2nd Amendment should not be infringed upon because of Las Vegas shooter.

[Skull Pilot]

I'm not a hillbilly.

A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.

Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.

I have no problem with you protecting your home, but your militia is the National Guard.

No it's not.

There are private militia in existence today.

I happen to belong to one with just one member, me.

You're lucky that the US allows delusional people to own guns.

Says the guy who never locks his doors and is convinced that there is no violence to be had in his little utopia

The right wing is only about morals, when it is about drugs and sex.

Only Bad persons do Bad things, right wingers.

And to whom are you addressing this?
I am not "right wing"

 

[danielpalos]

No, it isn't. It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.

What's your point? The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, unalienable, absolute, God given Right. So, big freaking deal. A state can "secure" the Right. The state does not grant the Right nor can it, constitutionally, deprive you of it. And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.

No, it isn't. The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.

The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and earliest court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.

Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong. AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.

The judicial view:

“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)

"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

"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)

The United States Supreme Court agreed:

."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, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution. State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute. The courts have consistently ruled that the word "absolute" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, unalienable, etc. (aka God given Rights.)

“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)

Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified. And it the courts declared the Right to be an absolute Right, then the Right is also inherent and unalienable pursuant to applicable case law.

You fail.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.

Utterly non - responsive reply. danielpalos, you are trolling. Your post means nothing. How long have you been peddling that shit? Nobody has ever bought it.

Get your head out of your ass for a change. To "secure" a Right does not create the Right; it does not grant the Right. It merely establishes that the Right exists and "ensures" (sic) it.

Secure: 12. to effect; make certain of; ensure

the definition of secure

“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)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Sorry, danielpalos, that's the law and you can't change it with troll posts.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.

Simply citing definitions but not understanding the context, is worthless.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it isn't. It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.

What's your point? The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, unalienable, absolute, God given Right. So, big freaking deal. A state can "secure" the Right. The state does not grant the Right nor can it, constitutionally, deprive you of it. And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.

No, it isn't. The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.

The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and earliest court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.

Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong. AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.

The judicial view:

“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)

"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

"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)

The United States Supreme Court agreed:

."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, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution. State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute. The courts have consistently ruled that the word "absolute" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, unalienable, etc. (aka God given Rights.)

“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)

Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified. And it the courts declared the Right to be an absolute Right, then the Right is also inherent and unalienable pursuant to applicable case law.

You fail.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.

Your nonsense is rarely worth a response, but I sure as Hell did not advocate any so - called "private justice."

Citizens are required to exhaust all nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. OTOH, when it comes to their personal security, the individual must, by law, be wholly responsible for that. In addition, if / when government breaks down, the citizenry is empowered to be the last line of defense in a free nation.

10USC246 is federal law. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

Only custom and habit until it was indistinguishable from morals, preceded our Constitutions.

 

[Humorme]

What's your point? The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, unalienable, absolute, God given Right. So, big freaking deal. A state can "secure" the Right. The state does not grant the Right nor can it, constitutionally, deprive you of it. And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.

No, it isn't. The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.

The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and earliest court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.

Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong. AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.

The judicial view:

“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)

"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

"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)

The United States Supreme Court agreed:

."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, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution. State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute. The courts have consistently ruled that the word "absolute" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, unalienable, etc. (aka God given Rights.)

“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)

Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified. And it the courts declared the Right to be an absolute Right, then the Right is also inherent and unalienable pursuant to applicable case law.

You fail.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.

Your nonsense is rarely worth a response, but I sure as Hell did not advocate any so - called "private justice."

Citizens are required to exhaust all nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. OTOH, when it comes to their personal security, the individual must, by law, be wholly responsible for that. In addition, if / when government breaks down, the citizenry is empowered to be the last line of defense in a free nation.

10USC246 is federal law. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

Only custom and habit until it was indistinguishable from morals, preceded our Constitutions.

The statute you cite only defines classes of militia. Here is a quote from your link:

"(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

If you are a citizen and you're not in the regular armed services (Army, Navy, USMC, Air Force, Coast Guard, etc.) AND you are not a part time federal soldier like National Guard or Naval Militia, then you are in the unorganized militia.

That is only indirectly related to the Right to keep and bear Arms.

“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” (Fisher Ames, founding father and U.S. Representative when the Constitution was ratified)

"“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”

“The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” Thomas Jefferson

“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defence of the country, the over-throw of tyranny, or in private self-defense.” John Adams

In McDonald v. Chigcago, the United States Supreme Court had this to say:

"Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,15 and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (stating that the “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”). Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home..." McDonaldv.Chicago 561 U. S. 742 (2012)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

And, danielpalos, that is the law! You have a separate, inherent Right to keep and bear Arms that is associated with your ability to preserve your Life and your Freedoms.

 

[danielpalos]

You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

 

[Humorme]

You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

You are grasping at straws. The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an unorganized militia. BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.

The law does not require the militia to be organized. Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.


“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS.

Please open your eyes and read the cited cases. The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law. Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.

The law is about a well regulated militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army. And how did they intend to regulate the militia? Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?

 

[danielpalos]

You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

You are grasping at straws. The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an unorganized militia. BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.

The law does not require the militia to be organized. Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.


“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS.

Please open your eyes and read the cited cases. The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law. Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.

The law is about a well regulated militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army. And how did they intend to regulate the militia? Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?

You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.

 

[justinacolmena]

Like many things, this matter is very simple.

There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.

To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.

Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.

I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.

We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.

One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."

 

[Humorme]

You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

You are grasping at straws. The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an unorganized militia. BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.

The law does not require the militia to be organized. Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.


