Universal background checks... really?

[Porter Rockwell]

i have 10 guns. if beto takes 10 guns from me, how many do i have left?

10! i have 10 guns left because i lied to that commie bastard!

The difference between Beto and ALL the other candidates from both sides is that he was honest and gave up the end game. There are NO pro gun leaders or even current candidates that understand the Second Amendment. The few who proclaim to be pro-gun are always looking for novel ways to compromise on gun control when they have options to reduce shootings WITHOUT gun control. The fact that they will not entertain those options tells me they are willing to accept gun control on an incremental basis.

Beto should drop out and run in texas senate before later saying coulda woulda shoulda

Don't encourage him. Maybe someone with a brain will run.

on the Democrat side? there arent any!

So you saying a Republican stands zero chance?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

well we were discussing the constitution and our rights. if the air force is not a part of it, why the hell did you bring it up?

please try to make sense.

Pointing out things that are necessary are not in the Constitution.

While debating constitutional rights.

Bye.

yes.

your surrender is accepted

So if people quit arguing against idiocy, you win?

when you are proven incorrect using your own standards, you lose.

ive demonstrated that constitutional rights are not absolute.

So yes, I won.

thus there is a basis in law for expansion of the background check program.

You have proven no such thing AND the courts disagree with you. The only exception being is the Heller decision and even then, they admitted that the Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Right.

The actual ruling was so convoluted that the next time the high Court revisits gun control (which will be very soon), they are going to have to fix all the contradicting rulings. Still, the fact remains the original intent of the founders / framers is that unalienable Rights are absolute. I've posted the rulings before and can do so again if you like. I mean, it's what the Courts have ruled ever since the FIRST challenges were settled as a matter of law. According to Wikipedia:

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states."

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

This has been a slick way to nullify the Bill of Rights by claiming you get privileges, immunities and due process via the 14th Amendment, which reduces unalienable Rights to mere privileges. Once people realize what happened, they will understand the fact that the 14th Amendment was passed solely to abolish unalienable Rights and nullify the Bill of Rights and reduce it to government granted and regulated privileges. More to the point: the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.

 

[iceberg]

well we were discussing the constitution and our rights. if the air force is not a part of it, why the hell did you bring it up?

please try to make sense.

Pointing out things that are necessary are not in the Constitution.

While debating constitutional rights.

Bye.

yes.

your surrender is accepted

So if people quit arguing against idiocy, you win?

when you are proven incorrect using your own standards, you lose.

ive demonstrated that constitutional rights are not absolute.

So yes, I won.

thus there is a basis in law for expansion of the background check program.

Except there is simply nothing to "win" in a discussion forum except biggest idiot.

Yes. You won.

 

[candycorn]

Pointing out things that are necessary are not in the Constitution.

While debating constitutional rights.

Bye.

yes.

your surrender is accepted

So if people quit arguing against idiocy, you win?

when you are proven incorrect using your own standards, you lose.

ive demonstrated that constitutional rights are not absolute.

So yes, I won.

thus there is a basis in law for expansion of the background check program.

Except there is simply nothing to "win" in a discussion forum except biggest idiot.

Yes. You won.

If you say so….

You’re the one who thinks anyone should be able to buy a gun since there is no stipulation in the constitution that prohibits ownership.

Which makes you a galactic sized idiot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You’re the one who thinks anyone should be able to buy a gun since there is no stipulation in the constitution that prohibits ownership.

Nice strawman you have there.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

While debating constitutional rights.

Bye.

yes.

your surrender is accepted

So if people quit arguing against idiocy, you win?

when you are proven incorrect using your own standards, you lose.

ive demonstrated that constitutional rights are not absolute.

So yes, I won.

thus there is a basis in law for expansion of the background check program.

Except there is simply nothing to "win" in a discussion forum except biggest idiot.

Yes. You won.

If you say so….

You’re the one who thinks anyone should be able to buy a gun since there is no stipulation in the constitution that prohibits ownership.

Which makes you a galactic sized idiot.

If the Constitution says "shall not be infringed," how can you advocate not observing the Rule of Law?

"Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957 by Ayn Rand)

 

[candycorn]

yes.

your surrender is accepted

So if people quit arguing against idiocy, you win?

when you are proven incorrect using your own standards, you lose.

ive demonstrated that constitutional rights are not absolute.

