2nd Amendment Discussion

[BasicHumanUnit]

I think you just answered your own question. Congress shouldn't pass laws to restrict as that would be against the first 10 amendments that exist to limit the powers of the Congress and the President. But it doesn't limit the powers of the State.

You sure?
If what you say was true, some states might still have slaves.

Sorry, but s usual, you're wrong.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

The FBI Is Creating A Social Media Red Flag Tool
BY HERSCHEL SMITH
3 days, 17 hours ago


This is fine
We can trust the KGB...sorry I mean The FBI
Itll be a perfect compliment to the social credit score system Big tech wants to bring here

 

[danielpalos]

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

He's trolling you, dude.

right wingers are the trolls. i can't even take them seriously regarding Any "gospel Truth" even on Sundays.

Good for you dude. I would not want to be in the company of Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, or Nancy Pelosi. So, I can't take them seriously.

It would be more palatable to be around Pillsbury Chris Christie, sell out Marco Rubio, or Mitch McConnell.

You with those nonsensical posts - that IS trolling.

the left understands our Constitution, unlike the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

You are "appealing to ignorance to yourself" because you are being incompetent, with me.

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

dannyboy, that doesn't in any way, shape, fashion or form make ANY sense whatsoever. I can't appeal to myself unless I'm talking to myself. So that made no sense. I'm not being "incompetent" with you as all I can do is tell you what the law is. Unless you've gotten divorced, I can tell you now you've never been IN a courtroom. If anyone on this board is incompetent, it is you. Telling people the truth is NEVER incompetent... unless you're talking to an idiot that won't look it up and read it. You are so ******* stupid that you think the only people who understand the law are right wingers in a fantasy - whatever in the Hell that means AND THAT IS NOT AN ENGLISH statement.

The courts have disagreed with you dannyboy. You cannot hold me responsible for their rulings. You're such a ******* idiot you don't even ASK other posters if they necessarily agree with the laws on the books.

When you tell someone they cannot appeal to ignorance when they just addressed you, it means that they cannot appeal to YOUR ignorance. The idiocy you spew on this board is incorrect; it is in factual error; it does not line up with court holdings (which are the final law in this country.) If you disagree, the proper remedy is to cite your source. The wrong thing is to keep posting meaningless horseshit over and over and over again.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. The first clause clearly enumerates the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

Neither the state governments OR the federal government created nor granted the Right to keep and bear Arms. BOTH have ruled as such. With or without the Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right that existed BEFORE the Constitution. The courts have said so.

The authority of the government only extends to guaranteeing the Right and insuring that individuals do not misuse the Right. Due process deals with criminal activity, not to the insuring of Rights.

While the government has the power to claim it bestows upon you your Rights, it does not. Our forefathers warned against the practice and said that it will destroy the government. That is exactly what is happening.

unfortunately for you, our supreme laws of the land are express not implied.

and, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the police power of a State.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You need some new material. In the meantime, you'd be well advised to go see Dr. Phil. I'll be looking for the episode featuring you and your one of a kind ideology.

lol. you need a superior argument. i already know you only have inferior arguments. i should be more grateful for our federal doctrine of separation of powers, than i currently am.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

dannyboy, that doesn't in any way, shape, fashion or form make ANY sense whatsoever. I can't appeal to myself unless I'm talking to myself. So that made no sense. I'm not being "incompetent" with you as all I can do is tell you what the law is. Unless you've gotten divorced, I can tell you now you've never been IN a courtroom. If anyone on this board is incompetent, it is you. Telling people the truth is NEVER incompetent... unless you're talking to an idiot that won't look it up and read it. You are so ******* stupid that you think the only people who understand the law are right wingers in a fantasy - whatever in the Hell that means AND THAT IS NOT AN ENGLISH statement.

The courts have disagreed with you dannyboy. You cannot hold me responsible for their rulings. You're such a ******* idiot you don't even ASK other posters if they necessarily agree with the laws on the books.

When you tell someone they cannot appeal to ignorance when they just addressed you, it means that they cannot appeal to YOUR ignorance. The idiocy you spew on this board is incorrect; it is in factual error; it does not line up with court holdings (which are the final law in this country.) If you disagree, the proper remedy is to cite your source. The wrong thing is to keep posting meaningless horseshit over and over and over again.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. The first clause clearly enumerates the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

Neither the state governments OR the federal government created nor granted the Right to keep and bear Arms. BOTH have ruled as such. With or without the Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right that existed BEFORE the Constitution. The courts have said so.

The authority of the government only extends to guaranteeing the Right and insuring that individuals do not misuse the Right. Due process deals with criminal activity, not to the insuring of Rights.

