CDZ Liberty

[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.

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

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when it is about the security of our free States or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The organized or well regulated is expressly declared not the unorganized militia.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

you were locked out of a thread because there is no liberty here.

this is an oligarchy where unelected individuals have absolute power.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

lol. Anybody talk or type. You need valid arguments to make sense.

Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the Convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

 

[Flash]

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.

Really? LOL!

Just think, there are actually some people in this country that are so confused as to think that the Bill of Rights does not apply to an individual, even when there are court cases saying that it does.

Liberals are just as confused about the Constitution as they are confused about Economics, Ethics, History, Climate Science and Biology.

Then these people wonder why we ridicule them so much.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Really? LOL!

Just think, there are actually some people in this country that are so confused as to think that the Bill of Rights does not apply to an individual, even when there are court cases saying that it does.

Liberals are just as confused about the Constitution as they are confused about Economics, Ethics, History, Climate Science and Biology.

Then these people wonder why we ridicule them so much.

The Union Had to win our Civil War 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.

 

[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?

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when it is about the security of our free States or the Union.

This is not about the Bill of Rights, danielpalos. This isn't even about the Constitution per se. It is about Liberty. Focus.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

lol. Anybody talk or type. You need valid arguments to make sense.

Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the Convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

You are the only ambiguity here. Do you have anything to add to the topic of Liberty? If not, I may have to start ignoring your feeble attempts to derail the thread.

 

[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.

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

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when it is about the security of our free States or the Union.

This is not about the Bill of Rights, danielpalos. This isn't even about the Constitution per se. It is about Liberty. Focus.

You have the liberty to not be a bigot. Why does anyone do it?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

lol. Anybody talk or type. You need valid arguments to make sense.

Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the Convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

You are the only ambiguity here. Do you have anything to add to the topic of Liberty? If not, I may have to start ignoring your feeble attempts to derail the thread.

You confuse seeking clarification for trolling.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Is that liberty?

 

[CWayne]

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?

Is it a 'Right' for you to hire, fire, or sell your house to whoever you want?

Certainly it isn't a right spelled out in the Constitution. This is where the concept of inherent rights gets wobbly- because you and I may disagree on what is an inherent right.

Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I have to stop for a red light? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I can't dump toxic pesticides in the river that runs through my property? Why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me I can't bribe foreign officials for my business's benefit?

Or perhaps onto more hotly debated issues: why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me that I can't buy contraceptives(which was the case until the Supreme Court ended that)? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell a woman she can't have an abortion? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell me that I can't own and use explosives in my home in a city? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell someone that they can't burn the American flag?

The government can "tell" you a lot of things. They may have the power to pass unconstitutional laws, but even the United States Supreme Court has opined that you do not have to obey unconstitutional laws:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Interesting.

So, some 350+ million people get to decide what is a valid law and what is not?

I find these kinds of circular arguments a bit tiring, but let me ask you directly.

Who decides which law in unconstitutional and invalid?

 

[Gdjjr]

Who decides which law in unconstitutional and invalid?

People educated beyond their intellect who *feel* they're special.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when it is about the security of our free States or the Union.

This is not about the Bill of Rights, danielpalos. This isn't even about the Constitution per se. It is about Liberty. Focus.

You have the liberty to not be a bigot. Why does anyone do it?

Are you a bigot? Does that explain your repetitive posts?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

lol. Anybody talk or type. You need valid arguments to make sense.

Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the Convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

You are the only ambiguity here. Do you have anything to add to the topic of Liberty? If not, I may have to start ignoring your feeble attempts to derail the thread.

You confuse seeking clarification for trolling.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Is that liberty?

If there is no appeal, then why do you spend your life doing it? Are you admitting that you're ignorant? WTF that does that even mean?

Why do you despise Liberty?

 

[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?

Is it a 'Right' for you to hire, fire, or sell your house to whoever you want?

Certainly it isn't a right spelled out in the Constitution. This is where the concept of inherent rights gets wobbly- because you and I may disagree on what is an inherent right.

Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I have to stop for a red light? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I can't dump toxic pesticides in the river that runs through my property? Why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me I can't bribe foreign officials for my business's benefit?