So yes, I won.

thus there is a basis in law for expansion of the background check program.

Except there is simply nothing to "win" in a discussion forum except biggest idiot.

Yes. You won.

If you say so….

You’re the one who thinks anyone should be able to buy a gun since there is no stipulation in the constitution that prohibits ownership.

Which makes you a galactic sized idiot.

If the Constitution says "shall not be infringed," how can you advocate not observing the Rule of Law?

"Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957 by Ayn Rand)

So you think constitutional rights are absolute?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Pointing out things that are necessary are not in the Constitution.

While debating constitutional rights.

Bye.

yes.

your surrender is accepted

So if people quit arguing against idiocy, you win?

when you are proven incorrect using your own standards, you lose.

ive demonstrated that constitutional rights are not absolute.

So yes, I won.

thus there is a basis in law for expansion of the background check program.

You have proven no such thing AND the courts disagree with you. The only exception being is the Heller decision and even then, they admitted that the Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Right.

The actual ruling was so convoluted that the next time the high Court revisits gun control (which will be very soon), they are going to have to fix all the contradicting rulings. Still, the fact remains the original intent of the founders / framers is that unalienable Rights are absolute. I've posted the rulings before and can do so again if you like. I mean, it's what the Courts have ruled ever since the FIRST challenges were settled as a matter of law. According to Wikipedia:

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states."

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

This has been a slick way to nullify the Bill of Rights by claiming you get privileges, immunities and due process via the 14th Amendment, which reduces unalienable Rights to mere privileges. Once people realize what happened, they will understand the fact that the 14th Amendment was passed solely to abolish unalienable Rights and nullify the Bill of Rights and reduce it to government granted and regulated privileges. More to the point: the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.

Oh, the next time, then the next time, then the, oh it's coming the next time. Yet each time, the ruling stays the same. Could it be that you are just full of crap?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So if people quit arguing against idiocy, you win?

when you are proven incorrect using your own standards, you lose.

ive demonstrated that constitutional rights are not absolute.

So yes, I won.

thus there is a basis in law for expansion of the background check program.

Except there is simply nothing to "win" in a discussion forum except biggest idiot.

Yes. You won.

If you say so….

You’re the one who thinks anyone should be able to buy a gun since there is no stipulation in the constitution that prohibits ownership.

Which makes you a galactic sized idiot.

If the Constitution says "shall not be infringed," how can you advocate not observing the Rule of Law?

"Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957 by Ayn Rand)

So you think constitutional rights are absolute?

Our earliest federal court rulings declared them so.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

While debating constitutional rights.

Bye.

yes.

your surrender is accepted

So if people quit arguing against idiocy, you win?

when you are proven incorrect using your own standards, you lose.

ive demonstrated that constitutional rights are not absolute.

So yes, I won.

thus there is a basis in law for expansion of the background check program.

You have proven no such thing AND the courts disagree with you. The only exception being is the Heller decision and even then, they admitted that the Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Right.

The actual ruling was so convoluted that the next time the high Court revisits gun control (which will be very soon), they are going to have to fix all the contradicting rulings. Still, the fact remains the original intent of the founders / framers is that unalienable Rights are absolute. I've posted the rulings before and can do so again if you like. I mean, it's what the Courts have ruled ever since the FIRST challenges were settled as a matter of law. According to Wikipedia:

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states."

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

This has been a slick way to nullify the Bill of Rights by claiming you get privileges, immunities and due process via the 14th Amendment, which reduces unalienable Rights to mere privileges. Once people realize what happened, they will understand the fact that the 14th Amendment was passed solely to abolish unalienable Rights and nullify the Bill of Rights and reduce it to government granted and regulated privileges. More to the point: the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.

Oh, the next time, then the next time, then the, oh it's coming the next time. Yet each time, the ruling stays the same. Could it be that you are just full of crap?

Could it be that you are plain ignorant or maybe not intelligent enough to follow the court rulings?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

when you are proven incorrect using your own standards, you lose.

ive demonstrated that constitutional rights are not absolute.

So yes, I won.

thus there is a basis in law for expansion of the background check program.

Except there is simply nothing to "win" in a discussion forum except biggest idiot.

Yes. You won.

If you say so….

You’re the one who thinks anyone should be able to buy a gun since there is no stipulation in the constitution that prohibits ownership.