While the government has the power to claim it bestows upon you your Rights, it does not. Our forefathers warned against the practice and said that it will destroy the government. That is exactly what is happening.

unfortunately for you, our supreme laws of the land are express not implied.

and, you cannot appeal to ignorance of the police power of a State.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You need some new material. In the meantime, you'd be well advised to go see Dr. Phil. I'll be looking for the episode featuring you and your one of a kind ideology.

lol. you need a superior argument. i already know you only have inferior arguments. i should be more grateful for our federal doctrine of separation of powers, than i currently am.

You were defeated with so many superior arguments that you will only be a legend in your own mind.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

He's trolling you, dude.

right wingers are the trolls. i can't even take them seriously regarding Any "gospel Truth" even on Sundays.

Good for you dude. I would not want to be in the company of Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, or Nancy Pelosi. So, I can't take them seriously.

It would be more palatable to be around Pillsbury Chris Christie, sell out Marco Rubio, or Mitch McConnell.

You with those nonsensical posts - that IS trolling.

the left understands our Constitution, unlike the right wing.

Presuming that to be true, how come you suppose they take a giant shit on it... like you do???

 

[danielpalos]

anybody can Talk.

Men have valid arguments.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

The Second Amendment was written when there were ten times the number of Cannon in private hands as there were in Military possession. Seriously. There were literally ten times the number of privately owned cannon in Privateers sailing under American Letters of Marque as there were in the entire US Navy. Every ship sailing was armed with cannon.

Repeating firearms were already in existence. The Puckett Gun as one well known example. Henry the 8th who predated the Revolution had a collection of rapid reloading firearms.

Benjamin Franklin who during the Revolution was in France begging support saw drawings from Leonardo Da Vinci including the sketch of the man in a Parachute. Franklin was inspired and asked in a letter to imagine how much chaos a battalion of men could cause if they were dropped behind enemy lines before a sufficient force could be raised to stop them. Benjamin Franklin, before the Revolutionary War was over, in this time, imagined a future of Paratroopers and described the events of June 6th 1944 but was so ignorant and unimaginative that he and the rest could not imagine a repeating rifle already in existence.

Are you substantially different from the Humans of the revolutionary era? If we can imagine a future like in Star Trek, what makes you think that these peasants were so dumb stupid that they couldn’t imagine a future that was already coming into existence.

Percussion caps came about thanks to fulminate of Mercury, which was invented in 1807. Pretty much everyone who signed onto the Constitution was still alive then.

If you do not know the history, you should refrain from speaking definitively about what people knew, imagined, or expected. Because the Founders imagined we would want to change the Constitution. They gave us the mechanism to do so. It was not the principle of Judicial Review and a interpretation. It was the Amendment. Want to get rid of the Second, do it right.

The Pucket Gun had as much of a chance of blowing up in your face as it did sending a ball down range. It was a terrible and dangerous design. It was offered to the US Navy who bought the small cannons instead because they worked and didn't blow up the shooter usually.

As for canons in the hands of Civilians, those were purchased by companies to protect their assets. You would find one per community. And only the Rich owned them. If you were to give one to a normal person, he would take it home and reforge it into something useful (they didn't give them to normal people since that lesson was learned hundreds of years ago, swords to plowshares). The cost of that single canon would be the total income of a normal person for many years. So you don't make sense here either.

The post I was replying to said that the Founders could not imagine and certainly never intended. The most powerful weapons of the era, cannon, were in private hands. You admit that, and then downplay that fact with some of the truth. Yes, they were expensive. Just as true Machine Guns are expensive today.

But, let’s continue on with what the Founders intended. Show me in the Constitution where the Founders intended our rights to be adjudicated by the Courts. The First Amendment does not say that The Supreme Court Shall rule as invalid any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press..... you get the idea. It says Congress shall pass no law.

Since it specifies Congress. Does that mean the States can have an official Religion? Does that mean the States can restrict a Speech or the Press?

Or is it understood that the Founders intended it to be an individual right?

The Founders intended that if we had an issue with the Constitution that we would amend it, not litigate and have the Court rule on the nuances. Why don’t the anti-gun folks go that way? Why not amend the Constitution?

“Show me in the Constitution where the Founders intended our rights to be adjudicated by the Courts.”

It can be found here in the Constitution:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. Article II, Section 2 – US Cont.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI – US Cont.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

lol. your English is even worse; nobody can take your appeal to ignorance seriously.

How many times have I got to tell your dumb ass that I'm NOT appealing to your ignorance? I'm making fun of you. English is my first language. It obviously is not yours. Most people understand what I'm writing. Your shit is sentence fragments and words strung together, just as you admitted to earlier. They don't mean shit to anyone except you.

