CDZ Liberty

[Porter Rockwell]

While the Declaration of Independence lays out the presupposition that every man has unalienable Rights, it took the Bill of Rights to guarantee those Rights.

Wrong. The first ten amendments were added as a result of the conditional ratification of the Constitution by several of the States. These amendments were designed to limit federal power and only applied to the federal government.

Incorrect.

For more than a century the Supreme Court has acknowledged the fact that the Bill of Rights places limits and restrictions on state and local governments as well.

Incorporation Doctrine

Individuals are not governments. Answered this in a previous post above.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Today I found myself locked out of a thread here after a poster made a false accusation about me. It would have been inappropriate to change the topic anyway, so what this board needs is a thread about Liberty. Maybe that is an issue we should address for those who have the courage to discuss it. The Declaration of Independence states:

"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."

Notice that I bolded some words because we have to discuss them. But first, Thomas Jefferson (who penned those words) said that the Declaration of Independence is "The Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man." So, let's define Liberty:

"Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons." (Black's Law Dictionary - Black's is the most authoritative legal dictionary within the legal community)

What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

America was founded on this presupposition that a Creator, a God (whomever each of us deems that to be) bestowed upon each person, at birth, unalienable Rights. Among those Rights is the Right of Liberty. Unfortunately, government and the English language make things almost impossible to understand so government grants privileges that they call "rights," but they are still privileges in my opinion since you have to ask for permission before you can get them. What government gives, government can withhold and even take away.

Unalienable Rights, being given by a Creator (if you believe in God) OR expressed in a state of being are inherent, absolute, natural, irrevocable and above the reach of government. I'd like to give you a couple of court rulings to illustrate the depth of these unalienable Rights:

“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)

“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..." BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

If I have your attention and if this generates any interest, I'd like to explore this since both the left and right; conservative and liberal; Democrat and Republican appear to be after one group or another's Rights.

You sound like Levin. As far as being muzzled, now you know how Trump feels.

If Levin sounded anything like me, there are at least a half a dozen areas of the law he would not support Donald Trump on. A socialist sounds like a communist until you listen carefully. Constitutionalists sound little like conservatives.

 

[danielpalos]

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?)"
-- John Locke; from Second Treatise on Civil Government

Thank you for giving me a starting point. I found it in your byline.

ONE of the hot topics in America is immigration. Immigration is misunderstood by over 90 percent of the people in America. For that reason I refer to people from foreign countries as foreigners - just as your byline in Deuteronomy does. Most people do not know what immigration is, so let me begin there:

"Immigration - The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence." Black's Law Dictionary

When people say "illegals, illegal immigrants", etc. it is meaningless terminology. If someone seeks permanent residence, they become a citizen. If someone comes here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered by the American people, they are simply foreigners.

When our forefathers came to these shores, they are what is known as immigrants. So bear in mind, when Jefferson penned those words in the Declaration of Independence, there were no citizens of the United States because such a nation did not exist at that time. So, did Liberty apply to all men? That is a very complex question and that is why I'm doing this thread.

Again, the left and the right; conservative and liberal; Democrat and Republican seem to have united against Liberty. The right conflates citizenship with Liberty while the left thinks a majority vote can be used to deprive people of Rights that were intended to be above the law.

First of all- thank you for this discussion- I think it is worthy.

Secondly I will presume you intentionally overly generalized. The right is more than happy to use the law to deprive people of Rights that were intended to be above the law- when it suits their other agendas. As does the left. This is rather the nature of people.

The Declaration of Independence was aspirational- and as you know- is not the law in the United States- but what an amazing aspirational document.

The Constitution- including the Bill of Rights of course is the law. And the Constitution applies to all of those inhabiting the United States- whether they are citizens, or non-citizens.

The Constitution mentions liberty in the preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

While the Constitution does mention citizens- the Bill of Rights within the Constitution refers to the liberties that people within the United States have. There is no stated distinction. The plain language of the Constitution does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens when it comes to Liberty as recognized in the Constitution.