Or perhaps onto more hotly debated issues: why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me that I can't buy contraceptives(which was the case until the Supreme Court ended that)? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell a woman she can't have an abortion? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell me that I can't own and use explosives in my home in a city? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell someone that they can't burn the American flag?

The government can "tell" you a lot of things. They may have the power to pass unconstitutional laws, but even the United States Supreme Court has opined that you do not have to obey unconstitutional laws:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Interesting.

So, some 350+ million people get to decide what is a valid law and what is not?

I find these kinds of circular arguments a bit tiring, but let me ask you directly.

Who decides which law in unconstitutional and invalid?

According to the founders / framers, the final decision lies with the people. If the courts become tyrannical and opposed to the concept of Liberty, do you think we're required to submit to a yoke of slavery?

 

[Flash]

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?

Is it a 'Right' for you to hire, fire, or sell your house to whoever you want?

Certainly it isn't a right spelled out in the Constitution. This is where the concept of inherent rights gets wobbly- because you and I may disagree on what is an inherent right.

Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I have to stop for a red light? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I can't dump toxic pesticides in the river that runs through my property? Why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me I can't bribe foreign officials for my business's benefit?

Or perhaps onto more hotly debated issues: why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me that I can't buy contraceptives(which was the case until the Supreme Court ended that)? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell a woman she can't have an abortion? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell me that I can't own and use explosives in my home in a city? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell someone that they can't burn the American flag?

The government can "tell" you a lot of things. They may have the power to pass unconstitutional laws, but even the United States Supreme Court has opined that you do not have to obey unconstitutional laws:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Interesting.

So, some 350+ million people get to decide what is a valid law and what is not?

I find these kinds of circular arguments a bit tiring, but let me ask you directly.

Who decides which law in unconstitutional and invalid?

According to the founders / framers, the final decision lies with the people. If the courts become tyrannical and opposed to the concept of Liberty, do you think we're required to submit to a yoke of slavery?

The courts can be just as tyrannical as the lawmakers or anybody else.

Just look at these idiot commie judges appointed by Obama that have tried to overturn the things done by Trump, as an example.

The courts pick and chose what issues they want to impose strict scrutiny to and the ones they don't. If it is an asshole Libtard judge he or she won't apply strict scrutiny to individual liberties that don't fit the Libtard agenda, like gun control.

I don't trust the courts to protect my Liberty any more than I trust the idiot bureaucrats or the corrupt politicians.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when it is about the security of our free States or the Union.

This is not about the Bill of Rights, danielpalos. This isn't even about the Constitution per se. It is about Liberty. Focus.

You have the liberty to not be a bigot. Why does anyone do it?

Are you a bigot? Does that explain your repetitive posts?

lol. Only if i resort to fallacy to claim i am right.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

lol. Anybody talk or type. You need valid arguments to make sense.

Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the Convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

You are the only ambiguity here. Do you have anything to add to the topic of Liberty? If not, I may have to start ignoring your feeble attempts to derail the thread.

You confuse seeking clarification for trolling.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Is that liberty?

If there is no appeal, then why do you spend your life doing it? Are you admitting that you're ignorant? WTF that does that even mean?

Why do you despise Liberty?

You claim i do it with nothing but fallacy. Do you despise sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation?

 

[Agit8r]

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.

There is even the Ninth Amendment that says precisely that.

 

[Gdjjr]

• "Liberties are not the grants of princes and parliaments."
• "[People have] rights...antecedent to all earthly governments—rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws."
• "Each individual of the society has a right to be protected…in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property...no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent."
• "In a free state, every man…ought to be his own governor."
• "To be commanded we do not consent."
• "Liberty is [government’s] end."
• "In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be so constituted… that one citizen need not be afraid of another citizen."
• "Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist."
• "The end of…government is…the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquility, [individuals’] natural rights and the blessings of life."
• "[Government]...should be...for the preservation of internal peace, virtue, and good order, as well as the defense of their lives, liberties, and properties."
• "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
• "Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people."
• "Trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
• "Liberty must at all hazards be supported."
• "A free constitution of civil government cannot be purchased at too dear a rate, as there is nothing on this side of Jerusalem of equal importance to mankind."
• "Be not…wheedled out of your liberty by…hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice."
  
  https://fee.org/articles/john-adams-on-the-purpose-of-government/

John Adams on the Purpose of Government