I just wonder who in the Hell you're trying to appeal to? Everybody here is sick of trying to educate your dumb ass and I am only living in the space between your ears rent free. I keep telling you that you have your head so far up the liberals ass, they have to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air. And everybody that disagrees with your horseshit is "right wing" EVEN WHEN THE POINTS BEING MADE ARE OPPOSED BY THE RIGHT WING!!! What a raging idiot you are!!!

Like it or not, the Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution. There are over 400 million weapons in the United States that are in private hands. When you and I are pushing up daisies or floating as ashes in the river, there will still be people owning firearms... privately held firearms.

You are "appealing to ignorance to yourself" because you are being incompetent, with me.

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

dannyboy, that doesn't in any way, shape, fashion or form make ANY sense whatsoever. I can't appeal to myself unless I'm talking to myself. So that made no sense. I'm not being "incompetent" with you as all I can do is tell you what the law is. Unless you've gotten divorced, I can tell you now you've never been IN a courtroom. If anyone on this board is incompetent, it is you. Telling people the truth is NEVER incompetent... unless you're talking to an idiot that won't look it up and read it. You are so ******* stupid that you think the only people who understand the law are right wingers in a fantasy - whatever in the Hell that means AND THAT IS NOT AN ENGLISH statement.

The courts have disagreed with you dannyboy. You cannot hold me responsible for their rulings. You're such a ******* idiot you don't even ASK other posters if they necessarily agree with the laws on the books.

When you tell someone they cannot appeal to ignorance when they just addressed you, it means that they cannot appeal to YOUR ignorance. The idiocy you spew on this board is incorrect; it is in factual error; it does not line up with court holdings (which are the final law in this country.) If you disagree, the proper remedy is to cite your source. The wrong thing is to keep posting meaningless horseshit over and over and over again.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. The first clause clearly enumerates the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

Neither the state governments OR the federal government created nor granted the Right to keep and bear Arms. BOTH have ruled as such. With or without the Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right that existed BEFORE the Constitution. The courts have said so.

The authority of the government only extends to guaranteeing the Right and insuring that individuals do not misuse the Right. Due process deals with criminal activity, not to the insuring of Rights.

While the government has the power to claim it bestows upon you your Rights, it does not. Our forefathers warned against the practice and said that it will destroy the government. That is exactly what is happening.

“With or without the Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right that existed BEFORE the Constitution. The courts have said so.”

The courts have also said that our rights and protected liberties are not ‘unlimited,’ that they are subject to regulation and restrictions by government consistent with the Constitution’s case law – including the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment right is indeed inalienable, but it is not ‘unlimited.’

There is no disagreement that the Second Amendment right is inalienable – the conflict manifests with those who advance the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute,’ that all and any regulation or restriction of that right is ‘un-Constitutional,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

“Due process deals with criminal activity, not to the insuring of Rights.”

Wrong.

Citizens are entitled to due process when government seeks to place limits and restriction on our rights; the right to due process is not relegated solely to criminal prosecution:

'The substantive limitations placed on the content or subject matter of state and federal laws by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

In general, substantive due process prohibits the government from infringing on fundamental constitutional liberties. By contrast, procedural due process refers to the procedural limitations placed on the manner in which a law is administered, applied, or enforced. Thus, procedural due process prohibits the government from arbitrarily depriving individuals of legally protected interests without first giving them notice and the opportunity to be heard.

The Due Process Clause provides that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." When courts face questions concerning procedural due process, the controlling word in this clause is process. Courts must determine how much process is due in a particular hearing to satisfy the fairness requirements of the Constitution. When courts face questions concerning substantive due process, the controlling issue is liberty. Courts must determine the nature and the scope of the liberty protected by the Constitution before affording litigants a particular freedom.'

Substantive Due Process

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

dannyboy, that doesn't in any way, shape, fashion or form make ANY sense whatsoever. I can't appeal to myself unless I'm talking to myself. So that made no sense. I'm not being "incompetent" with you as all I can do is tell you what the law is. Unless you've gotten divorced, I can tell you now you've never been IN a courtroom. If anyone on this board is incompetent, it is you. Telling people the truth is NEVER incompetent... unless you're talking to an idiot that won't look it up and read it. You are so ******* stupid that you think the only people who understand the law are right wingers in a fantasy - whatever in the Hell that means AND THAT IS NOT AN ENGLISH statement.

The courts have disagreed with you dannyboy. You cannot hold me responsible for their rulings. You're such a ******* idiot you don't even ASK other posters if they necessarily agree with the laws on the books.

