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

[koshergrl]

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.

When we are discussing the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, and you claim that the state constitutions override the US Constitution, all of what I said is relevant.

that is Your tall story, story teller.

More lies? YOu are simply ignorant of the facts. There are numerous examples of you changing your tune and contradicting yourself in this thread. That speaks volumes.

you don't know what you are talking about, you just tell stories.

He knows...insult removed
This attack on the Constitution is very cynical.

They say "the people" is synonymous with "the government" and they teach that in the schools. In reality, it is just the opposite..there is the government...and there are the people. Our Constitution exists to PROTECT the people (individuals) from THE GOVERNMENT.

Our Constitution exists to PROTECT the rights that ALL HUMANS are born with. Whether you consider that *natural* or *God given* rights, it doesn't matter. The point is the Constitution doesn't exist to dictate our rights to us, but to protect those that we are born with. But leftist garbage spewers say the exact opposite.

Which is why they must be shut down. Everywhere you go on the internet call them out, shut them down, report them to whatever system is hosting them and block the shit out of them.

PS..a LOT of them are teachers. Take your kids out of school.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You keep saying that. Why do you think that matters?

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.

The constitution does not create rights, it protects the rights we recognize that we are born with, rights conferred upon us by God.

It is quite specific that we have rights that are NOT iterated.

Tell that to, Dred Scott.

 

[Ame®icano]

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

You keep saying that. Why do you think that matters?

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.

The constitution does not create rights, it protects the rights we recognize that we are born with, rights conferred upon us by God.

It is quite specific that we have rights that are NOT iterated.

Tell that to, Dred Scott.

Southern Democrats told him that, clearly.

 

[WinterBorn]

Where? Give me a definition. You simply claim they are in state constitutions, but each one is hundreds of pages and there are 50 states.

Once again, your answers are so vague as to not even resemble an actual answer.

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

Start in the Articles of Declaration of Rights (of Man)

Still can't offer a definition of natural rights? That figures. Considering the lies you have posted, I am not sure why I expect anything different.

And the US Constitution is the law of the land. State constitutions cannot violate it.

Yes, I have. They can be specific to each State, for quibbling purposes.

Whatever. None can supercede or override the US Constitution.

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process, only story tellers, make up new stories.

Against their state constitution? Perhaps. Against the US Constitution? No. Nothing except a constitutional amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Start in the Articles of Declaration of Rights (of Man)

Still can't offer a definition of natural rights? That figures. Considering the lies you have posted, I am not sure why I expect anything different.

And the US Constitution is the law of the land. State constitutions cannot violate it.

Yes, I have. They can be specific to each State, for quibbling purposes.

Whatever. None can supercede or override the US Constitution.

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process, only story tellers, make up new stories.

Against their state constitution? Perhaps. Against the US Constitution? No. Nothing except a constitutional amendment.

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process

 

[WinterBorn]

Still can't offer a definition of natural rights? That figures. Considering the lies you have posted, I am not sure why I expect anything different.

And the US Constitution is the law of the land. State constitutions cannot violate it.

Yes, I have. They can be specific to each State, for quibbling purposes.

Whatever. None can supercede or override the US Constitution.

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process, only story tellers, make up new stories.

Against their state constitution? Perhaps. Against the US Constitution? No. Nothing except a constitutional amendment.

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process

If the right in question is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution, no state constitution can override it. Look up the Supremacy Clause.

Why is this difficult to understand?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, I have. They can be specific to each State, for quibbling purposes.

Whatever. None can supercede or override the US Constitution.

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process, only story tellers, make up new stories.

Against their state constitution? Perhaps. Against the US Constitution? No. Nothing except a constitutional amendment.

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process

If the right in question is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution, no state constitution can override it. Look up the Supremacy Clause.

Why is this difficult to understand?

That is what they said to Dred Scott.

 

[Auld Phart]

Whatever. None can supercede or override the US Constitution.

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process, only story tellers, make up new stories.

Against their state constitution? Perhaps. Against the US Constitution? No. Nothing except a constitutional amendment.

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process

If the right in question is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution, no state constitution can override it. Look up the Supremacy Clause.

Why is this difficult to understand?

That is what they said to Dred Scott.

That is what they said to Dred Scott.

Which has nothing to do with this thread.

Dred Scott has NOTHING to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

Get back to the topic, and STICK to the topic.

 

[danielpalos]

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process, only story tellers, make up new stories.

Against their state constitution? Perhaps. Against the US Constitution? No. Nothing except a constitutional amendment.

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process

If the right in question is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution, no state constitution can override it. Look up the Supremacy Clause.

Why is this difficult to understand?

