution.

I see you refuse to answer the question, yet again.

I said the US Constitution is over the state constitutions. Your reply was to ask how Dred Scott happened.

I answered and asked what role the state constitution and "natural rights" played in overturning Dred Scott. Can you answer that question or not?

The point is, Dred Scott could not have happened, if natural and Individual rights were expressly recognized in our federal Constitution, and not dependent upon, Due Process.

None of that is relevant to what you said. I simply said that the US Constitution supercedes or overrules state constitutions. That is a fact. YOur attempts to insert diversions is laughable.

 

[WinterBorn]

They also had legal slavery then. Times change.

Slavery got fixed toute suite. This doesn't NEED to get fixed. Did you read the Jefferson quote? It translate to "if you take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens -- then only criminals will have guns"...

Did you think the NRA just made up that slogan? The entire basis of PROTECTING the Constitution in the minds of the founders was to GUARANTEE an armed citizenry.. As a deterrent to both tyranny and crime.

how did Dred Scott happen, if natural rights are in our federal Constitution?

how did Dred Scott happen, if natural rights are in our federal Constitution?

Ca n't seem to find Dred Scott in the Constitution, much less the BoR.


ae you losing sight of the discussion?

He never had it, since his first post here.

Constitutional law, is about collective rights.

No, it is not. It is about the individual rights of citizens. And the Bill of Rights was specifically added to insure that was understood and preserved.

 

[Ame®icano]

No, in actual reality, like right here in this thread.

this thread is mostly right wing fantasy, not valid argumentation.

Lies don’t become truth simply because you keep saying them.

it is why, I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies; whenever this issue comes up.

You keep repeating a lie over and over and you do exactly what a liar always does, claim that you don't lie. No one here believes anything you say save for other left wing liars.

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole people are declared Necessary.

That's not what 2nd said.

 

[WinterBorn]

Let's try again.

What are the "natural rights" you keep claiming are not in the US Constitution but are in state constitutions?

What part did "natural rights" play in getting Dred Scott overruled and removed?

And what, specific, tall stories have I told?

Can you answer these question without dancing around? I mean specific and concise answers to direct questions about what you have claimed.

 

[danielpalos]

Why not learn more about what we are debating?

the militia; why not look it up.

I don't need to look it up. I know what is required to police our streets. Pulling armed civilians in and setting them out there to write tickets and make drug busts is not what the 2nd amendment is about.

You have bounced all over the place trying to oppose the 2nd amendment. From claiming "people" means a collective right, that the SCOTUS ruling in DC v. Heller is both judicial activism and proof of your assertions, to going on and on about natural rights and claiming that the US Constitution can be overruled by the state constitutions.

You have been wrong every step of the may.

no, you don't. you only know how to tell, tall stories.

Yeah? What tall stories have I told? Come on, answer this question straight.

simply repeating right wing appeals to ignorance is not, critical reasoning.

Unable to answer? Typical.

your tales get longer every time.

 

[Ame®icano]

Lies don’t become truth simply because you keep saying them.

it is why, I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies; whenever this issue comes up.

You keep repeating a lie over and over and you do exactly what a liar always does, claim that you don't lie. No one here believes anything you say save for other left wing liars.

The people are the militia. Well regulated militia of the whole people are declared Necessary.

The militia is necessary. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

well regulated militia is necessary. not all of the people are well regulated.

Sure, you're the expert. Explain the following:

Militia is necessary for what? "_______"

How do you ensure that "_______"?

You sure that "well regulated" doesn't mean "well organized"?

And where does it say that militia shall be "regulated" by federal government?

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it does. natural rights are in State Constitutions not our federal Constitution, for quibbling purposes.

Y'all are simply, full of fallacy.

Horseshit. Exactly what are these "natural rights" that you claim do not exist in the US Constitution, but in the state constitutions and are the supreme law? Tell us, exactly. No more vague nonsense.

They are in State Constitutions.

Lots of things are in state constitutions, including the details on how to elect officials, who outranks who, ect.

Tell us what these natural rights are that are in state constitutions but not the US Constitution.

I already have, several times. You need to do your own research now. Look it up in your own State Constitution.

No, you have not. You have not defined "natural laws" in any way. You have simply insisted that they are in state constitutions and not in the US Constitution.

Define what you are calling natural laws.

They are defined in your State Constitution. Why bother to claim you have any interested in Constitutional forms of law.

 

[danielpalos]

for legal purposes.

What legal purposes? The US Constitution is the law of the land.

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Let me clarify something. If I ask you a question. And then you post an answer. Unless it is actually an answer to what I asked, it is irrelevant.

Now, as far as "natural rights", whatever that means, state constitutions do not, repeat DO NOT, overrule the US Constitution. So whether state constitutions are where you find "natural rights" or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

lol. Our federal Constitution says nothing about natural rights.

Declaration of Independence that led to The Constitution does.

I would agree with you, if Dred Scott had been correctly adjudicated, the first time.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. you don't know what you are talking about; like usual for the right wing. just make it up.

How did Dred Scott happen?

How did Dred Scott happen? The SCOTUS made a ruling. That was opposed and through steps outlines in the US Constitution, it was overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.

What role did any state constitution or "natural rights" in those constitutions play in Dred Scott being removed?

yet, the right wing claims there are Individual and natural rights in our federal Constitution.

I see you refuse to answer the question, yet again.

I said the US Constitution is over the state constitutions. Your reply was to ask how Dred Scott happened.

I answered and asked what role the state constitution and "natural rights" played in overturning Dred Scott. Can you answer that question or not?

The point is, Dred Scott could not have happened, if natural and Individual rights were expressly recognized in our federal Constitution, and not dependent upon, Due Process.

None of that is relevant to what you said. I simply said that the US Constitution supercedes or overrules state constitutions. That is a fact. YOur attempts to insert diversions is laughable.

all of that is completely relevant, story teller.

 

[Ame®icano]

And yet, no state can take the rights of the 2nd amendment away. Regulation is allowed, to an extent. But not removal.

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

And? You keep saying that. But it has no bearing on the topic.

yes, it does. natural rights are in State Constitutions not our federal Constitution, for quibbling purposes.

Y'all are simply, full of fallacy.

Horseshit. Exactly what are these "natural rights" that you claim do not exist in the US Constitution, but in the state constitutions and are the supreme law? Tell us, exactly. No more vague nonsense.

They are in State Constitutions.

And?

 

[danielpalos]

Slavery got fixed toute suite. This doesn't NEED to get fixed. Did you read the Jefferson quote? It translate to "if you take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens -- then only criminals will have guns"...

Did you think the NRA just made up that slogan? The entire basis of PROTECTING the Constitution in the minds of the founders was to GUARANTEE an armed citizenry.. As a deterrent to both tyranny and crime.

how did Dred Scott happen, if natural rights are in our federal Constitution?

how did Dred Scott happen, if natural rights are in our federal Constitution?

Ca n't seem to find Dred Scott in the Constitution, much less the BoR.


ae you losing sight of the discussion?

He never had it, since his first post here.

Constitutional law, is about collective rights.

No, it is not. It is about the individual rights of citizens. And the Bill of Rights was specifically added to insure that was understood and preserved.

No, it isn't. Social Contracts are where socialism starts for any given Body Politic, established by that new, social Order.