When you tell someone they cannot appeal to ignorance when they just addressed you, it means that they cannot appeal to YOUR ignorance. The idiocy you spew on this board is incorrect; it is in factual error; it does not line up with court holdings (which are the final law in this country.) If you disagree, the proper remedy is to cite your source. The wrong thing is to keep posting meaningless horseshit over and over and over again.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. The first clause clearly enumerates the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

Neither the state governments OR the federal government created nor granted the Right to keep and bear Arms. BOTH have ruled as such. With or without the Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right that existed BEFORE the Constitution. The courts have said so.

The authority of the government only extends to guaranteeing the Right and insuring that individuals do not misuse the Right. Due process deals with criminal activity, not to the insuring of Rights.

While the government has the power to claim it bestows upon you your Rights, it does not. Our forefathers warned against the practice and said that it will destroy the government. That is exactly what is happening.

Then who bestows those rights on you? Is it God? IF so, which God. And does that mean that an Athiest has no rights? Just tell me who or what gave you those rights in the first place. And don't say just because.

America was founded on First Principles or foundational principles as we call them now. Thomas Jefferson referred to the Declaration of Independence as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man."

The Declaration of Independence lays out the presuppositions upon which the Republic exists. And, so, from that document:

"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."

This foundational principle has its roots in the Bible; however, the Declaration of Independence does not say which God; it says "endowed by their Creator." That term leaves it open as to where your Rights emanated from.

The courts have ruled that words like inherent, natural, absolute, unalienable, God given (given by a Creator) are all synonymous. America was founded as that principle being the first presupposition upon which the Republic rests. According to John Adams:

"[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

There is that fundamental principle being echoed again. No specific God is mentioned. It's just that all men are born with these presuppositional Rights and those Rights have been declared by our courts to be above the reach of government.

IAW, you don't know. No one knows who the "Creator" is. I have my own, you have yours. The Atheist is a bit more confused than we are but I imagine he has his as well. But I doubt if the "Creator" gave us much more than Life itself. I don't know about YOUR creator but mine must have one hell of a sense of humor. He's sitting back and watching this discussion laughing his ass off.

“The Atheist is a bit more confused than we are but I imagine he has his as well.”

Actually not.

Those free from religion understand the fact that our rights are inalienable the consequence of our humanity – of our ability to reason, to think, and to engage in social discourse; no deity necessary.

 

[danielpalos]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

The Second Amendment was written when there were ten times the number of Cannon in private hands as there were in Military possession. Seriously. There were literally ten times the number of privately owned cannon in Privateers sailing under American Letters of Marque as there were in the entire US Navy. Every ship sailing was armed with cannon.

Repeating firearms were already in existence. The Puckett Gun as one well known example. Henry the 8th who predated the Revolution had a collection of rapid reloading firearms.

Benjamin Franklin who during the Revolution was in France begging support saw drawings from Leonardo Da Vinci including the sketch of the man in a Parachute. Franklin was inspired and asked in a letter to imagine how much chaos a battalion of men could cause if they were dropped behind enemy lines before a sufficient force could be raised to stop them. Benjamin Franklin, before the Revolutionary War was over, in this time, imagined a future of Paratroopers and described the events of June 6th 1944 but was so ignorant and unimaginative that he and the rest could not imagine a repeating rifle already in existence.

Are you substantially different from the Humans of the revolutionary era? If we can imagine a future like in Star Trek, what makes you think that these peasants were so dumb stupid that they couldn’t imagine a future that was already coming into existence.

Percussion caps came about thanks to fulminate of Mercury, which was invented in 1807. Pretty much everyone who signed onto the Constitution was still alive then.

If you do not know the history, you should refrain from speaking definitively about what people knew, imagined, or expected. Because the Founders imagined we would want to change the Constitution. They gave us the mechanism to do so. It was not the principle of Judicial Review and a interpretation. It was the Amendment. Want to get rid of the Second, do it right.

The Pucket Gun had as much of a chance of blowing up in your face as it did sending a ball down range. It was a terrible and dangerous design. It was offered to the US Navy who bought the small cannons instead because they worked and didn't blow up the shooter usually.

As for canons in the hands of Civilians, those were purchased by companies to protect their assets. You would find one per community. And only the Rich owned them. If you were to give one to a normal person, he would take it home and reforge it into something useful (they didn't give them to normal people since that lesson was learned hundreds of years ago, swords to plowshares). The cost of that single canon would be the total income of a normal person for many years. So you don't make sense here either.

The post I was replying to said that the Founders could not imagine and certainly never intended. The most powerful weapons of the era, cannon, were in private hands. You admit that, and then downplay that fact with some of the truth. Yes, they were expensive. Just as true Machine Guns are expensive today.

But, let’s continue on with what the Founders intended. Show me in the Constitution where the Founders intended our rights to be adjudicated by the Courts. The First Amendment does not say that The Supreme Court Shall rule as invalid any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press..... you get the idea. It says Congress shall pass no law.