That is what they said to Dred Scott.

That is what they said to Dred Scott.

Which has nothing to do with this thread.

Dred Scott has NOTHING to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

Get back to the topic, and STICK to the topic.

No individual or natural rights in our federal Constitution?

 

[Auld Phart]

Against their state constitution? Perhaps. Against the US Constitution? No. Nothing except a constitutional amendment.

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process

If the right in question is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution, no state constitution can override it. Look up the Supremacy Clause.

Why is this difficult to understand?

That is what they said to Dred Scott.

That is what they said to Dred Scott.

Which has nothing to do with this thread.

Dred Scott has NOTHING to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

Get back to the topic, and STICK to the topic.

No individual or natural rights in our federal Constitution?

NO individual or natural rights in CDZ, which you have abused for days.


Get back to the subject, or start your own thread

 

[WinterBorn]

Whatever. None can supercede or override the US Constitution.

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process, only story tellers, make up new stories.

Against their state constitution? Perhaps. Against the US Constitution? No. Nothing except a constitutional amendment.

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process

If the right in question is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution, no state constitution can override it. Look up the Supremacy Clause.

Why is this difficult to understand?

That is what they said to Dred Scott.

And what was done to reverse Dred Scott had absolutely nothing to do with any state constitution. It was reversed by using the US Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process

If the right in question is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution, no state constitution can override it. Look up the Supremacy Clause.

Why is this difficult to understand?

That is what they said to Dred Scott.

That is what they said to Dred Scott.

Which has nothing to do with this thread.

Dred Scott has NOTHING to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

Get back to the topic, and STICK to the topic.

No individual or natural rights in our federal Constitution?

NO individual or natural rights in CDZ, which you have abused for days.


Get back to the subject, or start your own thread

only in right wing moderator fantasy.

How did Dred Scott happen, if the natural and Individual rights view, is correct?

 

[danielpalos]

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process, only story tellers, make up new stories.

Against their state constitution? Perhaps. Against the US Constitution? No. Nothing except a constitutional amendment.

Any citizen of any State has recourse to their State Constitution via Due Process

If the right in question is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution, no state constitution can override it. Look up the Supremacy Clause.

Why is this difficult to understand?

That is what they said to Dred Scott.

And what was done to reverse Dred Scott had absolutely nothing to do with any state constitution. It was reversed by using the US Constitution.

no individual or natural rights?

 

[Auld Phart]

If the right in question is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution, no state constitution can override it. Look up the Supremacy Clause.

Why is this difficult to understand?

That is what they said to Dred Scott.

That is what they said to Dred Scott.

Which has nothing to do with this thread.

Dred Scott has NOTHING to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

Get back to the topic, and STICK to the topic.

No individual or natural rights in our federal Constitution?

NO individual or natural rights in CDZ, which you have abused for days.


Get back to the subject, or start your own thread

only in right wing moderator fantasy.

How did Dred Scott happen, if the natural and Individual rights view, is correct?

Bye

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘In in recent years, the belief in widespread gun ownership as a defense against tyrannical government has become an alluring idea, gaining traction with members of Congress as well as fringe conspiracy theorists.

[…]

There are two primary pillars to this shaky intellectual edifice. The first is a cottage industry of academics and lawyers who have scoured ancient political tracts and common law to establish that in the distant English past that there was a constitutional right to bear arms as a defense against tyranny. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has given some credence to this view: In his majority opinion for Heller, he asserted that "the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents." This line of reasoning ignores the fact that, in 21st century America, the prospect of monarchs and their select militias oppressing the populace is reasonably remote. It also ignores the fact that the common law evolves and is subordinate to acts of the legislature. Other nations built on English common law have all enacted strict regulation of gun ownership, with no perceptible diminution of political liberties.

The second pillar has fewer scholarly pretensions, but it employs even more historically dubious arguments. It suggests, for example, that the Holocaust could have been avoided if Germany's miniscule Jewish population had been better armed. It also argues that Ukrainian peasants could have defeated the Stalinist regime, backed by the NKVD and the Red Army, if they had possessed individual firearms. But these counterfactual interpretations of history are wildly speculative -- and downright implausible.

To understand how misguided these kinds of arguments truly are, it's best to begin where their adherents generally do: the Battle of Lexington and Concord. Any comparison between the American revolutionaries and today's would-be freedom fighters is seriously flawed.’

Why the 'Citizen Militia' Theory Is the Worst Pro-Gun Argument Ever

And the third is there is no Constitutional ‘tripwire’ that authorizes the people to abandon the political and judicial process guaranteed to the people by the First Amendment and ‘take up arms’ against a government perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’