Finally, there was an actual argument at the time of the writing of the Constitution about whether the Bill of Rights would be used to too narrowly identify the liberties that we the people have. The argument as I remember it, is that by codifying the Bill of Rights- there were be those who would argue that those were the only rights that Americans were guaranteed. And that has been the case.

I still think that the Bill of Rights is an amazing document- but that doesn't mean that our rights are limited to what the Bill of Rights says.

Answered some of that in a previous post just a moment ago. See the Tenth Amendment after you read about how the 14th Amendment was used to nullify the Bill of Rights.

How was that done?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

While the Declaration of Independence lays out the presupposition that every man has unalienable Rights, it took the Bill of Rights to guarantee those Rights.

Wrong. The first ten amendments were added as a result of the conditional ratification of the Constitution by several of the States. These amendments were designed to limit federal power and only applied to the federal government.

WRONG. In the Heller decision, Justice Scalia was delivering the majority opinion and rebuking Justice Stevens anti-gun position. Scalia wrote:

" It is dubious to rely on such history to interpret a text that was widely understood to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Actually, this is wrong.

The Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions in McDonald v. Chicago (2010), not Heller.

And the notion that Justice Stevens was 'anti-gun' is a lie.

It is clear to me that you did not read Heller. You're conflating individuals with government entities.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?)"
-- John Locke; from Second Treatise on Civil Government

Thank you for giving me a starting point. I found it in your byline.

ONE of the hot topics in America is immigration. Immigration is misunderstood by over 90 percent of the people in America. For that reason I refer to people from foreign countries as foreigners - just as your byline in Deuteronomy does. Most people do not know what immigration is, so let me begin there:

"Immigration - The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence." Black's Law Dictionary

When people say "illegals, illegal immigrants", etc. it is meaningless terminology. If someone seeks permanent residence, they become a citizen. If someone comes here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered by the American people, they are simply foreigners.

When our forefathers came to these shores, they are what is known as immigrants. So bear in mind, when Jefferson penned those words in the Declaration of Independence, there were no citizens of the United States because such a nation did not exist at that time. So, did Liberty apply to all men? That is a very complex question and that is why I'm doing this thread.

Again, the left and the right; conservative and liberal; Democrat and Republican seem to have united against Liberty. The right conflates citizenship with Liberty while the left thinks a majority vote can be used to deprive people of Rights that were intended to be above the law.

We have supreme laws of the State land and the federal land, for a reason. Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution.

Did you know it was Intelligently designed to be both gender and race neutral, from Inception?

That is "how far off the mark we are".

We should be more faithful to our supreme law of the land.

That is a lie; you know it and you want to go down that liberal rabbit hole so as to denigrate the right. I'm not playing your game danielpalos as you have fewer ethics than a rapist.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I would never consider myself to have Liberty when the government is trying to run my life by taking my money and giving it away to other people and then trying to control everything I do like owning firearms or or having free speech.

For instance, I think it is robbing me of my Liberty by having the 1964 Civil Rights law. Why can't I hire, fire or sell my house to whoever I want? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government put restrictions on me to not be able to discriminate to my heart's content?

I realize you asked that as a rhetorical question; however, I have a no B.S. response for you. It is the key to understanding the law AND being able to predict how a lot of major cases will be decided in the very near future.

In 1868 Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment:

http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

Prove Its Real – Fighting to repeal the 14th amendment and restore the original form of government.

14th Amendment is actually ILLEGAL as it was never RATIFIED!

ONE of the really mean and nasty things the 14th Amendment did was to abolish unalienable Rights and replace them with government granted privileges (though they still call them "rights") and they can bend, twist, or deny them because government granted you what they call "privileges and immunities" in that Amendment. The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights.

All anti-gun decisions, even the Heller decision, calls upon the 14th Amendment to justify denying you the Rights they admit (even in Heller) were preexisting Rights codified into law by the Bill of Rights. The answer to your why is the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.