Since it specifies Congress. Does that mean the States can have an official Religion? Does that mean the States can restrict a Speech or the Press?

Or is it understood that the Founders intended it to be an individual right?

The Founders intended that if we had an issue with the Constitution that we would amend it, not litigate and have the Court rule on the nuances. Why don’t the anti-gun folks go that way? Why not amend the Constitution?

There is no issue with our Constitution but a lack of Faith. Our Founding Fathers knew what they are doing. There is nothing ambiguous about supreme law of the land, only right wing reading comprehension issues.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

anybody can Talk.

Men have valid arguments.

So you're a woman???

 

[Porter Rockwell]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

The Second Amendment was written when there were ten times the number of Cannon in private hands as there were in Military possession. Seriously. There were literally ten times the number of privately owned cannon in Privateers sailing under American Letters of Marque as there were in the entire US Navy. Every ship sailing was armed with cannon.

Repeating firearms were already in existence. The Puckett Gun as one well known example. Henry the 8th who predated the Revolution had a collection of rapid reloading firearms.

Benjamin Franklin who during the Revolution was in France begging support saw drawings from Leonardo Da Vinci including the sketch of the man in a Parachute. Franklin was inspired and asked in a letter to imagine how much chaos a battalion of men could cause if they were dropped behind enemy lines before a sufficient force could be raised to stop them. Benjamin Franklin, before the Revolutionary War was over, in this time, imagined a future of Paratroopers and described the events of June 6th 1944 but was so ignorant and unimaginative that he and the rest could not imagine a repeating rifle already in existence.

Are you substantially different from the Humans of the revolutionary era? If we can imagine a future like in Star Trek, what makes you think that these peasants were so dumb stupid that they couldn’t imagine a future that was already coming into existence.

Percussion caps came about thanks to fulminate of Mercury, which was invented in 1807. Pretty much everyone who signed onto the Constitution was still alive then.

If you do not know the history, you should refrain from speaking definitively about what people knew, imagined, or expected. Because the Founders imagined we would want to change the Constitution. They gave us the mechanism to do so. It was not the principle of Judicial Review and a interpretation. It was the Amendment. Want to get rid of the Second, do it right.

The Pucket Gun had as much of a chance of blowing up in your face as it did sending a ball down range. It was a terrible and dangerous design. It was offered to the US Navy who bought the small cannons instead because they worked and didn't blow up the shooter usually.

As for canons in the hands of Civilians, those were purchased by companies to protect their assets. You would find one per community. And only the Rich owned them. If you were to give one to a normal person, he would take it home and reforge it into something useful (they didn't give them to normal people since that lesson was learned hundreds of years ago, swords to plowshares). The cost of that single canon would be the total income of a normal person for many years. So you don't make sense here either.

The post I was replying to said that the Founders could not imagine and certainly never intended. The most powerful weapons of the era, cannon, were in private hands. You admit that, and then downplay that fact with some of the truth. Yes, they were expensive. Just as true Machine Guns are expensive today.

But, let’s continue on with what the Founders intended. Show me in the Constitution where the Founders intended our rights to be adjudicated by the Courts. The First Amendment does not say that The Supreme Court Shall rule as invalid any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press..... you get the idea. It says Congress shall pass no law.

Since it specifies Congress. Does that mean the States can have an official Religion? Does that mean the States can restrict a Speech or the Press?

Or is it understood that the Founders intended it to be an individual right?

The Founders intended that if we had an issue with the Constitution that we would amend it, not litigate and have the Court rule on the nuances. Why don’t the anti-gun folks go that way? Why not amend the Constitution?

There is no issue with our Constitution but a lack of Faith. Our Founding Fathers knew what they are doing. There is nothing ambiguous about supreme law of the land, only right wing reading comprehension issues.

You are the one with a reading comprehension issue. This is backed up by your lack of supporting evidence to back whatever in the Hell it is you're selling.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

How many times have I got to tell your dumb ass that I'm NOT appealing to your ignorance? I'm making fun of you. English is my first language. It obviously is not yours. Most people understand what I'm writing. Your shit is sentence fragments and words strung together, just as you admitted to earlier. They don't mean shit to anyone except you.

I just wonder who in the Hell you're trying to appeal to? Everybody here is sick of trying to educate your dumb ass and I am only living in the space between your ears rent free. I keep telling you that you have your head so far up the liberals ass, they have to fart for you to get a breath of fresh air. And everybody that disagrees with your horseshit is "right wing" EVEN WHEN THE POINTS BEING MADE ARE OPPOSED BY THE RIGHT WING!!! What a raging idiot you are!!!