“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS.

Please open your eyes and read the cited cases. The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law. Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.

The law is about a well regulated militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army. And how did they intend to regulate the militia? Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?

You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.

Appeals to ignorance? I'm sorry. I did not realize you were ignorant. But, I held out hope you could learn.

Natural Rights exist without Due Process. For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:

"The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states

 

[Humorme]

Like many things, this matter is very simple.

There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.

To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.

Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.

I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.

We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.

One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."

There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:

1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and

2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

The de facto government maintains that we have a "Living Constitution" and they have put the courts at the head of the government. In the Constitution all the branches of government are co-equal with the final arbiter of the law being the people of the United States.

Under the legal / lawful / de jure Constitution, the government does not have the authority to take the guns of private citizens, but they do have the power. Think of it like this:

You are eating in a restaurant. An armed man comes in and demands the money and valuables of all the patrons. Nobody is armed. He has the power to take your money. But, the law is not on his side, so he lacks the authority. If an armed patron of the restaurant tries to reason with the robber and fails, then shoots the robber, that patron is justified.

Likewise, the people have a duty to exercise all of their nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress, but they are not, by the laws of God and the Constitution required to surrender their weaponry regardless of the pretext.

If you've committed a crime and paid the debt whereupon you were released, under the de jure laws of this country you should be able to own a firearm. If you're crazy and pose an immediate threat to yourself or others, you need to be in protective custody. In neither scenario should anybody here be demoted to the position of a second class citizen.

 

[Faun]

Like many things, this matter is very simple.

There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.

To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.

Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.

I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.

We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.

One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."

There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:

1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and

2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

The de facto government maintains that we have a "Living Constitution" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.

The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."

 

[Humorme]

Like many things, this matter is very simple.

There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.

To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.

Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.

I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.

We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.

One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."

There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:

1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and

2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

The de facto government maintains that we have a "Living Constitution" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.

The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."

No it does not.

 

[Faun]

Like many things, this matter is very simple.

There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.

To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.

Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.

I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.

We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.

One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."

There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:

1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and

2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

The de facto government maintains that we have a "Living Constitution" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.

The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."

No it does not.

Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.

 

[Humorme]

Like many things, this matter is very simple.

There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.

To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.

Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.

I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.

We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.

One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."

There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:

1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and

2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

The de facto government maintains that we have a "Living Constitution" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.

The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."

No it does not.

Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.

I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar. You are here, as usual to troll me. You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.

I'm not playing your childish game on this thread. If you have something to say, say it.

 

[Faun]

Like many things, this matter is very simple.

There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.

To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.

Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.

I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.

We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.

One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."

There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:

1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and

2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

The de facto government maintains that we have a "Living Constitution" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.

The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."

No it does not.

Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.

I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar. You are here, as usual to troll me. You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.

I'm not playing your childish game on this thread. If you have something to say, say it.

LOL

You poor thing, bless your heart. Why do you blame me for your ignorance?

The Constitution itself backs me up. It contains the language required to alter it, rendering it a living Constitution.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.​

You're welcome for the free education.

 

[danielpalos]

Like many things, this matter is very simple.

There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.

To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.

Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.

I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.

We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.

One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."

Are you on the right wing?

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

 

[danielpalos]

You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

You are grasping at straws. The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an unorganized militia. BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.

The law does not require the militia to be organized. Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.


“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS.

Please open your eyes and read the cited cases. The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law. Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.

The law is about a well regulated militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army. And how did they intend to regulate the militia? Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?

You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.

Appeals to ignorance? I'm sorry. I did not realize you were ignorant. But, I held out hope you could learn.

Natural Rights exist without Due Process. For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:

"The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states

this is the Point, dear: Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

 

[Humorme]

You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

You are grasping at straws. The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an unorganized militia. BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.

The law does not require the militia to be organized. Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.


“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS.

Please open your eyes and read the cited cases. The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law. Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.

The law is about a well regulated militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army. And how did they intend to regulate the militia? Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?

You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.

Appeals to ignorance? I'm sorry. I did not realize you were ignorant. But, I held out hope you could learn.

Natural Rights exist without Due Process. For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:

"The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states

this is the Point, dear: Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Unnecessarily vulgar insult deleted.

Secondly, YOU are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment. You need to learn how to read.

I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you. The Right exists with or without the Constitution. The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does not grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it. The militia is what is subject to regulation, NOT the Right to keep and bear Arms.

 

[Humorme]

There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:

1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and

2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

The de facto government maintains that we have a "Living Constitution" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.

The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."

No it does not.

Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.

I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar. You are here, as usual to troll me. You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.

I'm not playing your childish game on this thread. If you have something to say, say it.

LOL

You poor thing, bless your heart. Why do you blame me for your ignorance?

The Constitution itself backs me up. It contains the language required to alter it, rendering it a living Constitution.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.​

You're welcome for the free education.

Your dumb ass provided nothing except condescension and proof that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended by a very definitive number of people.

 

[Humorme]

Two of the greatest board trolls on the Internet have now entered this thread. If we are to be subjected to the insanity of faun and danielpalos, this thread is done. Maybe they can hook up and be happy we were able to introduce them.

At the end of the day, nothing has changed. As John Adams, second president of the United States, stated:

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed.”

In law, the terminology of natural rights (sic), unalienable Rights, absolute, inherent, and God given are all synonymous. Under the de jure / lawful / constitutional interpretation of our Constitution you have Rights that are above the government's law making power. You are not required to give up those Rights and if the government expects that, you have a Duty, an Obligation, and the Right to rebel against tyranny in government. That is the bottom line.