The Union had to win simply because only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Irrelevant

 

[danielpalos]

Part II of my previous post:

Here is how the courts have ruled on your Rights:

“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)

“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. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

not all arms are being banned.

 

[danielpalos]

I would never consider myself to have Liberty when the government is trying to run my life by taking my money and giving it away to other people and then trying to control everything I do like owning firearms or or having free speech.

For instance, I think it is robbing me of my Liberty by having the 1964 Civil Rights law. Why can't I hire, fire or sell my house to whoever I want? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government put restrictions on me to not be able to discriminate to my heart's content?

I realize you asked that as a rhetorical question; however, I have a no B.S. response for you. It is the key to understanding the law AND being able to predict how a lot of major cases will be decided in the very near future.

In 1868 Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment:

http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

Prove Its Real – Fighting to repeal the 14th amendment and restore the original form of government.

14th Amendment is actually ILLEGAL as it was never RATIFIED!

ONE of the really mean and nasty things the 14th Amendment did was to abolish unalienable Rights and replace them with government granted privileges (though they still call them "rights") and they can bend, twist, or deny them because government granted you what they call "privileges and immunities" in that Amendment. The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights.

All anti-gun decisions, even the Heller decision, calls upon the 14th Amendment to justify denying you the Rights they admit (even in Heller) were preexisting Rights codified into law by the Bill of Rights. The answer to your why is the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.

If the 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights- then gun owner would have no recourse when states passed gun restriction laws, etc, etc. You reference Heller, but of course Heller itself revolves around the 2nd Amendment- which would not be the case if the 2nd Amendment was 'null'. What the 14th Amendment recognized was that the Bill of Rights applied to state laws in addition to federal laws.
A clear reading of Heller shows that if the 2nd Amendment was 'null'- the gun laws would still be in effect in Washington D.C.

While I understand that you feel that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, I don't get how you think the 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights.

Well, if you take the time to READ the dicta of a lot of court cases, you find the justification for infringements to be based on the 14th Amendment. You kind of walked over my other response before I could post it, but it shows that decisions like Heller over-ruled the United States Supreme Court's own holdings. That amounts to legislating from the bench. George Washington warned against that practice:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Farewell Address 1795

The only justification the Court can conjure up to avoid the charge of legislating from the bench is to invoke the 14th Amendment - and that always, always, always is to justify an infringement of your Rights.

Any simple examples?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Part II of my previous post:

Here is how the courts have ruled on your Rights:

“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)

“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. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

not all arms are being banned.

What does that have to do with what I just said? And, yes, eventually all arms will be banned.

 

[danielpalos]

Part II of my previous post:

Here is how the courts have ruled on your Rights:

“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)

“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. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

not all arms are being banned.

What does that have to do with what I just said? And, yes, eventually all arms will be banned.

I recently saw a video about knife laws on YouTube.

 

[Gdjjr]

not all arms are being banned.

That's immaterial- there are no caveats in the 2nd amendment and the declarative is quite clear- the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Gdjjr]

I recently saw a video about knife laws on YouTube.

And?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I would never consider myself to have Liberty when the government is trying to run my life by taking my money and giving it away to other people and then trying to control everything I do like owning firearms or or having free speech.

For instance, I think it is robbing me of my Liberty by having the 1964 Civil Rights law. Why can't I hire, fire or sell my house to whoever I want? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government put restrictions on me to not be able to discriminate to my heart's content?

I realize you asked that as a rhetorical question; however, I have a no B.S. response for you. It is the key to understanding the law AND being able to predict how a lot of major cases will be decided in the very near future.

In 1868 Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment:

http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

Prove Its Real – Fighting to repeal the 14th amendment and restore the original form of government.

14th Amendment is actually ILLEGAL as it was never RATIFIED!

ONE of the really mean and nasty things the 14th Amendment did was to abolish unalienable Rights and replace them with government granted privileges (though they still call them "rights") and they can bend, twist, or deny them because government granted you what they call "privileges and immunities" in that Amendment. The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights.