Like it or not, the Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution. There are over 400 million weapons in the United States that are in private hands. When you and I are pushing up daisies or floating as ashes in the river, there will still be people owning firearms... privately held firearms.

You are "appealing to ignorance to yourself" because you are being incompetent, with me.

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Article of Amendment.

dannyboy, that doesn't in any way, shape, fashion or form make ANY sense whatsoever. I can't appeal to myself unless I'm talking to myself. So that made no sense. I'm not being "incompetent" with you as all I can do is tell you what the law is. Unless you've gotten divorced, I can tell you now you've never been IN a courtroom. If anyone on this board is incompetent, it is you. Telling people the truth is NEVER incompetent... unless you're talking to an idiot that won't look it up and read it. You are so ******* stupid that you think the only people who understand the law are right wingers in a fantasy - whatever in the Hell that means AND THAT IS NOT AN ENGLISH statement.

The courts have disagreed with you dannyboy. You cannot hold me responsible for their rulings. You're such a ******* idiot you don't even ASK other posters if they necessarily agree with the laws on the books.

When you tell someone they cannot appeal to ignorance when they just addressed you, it means that they cannot appeal to YOUR ignorance. The idiocy you spew on this board is incorrect; it is in factual error; it does not line up with court holdings (which are the final law in this country.) If you disagree, the proper remedy is to cite your source. The wrong thing is to keep posting meaningless horseshit over and over and over again.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. The first clause clearly enumerates the Intent and Purpose for the second clause. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

That is so convoluted and inaccurate that you need to take a high school civics course. NOBODY on this board has ever said the Second Amendment is a Constitution unto itself. Pay attention and I'll make this easy for you.

Neither the state governments OR the federal government created nor granted the Right to keep and bear Arms. BOTH have ruled as such. With or without the Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right that existed BEFORE the Constitution. The courts have said so.

The authority of the government only extends to guaranteeing the Right and insuring that individuals do not misuse the Right. Due process deals with criminal activity, not to the insuring of Rights.

While the government has the power to claim it bestows upon you your Rights, it does not. Our forefathers warned against the practice and said that it will destroy the government. That is exactly what is happening.

“With or without the Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right that existed BEFORE the Constitution. The courts have said so.”

The courts have also said that our rights and protected liberties are not ‘unlimited,’ that they are subject to regulation and restrictions by government consistent with the Constitution’s case law – including the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment right is indeed inalienable, but it is not ‘unlimited.’

There is no disagreement that the Second Amendment right is inalienable – the conflict manifests with those who advance the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute,’ that all and any regulation or restriction of that right is ‘un-Constitutional,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

“Due process deals with criminal activity, not to the insuring of Rights.”

Wrong.

Citizens are entitled to due process when government seeks to place limits and restriction on our rights; the right to due process is not relegated solely to criminal prosecution:

'The substantive limitations placed on the content or subject matter of state and federal laws by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

In general, substantive due process prohibits the government from infringing on fundamental constitutional liberties. By contrast, procedural due process refers to the procedural limitations placed on the manner in which a law is administered, applied, or enforced. Thus, procedural due process prohibits the government from arbitrarily depriving individuals of legally protected interests without first giving them notice and the opportunity to be heard.

The Due Process Clause provides that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." When courts face questions concerning procedural due process, the controlling word in this clause is process. Courts must determine how much process is due in a particular hearing to satisfy the fairness requirements of the Constitution. When courts face questions concerning substantive due process, the controlling issue is liberty. Courts must determine the nature and the scope of the liberty protected by the Constitution before affording litigants a particular freedom.'

Substantive Due Process

You are wholly in error about what I said. You're building straw man arguments and since we're going to have to do this all over again, so be it. Try to read it and not think you can overcome the bottom line FACTS:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The 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 are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:


According to Wikipedia:


"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia


In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:


“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!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:



"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 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..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 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

So, your basic unalienable Rights are the Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These are Rights you gained upon birth and do not owe anyone a duty in order to exercise them. We know, however, that the reality is a bit different, but this Manual will go in depth to explain WHY and WHAT you can do about it. For now, we will focus on these unalienable Rights.

Unalienable Rights are rooted in our foundational principles and first talked about in the Declaration of Independence. Of this document (the Declaration) Thomas Jefferson stated:

“The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.”


Of course having said that, we must talk a bit about the authority of the Declaration of Independence. Some people will tell you that the Declaration of Independence is not law; they will say it is not binding; some will even tell you it is something other than what the author of the Declaration of Independence claimed it was. So, let’s dispel the myths so that you fully understand your Rights.