Which makes you a galactic sized idiot.

If the Constitution says "shall not be infringed," how can you advocate not observing the Rule of Law?

"Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957 by Ayn Rand)

So you think constitutional rights are absolute?

Our earliest federal court rulings declared them so.

Our earliest federal court rulings also declared a lot of things like Slavery was good, the Government could just come in and take your land, You had to be a White, Male, Land Owner in good standings to vote and a lot of other things. And in many cases, it was justified to lynch non whites for many things that would put you on the gallows today. You had better stick with the most recent rulings because the track record of our earliest federal court rulings aren't what we should be most proud of.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

yes.

your surrender is accepted

So if people quit arguing against idiocy, you win?

when you are proven incorrect using your own standards, you lose.

ive demonstrated that constitutional rights are not absolute.

So yes, I won.

thus there is a basis in law for expansion of the background check program.

You have proven no such thing AND the courts disagree with you. The only exception being is the Heller decision and even then, they admitted that the Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Right.

The actual ruling was so convoluted that the next time the high Court revisits gun control (which will be very soon), they are going to have to fix all the contradicting rulings. Still, the fact remains the original intent of the founders / framers is that unalienable Rights are absolute. I've posted the rulings before and can do so again if you like. I mean, it's what the Courts have ruled ever since the FIRST challenges were settled as a matter of law. According to Wikipedia:

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states."

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

This has been a slick way to nullify the Bill of Rights by claiming you get privileges, immunities and due process via the 14th Amendment, which reduces unalienable Rights to mere privileges. Once people realize what happened, they will understand the fact that the 14th Amendment was passed solely to abolish unalienable Rights and nullify the Bill of Rights and reduce it to government granted and regulated privileges. More to the point: the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.

Oh, the next time, then the next time, then the, oh it's coming the next time. Yet each time, the ruling stays the same. Could it be that you are just full of crap?

Could it be that you are plain ignorant or maybe not intelligent enough to follow the court rulings?

Or could it be that I am following the court rulings and it's you that are crying that you don't like the rulings and are waiting for a Massiah to come rescue you.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Except there is simply nothing to "win" in a discussion forum except biggest idiot.

Yes. You won.

If you say so….

You’re the one who thinks anyone should be able to buy a gun since there is no stipulation in the constitution that prohibits ownership.

Which makes you a galactic sized idiot.

If the Constitution says "shall not be infringed," how can you advocate not observing the Rule of Law?

"Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957 by Ayn Rand)

So you think constitutional rights are absolute?

Our earliest federal court rulings declared them so.

Our earliest federal court rulings also declared a lot of things like Slavery was good, the Government could just come in and take your land, You had to be a White, Male, Land Owner in good standings to vote and a lot of other things. And in many cases, it was justified to lynch non whites for many things that would put you on the gallows today. You had better stick with the most recent rulings because the track record of our earliest federal court rulings aren't what we should be most proud of.

The Constitution did not allow the United States Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. Today they have created a clusterphuck with contradicting opinions. So, I stick with the original decision as per the founders / framers admonitions on the subject. Thanks, however.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So if people quit arguing against idiocy, you win?

when you are proven incorrect using your own standards, you lose.

ive demonstrated that constitutional rights are not absolute.

So yes, I won.

thus there is a basis in law for expansion of the background check program.

You have proven no such thing AND the courts disagree with you. The only exception being is the Heller decision and even then, they admitted that the Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Right.

The actual ruling was so convoluted that the next time the high Court revisits gun control (which will be very soon), they are going to have to fix all the contradicting rulings. Still, the fact remains the original intent of the founders / framers is that unalienable Rights are absolute. I've posted the rulings before and can do so again if you like. I mean, it's what the Courts have ruled ever since the FIRST challenges were settled as a matter of law. According to Wikipedia:

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states."

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

This has been a slick way to nullify the Bill of Rights by claiming you get privileges, immunities and due process via the 14th Amendment, which reduces unalienable Rights to mere privileges. Once people realize what happened, they will understand the fact that the 14th Amendment was passed solely to abolish unalienable Rights and nullify the Bill of Rights and reduce it to government granted and regulated privileges. More to the point: the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.

Oh, the next time, then the next time, then the, oh it's coming the next time. Yet each time, the ruling stays the same. Could it be that you are just full of crap?