All anti-gun decisions, even the Heller decision, calls upon the 14th Amendment to justify denying you the Rights they admit (even in Heller) were preexisting Rights codified into law by the Bill of Rights. The answer to your why is the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.

If the 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights- then gun owner would have no recourse when states passed gun restriction laws, etc, etc. You reference Heller, but of course Heller itself revolves around the 2nd Amendment- which would not be the case if the 2nd Amendment was 'null'. What the 14th Amendment recognized was that the Bill of Rights applied to state laws in addition to federal laws.
A clear reading of Heller shows that if the 2nd Amendment was 'null'- the gun laws would still be in effect in Washington D.C.

While I understand that you feel that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, I don't get how you think the 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights.

Well, if you take the time to READ the dicta of a lot of court cases, you find the justification for infringements to be based on the 14th Amendment. You kind of walked over my other response before I could post it, but it shows that decisions like Heller over-ruled the United States Supreme Court's own holdings. That amounts to legislating from the bench. George Washington warned against that practice:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Farewell Address 1795

The only justification the Court can conjure up to avoid the charge of legislating from the bench is to invoke the 14th Amendment - and that always, always, always is to justify an infringement of your Rights.

Any simple examples?

I'm not going down rabbit holes with you danielpalos. This is a serious discussion about Liberty; it is not an opportunity for you to troll me. You know I have lots of "simple examples." But you are not getting the opportunity to derail this thread no matter how hard you try.

You hate Liberty so much that if we had a real president, he would order that you be arrested and tried for treason.

 

[danielpalos]

not all arms are being banned.

That's immaterial- there are no caveats in the 2nd amendment and the declarative is quite clear- the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For a particular purpose. The security of a free State. And, those persons don't whine about gun control; only the UnOrganized militia, does that.

 

[danielpalos]

I recently saw a video about knife laws on YouTube.

And?

swords and knives are also, Arms.

 

[danielpalos]

I would never consider myself to have Liberty when the government is trying to run my life by taking my money and giving it away to other people and then trying to control everything I do like owning firearms or or having free speech.

For instance, I think it is robbing me of my Liberty by having the 1964 Civil Rights law. Why can't I hire, fire or sell my house to whoever I want? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government put restrictions on me to not be able to discriminate to my heart's content?

I realize you asked that as a rhetorical question; however, I have a no B.S. response for you. It is the key to understanding the law AND being able to predict how a lot of major cases will be decided in the very near future.

In 1868 Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment:

http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

Prove Its Real – Fighting to repeal the 14th amendment and restore the original form of government.

14th Amendment is actually ILLEGAL as it was never RATIFIED!

ONE of the really mean and nasty things the 14th Amendment did was to abolish unalienable Rights and replace them with government granted privileges (though they still call them "rights") and they can bend, twist, or deny them because government granted you what they call "privileges and immunities" in that Amendment. The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights.

All anti-gun decisions, even the Heller decision, calls upon the 14th Amendment to justify denying you the Rights they admit (even in Heller) were preexisting Rights codified into law by the Bill of Rights. The answer to your why is the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.

If the 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights- then gun owner would have no recourse when states passed gun restriction laws, etc, etc. You reference Heller, but of course Heller itself revolves around the 2nd Amendment- which would not be the case if the 2nd Amendment was 'null'. What the 14th Amendment recognized was that the Bill of Rights applied to state laws in addition to federal laws.
A clear reading of Heller shows that if the 2nd Amendment was 'null'- the gun laws would still be in effect in Washington D.C.

While I understand that you feel that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, I don't get how you think the 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights.

Well, if you take the time to READ the dicta of a lot of court cases, you find the justification for infringements to be based on the 14th Amendment. You kind of walked over my other response before I could post it, but it shows that decisions like Heller over-ruled the United States Supreme Court's own holdings. That amounts to legislating from the bench. George Washington warned against that practice:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Farewell Address 1795

The only justification the Court can conjure up to avoid the charge of legislating from the bench is to invoke the 14th Amendment - and that always, always, always is to justify an infringement of your Rights.