The Declaration of Independence is at the head of the United States Code, the official laws of the United States. Okay, so it is not the Constitution, a statute, or court ruling. But, it is part of the organic law of the United States by virtue of its place in the United States Code. It IS the declaratory charter of our Rights and the Rights of man; therefore it is a foundational principle upon which the Republic was founded.


The Declaration of Independence has been used as persuasive authority in court cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court (in a later chapter, we will examine what persuasive authority means.) In one case the United States Supreme Court ruled:


“The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "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. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)


The early courts (including the United States Supreme Court) clearly ruled that unalienable Rights predate the Constitution, and so they ruled accordingly.

So, back to the discussion of our Rights…


Having defined unalienable Rights, what happened to them between the ratification of the Declaration of Independence and today?


Patrick Henry refused to sign the Constitution. Since the proceedings were held in secret, Henry became famous for saying he “smelled a rat.” And, while the Constitution did not mention our Rights, the Constitution was opposed by Anti-Federalists until they included the Bill of Rights.

The illegally ratified 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights. Then, by the time you get to the Heller v DC ruling by the United States Supreme Court the high Court implies that THEY grant you your Rights. So, we have a Constitution and applicable rulings - and I only accept the first rulings since all beyond that are legislating from the bench. With the 14th Amendment, they first created TWO separate and distinct classes of citizens; later the government would con Americans into forfeiting their unalienable Rights. So, now the president and the United States Supreme Court make most of the laws and operate outside the Constitution. We live under a de facto / illegal form of government and while you're right in a very strict and lawyerly way as to the current law, it is equally true that those laws are 180 degrees opposite of what we were guaranteed in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution. The system has the POWER to uphold unconstitutional laws, but they lack the AUTHORITY.

When Donald J.Trump's tenure is over, America as the founders / framers laid it out is OVER - done so by illegal and unconstitutional power grabs.

 

[danielpalos]

anybody can Talk.

Men have valid arguments.

So you're a woman???

only wo-men can get way with having no valid arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

The Second Amendment was written when there were ten times the number of Cannon in private hands as there were in Military possession. Seriously. There were literally ten times the number of privately owned cannon in Privateers sailing under American Letters of Marque as there were in the entire US Navy. Every ship sailing was armed with cannon.

Repeating firearms were already in existence. The Puckett Gun as one well known example. Henry the 8th who predated the Revolution had a collection of rapid reloading firearms.

Benjamin Franklin who during the Revolution was in France begging support saw drawings from Leonardo Da Vinci including the sketch of the man in a Parachute. Franklin was inspired and asked in a letter to imagine how much chaos a battalion of men could cause if they were dropped behind enemy lines before a sufficient force could be raised to stop them. Benjamin Franklin, before the Revolutionary War was over, in this time, imagined a future of Paratroopers and described the events of June 6th 1944 but was so ignorant and unimaginative that he and the rest could not imagine a repeating rifle already in existence.

Are you substantially different from the Humans of the revolutionary era? If we can imagine a future like in Star Trek, what makes you think that these peasants were so dumb stupid that they couldn’t imagine a future that was already coming into existence.

Percussion caps came about thanks to fulminate of Mercury, which was invented in 1807. Pretty much everyone who signed onto the Constitution was still alive then.

If you do not know the history, you should refrain from speaking definitively about what people knew, imagined, or expected. Because the Founders imagined we would want to change the Constitution. They gave us the mechanism to do so. It was not the principle of Judicial Review and a interpretation. It was the Amendment. Want to get rid of the Second, do it right.

The Pucket Gun had as much of a chance of blowing up in your face as it did sending a ball down range. It was a terrible and dangerous design. It was offered to the US Navy who bought the small cannons instead because they worked and didn't blow up the shooter usually.

As for canons in the hands of Civilians, those were purchased by companies to protect their assets. You would find one per community. And only the Rich owned them. If you were to give one to a normal person, he would take it home and reforge it into something useful (they didn't give them to normal people since that lesson was learned hundreds of years ago, swords to plowshares). The cost of that single canon would be the total income of a normal person for many years. So you don't make sense here either.

The post I was replying to said that the Founders could not imagine and certainly never intended. The most powerful weapons of the era, cannon, were in private hands. You admit that, and then downplay that fact with some of the truth. Yes, they were expensive. Just as true Machine Guns are expensive today.

But, let’s continue on with what the Founders intended. Show me in the Constitution where the Founders intended our rights to be adjudicated by the Courts. The First Amendment does not say that The Supreme Court Shall rule as invalid any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press..... you get the idea. It says Congress shall pass no law.

Since it specifies Congress. Does that mean the States can have an official Religion? Does that mean the States can restrict a Speech or the Press?

Or is it understood that the Founders intended it to be an individual right?

