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

[danielpalos]

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

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

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

Y'all are simply, full of fallacy.

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

They are in State Constitutions.

And?

available via Due Process.

 

[Ame®icano]

They also had legal slavery then. Times change.

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

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

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

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

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


ae you losing sight of the discussion?

He never had it, since his first post here.

Constitutional law, is about collective rights.

Sure. Every Marxist communist will confirm that.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

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

Y'all are simply, full of fallacy.

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

They are in State Constitutions.

And?

available via Due Process.

Now explain, how US Constitution contradicts that?

 

[WinterBorn]

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

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

You have been wrong every step of the may.

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

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

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

Unable to answer? Typical.

your tales get longer every time.

Vague accusations are ridiculous. Give me specifics. Or are you unable?

 

[WinterBorn]

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

They are in State Constitutions.

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

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

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

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

Define what you are calling natural laws.

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

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

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

 

[WinterBorn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

all of that is completely relevant, story teller.

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

 

[WinterBorn]

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

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

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


ae you losing sight of the discussion?

He never had it, since his first post here.

Constitutional law, is about collective rights.

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

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

Insuring the rights of the individual is the exact opposite of socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

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

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

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


ae you losing sight of the discussion?

He never had it, since his first post here.

Constitutional law, is about collective rights.

Sure. Every Marxist communist will confirm that.

lol. so will any State with a social Contract and Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Y'all are simply, full of fallacy.

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

They are in State Constitutions.

And?

available via Due Process.

Now explain, how US Constitution contradicts that?

It doesn't. Due Process is not our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

They are in State Constitutions.

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

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

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

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

Define what you are calling natural laws.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[danielpalos]

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


ae you losing sight of the discussion?

He never had it, since his first post here.

Constitutional law, is about collective rights.

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

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

Insuring the rights of the individual is the exact opposite of socialism.

No, it isn't. It depends on the social Contract.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

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

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

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

Define what you are calling natural laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[WinterBorn]

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

They are in State Constitutions.

And?

available via Due Process.

Now explain, how US Constitution contradicts that?

It doesn't. Due Process is not our Second Amendment.

No, it is not. The only way to change it is through a constitutional amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

He never had it, since his first post here.

Constitutional law, is about collective rights.

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

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

Insuring the rights of the individual is the exact opposite of socialism.

No, it isn't. It depends on the social Contract.

Socialism depends on the rights of the state overriding the rights of the individual. Individual rights go against socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

Define what you are calling natural laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[WinterBorn]

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

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

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

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

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

all of that is completely relevant, story teller.

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

that is Your tall story, story teller.

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

 

[WinterBorn]

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

Define what you are calling natural laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever. None can supercede or override the US Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

all of that is completely relevant, story teller.

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

that is Your tall story, story teller.

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

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

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever. None can supercede or override the US Constitution.

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

 

[koshergrl]

lol. You have to know something about history and Constitutional law.

this is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment.

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

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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