Any simple examples?

I'm not going down rabbit holes with you danielpalos. This is a serious discussion about Liberty; it is not an opportunity for you to troll me. You know I have lots of "simple examples." But you are not getting the opportunity to derail this thread no matter how hard you try.

You hate Liberty so much that if we had a real president, he would order that you be arrested and tried for treason.

lol. We have a First Amendment and this is about the Politics of Government.

only the right wing is all talk about our Constitution.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

not all arms are being banned.

That's immaterial- there are no caveats in the 2nd amendment and the declarative is quite clear- the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For a particular purpose. The security of a free State. And, those persons don't whine about gun control; only the UnOrganized militia, does that.

So you're advocating censorship for the unorganized militia? Take away their First Amendment Rights?

 

[Gdjjr]

For a particular purpose. The security of a free State. And, those persons don't whine about gun control; only the UnOrganized militia, does that.

I've been seeing that excuse for so long I can't even count how many words I've seen used to defend that ignorance.

The security of a free state is the point- militia is merely an example- the declarative is shall not be infringed- there are no caveats, no specifically militia's- no specifically organized- the right of the people, period.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I realize you asked that as a rhetorical question; however, I have a no B.S. response for you. It is the key to understanding the law AND being able to predict how a lot of major cases will be decided in the very near future.

In 1868 Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment:

http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

Prove Its Real – Fighting to repeal the 14th amendment and restore the original form of government.

14th Amendment is actually ILLEGAL as it was never RATIFIED!

ONE of the really mean and nasty things the 14th Amendment did was to abolish unalienable Rights and replace them with government granted privileges (though they still call them "rights") and they can bend, twist, or deny them because government granted you what they call "privileges and immunities" in that Amendment. The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights.

All anti-gun decisions, even the Heller decision, calls upon the 14th Amendment to justify denying you the Rights they admit (even in Heller) were preexisting Rights codified into law by the Bill of Rights. The answer to your why is the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.

If the 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights- then gun owner would have no recourse when states passed gun restriction laws, etc, etc. You reference Heller, but of course Heller itself revolves around the 2nd Amendment- which would not be the case if the 2nd Amendment was 'null'. What the 14th Amendment recognized was that the Bill of Rights applied to state laws in addition to federal laws.
A clear reading of Heller shows that if the 2nd Amendment was 'null'- the gun laws would still be in effect in Washington D.C.

While I understand that you feel that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, I don't get how you think the 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights.

Well, if you take the time to READ the dicta of a lot of court cases, you find the justification for infringements to be based on the 14th Amendment. You kind of walked over my other response before I could post it, but it shows that decisions like Heller over-ruled the United States Supreme Court's own holdings. That amounts to legislating from the bench. George Washington warned against that practice:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Farewell Address 1795

The only justification the Court can conjure up to avoid the charge of legislating from the bench is to invoke the 14th Amendment - and that always, always, always is to justify an infringement of your Rights.

Any simple examples?

I'm not going down rabbit holes with you danielpalos. This is a serious discussion about Liberty; it is not an opportunity for you to troll me. You know I have lots of "simple examples." But you are not getting the opportunity to derail this thread no matter how hard you try.

You hate Liberty so much that if we had a real president, he would order that you be arrested and tried for treason.

lol. We have a First Amendment and this is about the Politics of Government.

only the right wing is all talk about our Constitution.

The right wing struggles with understanding the Constitution, the left - as you have proven - hates, loathes, and despises the Constitution. You showed us that by bitching about the unorganized militia having those First Amendment Rights you're so intolerant of.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

For a particular purpose. The security of a free State. And, those persons don't whine about gun control; only the UnOrganized militia, does that.

I've been seeing that excuse for so long I can't even count how many words I've seen used to defend that ignorance.

The security of a free state is the point- militia is merely an example- the declarative is shall not be infringed- there are no caveats, no specifically militia's- no specifically organized- the right of the people, period.