The Founders intended that if we had an issue with the Constitution that we would amend it, not litigate and have the Court rule on the nuances. Why don’t the anti-gun folks go that way? Why not amend the Constitution?

There is no issue with our Constitution but a lack of Faith. Our Founding Fathers knew what they are doing. There is nothing ambiguous about supreme law of the land, only right wing reading comprehension issues.

You are the one with a reading comprehension issue. This is backed up by your lack of supporting evidence to back whatever in the Hell it is you're selling.

guess i still need to dumb it down some more for the right wing.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The Second Amendment was written when there were ten times the number of Cannon in private hands as there were in Military possession. Seriously. There were literally ten times the number of privately owned cannon in Privateers sailing under American Letters of Marque as there were in the entire US Navy. Every ship sailing was armed with cannon.

Repeating firearms were already in existence. The Puckett Gun as one well known example. Henry the 8th who predated the Revolution had a collection of rapid reloading firearms.

Benjamin Franklin who during the Revolution was in France begging support saw drawings from Leonardo Da Vinci including the sketch of the man in a Parachute. Franklin was inspired and asked in a letter to imagine how much chaos a battalion of men could cause if they were dropped behind enemy lines before a sufficient force could be raised to stop them. Benjamin Franklin, before the Revolutionary War was over, in this time, imagined a future of Paratroopers and described the events of June 6th 1944 but was so ignorant and unimaginative that he and the rest could not imagine a repeating rifle already in existence.

Are you substantially different from the Humans of the revolutionary era? If we can imagine a future like in Star Trek, what makes you think that these peasants were so dumb stupid that they couldn’t imagine a future that was already coming into existence.

Percussion caps came about thanks to fulminate of Mercury, which was invented in 1807. Pretty much everyone who signed onto the Constitution was still alive then.

If you do not know the history, you should refrain from speaking definitively about what people knew, imagined, or expected. Because the Founders imagined we would want to change the Constitution. They gave us the mechanism to do so. It was not the principle of Judicial Review and a interpretation. It was the Amendment. Want to get rid of the Second, do it right.

The Pucket Gun had as much of a chance of blowing up in your face as it did sending a ball down range. It was a terrible and dangerous design. It was offered to the US Navy who bought the small cannons instead because they worked and didn't blow up the shooter usually.

As for canons in the hands of Civilians, those were purchased by companies to protect their assets. You would find one per community. And only the Rich owned them. If you were to give one to a normal person, he would take it home and reforge it into something useful (they didn't give them to normal people since that lesson was learned hundreds of years ago, swords to plowshares). The cost of that single canon would be the total income of a normal person for many years. So you don't make sense here either.

The post I was replying to said that the Founders could not imagine and certainly never intended. The most powerful weapons of the era, cannon, were in private hands. You admit that, and then downplay that fact with some of the truth. Yes, they were expensive. Just as true Machine Guns are expensive today.

But, let’s continue on with what the Founders intended. Show me in the Constitution where the Founders intended our rights to be adjudicated by the Courts. The First Amendment does not say that The Supreme Court Shall rule as invalid any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press..... you get the idea. It says Congress shall pass no law.

Since it specifies Congress. Does that mean the States can have an official Religion? Does that mean the States can restrict a Speech or the Press?

Or is it understood that the Founders intended it to be an individual right?

The Founders intended that if we had an issue with the Constitution that we would amend it, not litigate and have the Court rule on the nuances. Why don’t the anti-gun folks go that way? Why not amend the Constitution?

There is no issue with our Constitution but a lack of Faith. Our Founding Fathers knew what they are doing. There is nothing ambiguous about supreme law of the land, only right wing reading comprehension issues.

You are the one with a reading comprehension issue. This is backed up by your lack of supporting evidence to back whatever in the Hell it is you're selling.

guess i still need to dumb it down some more for the right wing.

Please, your dumb enough already.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

anybody can Talk.

Men have valid arguments.

So you're a woman???

only wo-men can get way with having no valid arguments.

So Missy, that is how you've made over 52,000 posts here spouting a few words strung together that only you understand.

 

[danielpalos]

anybody can Talk.

Men have valid arguments.

So you're a woman???

only wo-men can get way with having no valid arguments.

So Missy, that is how you've made over 52,000 posts here spouting a few words strung together that only you understand.

only incompetent right wingers, say that.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

anybody can Talk.

Men have valid arguments.

So you're a woman???

only wo-men can get way with having no valid arguments.

So Missy, that is how you've made over 52,000 posts here spouting a few words strung together that only you understand.

only incompetent right wingers, say that.

Only dumb asses keep repeating the same horseshit you just posted. It's meaningless partisan drivel. You need some new material and you need to get your head out of Chuck Schumer's ass.