Could it be that you are plain ignorant or maybe not intelligent enough to follow the court rulings?

Or could it be that I am following the court rulings and it's you that are crying that you don't like the rulings and are waiting for a Massiah to come rescue you.

No Messiah is going to rescue us. We will either reject the "Living Constitution" model OR we will self destruct as a nation.

"The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield..." George Washington in his Farewell Address

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If you say so….

You’re the one who thinks anyone should be able to buy a gun since there is no stipulation in the constitution that prohibits ownership.

Which makes you a galactic sized idiot.

If the Constitution says "shall not be infringed," how can you advocate not observing the Rule of Law?

"Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957 by Ayn Rand)

So you think constitutional rights are absolute?

Our earliest federal court rulings declared them so.

Our earliest federal court rulings also declared a lot of things like Slavery was good, the Government could just come in and take your land, You had to be a White, Male, Land Owner in good standings to vote and a lot of other things. And in many cases, it was justified to lynch non whites for many things that would put you on the gallows today. You had better stick with the most recent rulings because the track record of our earliest federal court rulings aren't what we should be most proud of.

The Constitution did not allow the United States Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. Today they have created a clusterphuck with contradicting opinions. So, I stick with the original decision as per the founders / framers admonitions on the subject. Thanks, however.

The 2nd amendment is to vague today. It made perfect sense in 1791. It made perfect sense in 1851. But not long after that, it started needing to be updated. Between the power of the weapons and the fact that the world got much smaller and much more dangerous, the 2nd amendment was being outgrown quickly. I agree with you. If all you have is a musket or a Kentucky Rifle then you should stick with the original founders idea.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

when you are proven incorrect using your own standards, you lose.

ive demonstrated that constitutional rights are not absolute.

So yes, I won.

thus there is a basis in law for expansion of the background check program.

You have proven no such thing AND the courts disagree with you. The only exception being is the Heller decision and even then, they admitted that the Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Right.

The actual ruling was so convoluted that the next time the high Court revisits gun control (which will be very soon), they are going to have to fix all the contradicting rulings. Still, the fact remains the original intent of the founders / framers is that unalienable Rights are absolute. I've posted the rulings before and can do so again if you like. I mean, it's what the Courts have ruled ever since the FIRST challenges were settled as a matter of law. According to Wikipedia:

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states."

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

This has been a slick way to nullify the Bill of Rights by claiming you get privileges, immunities and due process via the 14th Amendment, which reduces unalienable Rights to mere privileges. Once people realize what happened, they will understand the fact that the 14th Amendment was passed solely to abolish unalienable Rights and nullify the Bill of Rights and reduce it to government granted and regulated privileges. More to the point: the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.

Oh, the next time, then the next time, then the, oh it's coming the next time. Yet each time, the ruling stays the same. Could it be that you are just full of crap?

Could it be that you are plain ignorant or maybe not intelligent enough to follow the court rulings?

Or could it be that I am following the court rulings and it's you that are crying that you don't like the rulings and are waiting for a Massiah to come rescue you.

No Messiah is going to rescue us. We will either reject the "Living Constitution" model OR we will self destruct as a nation.

"The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield..." George Washington in his Farewell Address

And that is exactly what I am proposing. By 1898, the powers in place already knew we outgrew the 2nd amendment. Hence the first part of the National Guard Act. Then there was the 1934 Firearms Act. Both were actually illegal as hell since they were in direct violation of the 2nd amendment as it was written. What it did show me is that we need to rescind both and do a complete rework of the 2nd amendment legally through the "Living Constitution" method. The first line of the 2nd amendment has zero meaning today. And the last half is so vague that it can be interpreted so many different ways that it just causes all kinds of problems. A good law is concise and to the point. A bad law is vague. In 1791, it was concise and to the point but not today.

We need to do the old 2/3rds vote on a new version of it. But there is just too much money and power to be made the way it is today and it has absolutely nothing to do what is good for the citizens.

 

[iceberg]

If the Constitution says "shall not be infringed," how can you advocate not observing the Rule of Law?

"Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957 by Ayn Rand)

So you think constitutional rights are absolute?

Our earliest federal court rulings declared them so.

Our earliest federal court rulings also declared a lot of things like Slavery was good, the Government could just come in and take your land, You had to be a White, Male, Land Owner in good standings to vote and a lot of other things. And in many cases, it was justified to lynch non whites for many things that would put you on the gallows today. You had better stick with the most recent rulings because the track record of our earliest federal court rulings aren't what we should be most proud of.

The Constitution did not allow the United States Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. Today they have created a clusterphuck with contradicting opinions. So, I stick with the original decision as per the founders / framers admonitions on the subject. Thanks, however.

The 2nd amendment is to vague today. It made perfect sense in 1791. It made perfect sense in 1851. But not long after that, it started needing to be updated. Between the power of the weapons and the fact that the world got much smaller and much more dangerous, the 2nd amendment was being outgrown quickly. I agree with you. If all you have is a musket or a Kentucky Rifle then you should stick with the original founders idea.

well, at the time we couldn't get a message around the world in seconds. now we can. so now if you want freedom of speech, write it down and send it by horse to whoever you want to talk to.

we can do that all day with almost everything about the constitution.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If the Constitution says "shall not be infringed," how can you advocate not observing the Rule of Law?

"Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957 by Ayn Rand)

So you think constitutional rights are absolute?

Our earliest federal court rulings declared them so.

Our earliest federal court rulings also declared a lot of things like Slavery was good, the Government could just come in and take your land, You had to be a White, Male, Land Owner in good standings to vote and a lot of other things. And in many cases, it was justified to lynch non whites for many things that would put you on the gallows today. You had better stick with the most recent rulings because the track record of our earliest federal court rulings aren't what we should be most proud of.

The Constitution did not allow the United States Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. Today they have created a clusterphuck with contradicting opinions. So, I stick with the original decision as per the founders / framers admonitions on the subject. Thanks, however.

The 2nd amendment is to vague today. It made perfect sense in 1791. It made perfect sense in 1851. But not long after that, it started needing to be updated. Between the power of the weapons and the fact that the world got much smaller and much more dangerous, the 2nd amendment was being outgrown quickly. I agree with you. If all you have is a musket or a Kentucky Rifle then you should stick with the original founders idea.

If the founding principles bother you, then you should try the proper process for changing the system.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You have proven no such thing AND the courts disagree with you. The only exception being is the Heller decision and even then, they admitted that the Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Right.

The actual ruling was so convoluted that the next time the high Court revisits gun control (which will be very soon), they are going to have to fix all the contradicting rulings. Still, the fact remains the original intent of the founders / framers is that unalienable Rights are absolute. I've posted the rulings before and can do so again if you like. I mean, it's what the Courts have ruled ever since the FIRST challenges were settled as a matter of law. According to Wikipedia:

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states."

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

This has been a slick way to nullify the Bill of Rights by claiming you get privileges, immunities and due process via the 14th Amendment, which reduces unalienable Rights to mere privileges. Once people realize what happened, they will understand the fact that the 14th Amendment was passed solely to abolish unalienable Rights and nullify the Bill of Rights and reduce it to government granted and regulated privileges. More to the point: the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.

Oh, the next time, then the next time, then the, oh it's coming the next time. Yet each time, the ruling stays the same. Could it be that you are just full of crap?

Could it be that you are plain ignorant or maybe not intelligent enough to follow the court rulings?

Or could it be that I am following the court rulings and it's you that are crying that you don't like the rulings and are waiting for a Massiah to come rescue you.

No Messiah is going to rescue us. We will either reject the "Living Constitution" model OR we will self destruct as a nation.

"The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield..." George Washington in his Farewell Address

And that is exactly what I am proposing. By 1898, the powers in place already knew we outgrew the 2nd amendment. Hence the first part of the National Guard Act. Then there was the 1934 Firearms Act. Both were actually illegal as hell since they were in direct violation of the 2nd amendment as it was written. What it did show me is that we need to rescind both and do a complete rework of the 2nd amendment legally through the "Living Constitution" method. The first line of the 2nd amendment has zero meaning today. And the last half is so vague that it can be interpreted so many different ways that it just causes all kinds of problems. A good law is concise and to the point. A bad law is vague. In 1791, it was concise and to the point but not today.

We need to do the old 2/3rds vote on a new version of it. But there is just too much money and power to be made the way it is today and it has absolutely nothing to do what is good for the citizens.

“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams

“If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788