Universal background checks... really?

[Porter Rockwell]

Ineligible people belong in jails, prisons, and mental health facilities and / or being supervised 24 / 7

What if you’re out on bail while awaiting trial for murder, rape, incest, armed robbery, etc…?

People are temporarily deprived of their unalienable Rights when serving time for a crime. Those Rights should be restored upon completion of their sentence.

Judges should never release anyone who poses a threat to the community. Those you allude to should be held and their cases fast tracked and a speedy trial afforded to them.

People accused of murder are granted bail regularly. But thanks for admitting rights are not absolute.

You are lying and stupid as dog shit. Rights are absolute. Period. Do you want to wander into a philosophical discussion that your dumb ass cannot prosecute?

You just stated that people can be legally deprived of their rights….therefore they are not absolute.

Perhaps I’ll purchase you a mirror so you can debate yourself.

There is only one term for some people: ******* idiot.

So candycorn wants to get philosophical. Her position is, since the government can, for a time, suspend your constitutional Rights due to a criminal act that a Right is not absolute.

Hmmm... 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."

So, before I began this reply I Googled the question of "Is there any country where murder is legal?" Here is a sample of the answers I got:

Countries where murder is legal

If, however, you find a country where murder is legal, by all means, enlighten us. So every country on this planet recognizes a basic Right to Life. Does that mean that someone cannot kill you? Does that mean that you can live for as long as you want? When people get a diagnosis that they have a terminal condition, isn't the first thought in their mind that the diagnosis can't be fair and / or it's not fair that they are going to die?

Abel had a Right to Life. Cain had a Right to Life. But, Cain slew Abel and Cain was judged by a higher authority and punished for his act. In America, we built our country around unalterable principles. And so, the Declaration of Independence goes on:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Now, instead of the individual playing judge, jury and executioner we agree to be bound by certain laws that guarantee our unalienable Rights. So, wait, now I have a Right to Life AND a guarantee that our system of jurisprudence will see to it that the Right to Life is protected. Does that mean I can live as long as I want?

Well, I just purchased a clothes dryer. It was quite expensive and it came with a TEN YEAR GUARANTEE. That does not mean that my dryer will not break down. If it does, the manufacturer will make it right.

Ditto for the government we consent to allow to represent us. And here is candycorn, advocating that we disarm people because his / her interpretation of absolute means bad things cannot happen. If you have a Right and I have a Right and you take my Right, there is NO recourse given candycorn's interpretations. Following this illogical path, since no Right is absolute, then it must not exist at all. What the liberals are arguing here is the ultimate form of anarchy.

Some people could argue that the Constitution is a "Social Contract." Okay, I have a contract with my bank. If, at the end of the year, they decide to change those terms, I have the option of opting out and taking my money elsewhere. So, if we bow down to majority rule and deny the First Principles upon which the Republic rests, I have a Right then to rescind my consent to being ruled by tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence referred to that document as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man." Before doing another part of this rant, I'd like to quote Jefferson some more:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."

 

[2aguy]

What if you’re out on bail while awaiting trial for murder, rape, incest, armed robbery, etc…?

People are temporarily deprived of their unalienable Rights when serving time for a crime. Those Rights should be restored upon completion of their sentence.

Judges should never release anyone who poses a threat to the community. Those you allude to should be held and their cases fast tracked and a speedy trial afforded to them.

People accused of murder are granted bail regularly. But thanks for admitting rights are not absolute.

You are lying and stupid as dog shit. Rights are absolute. Period. Do you want to wander into a philosophical discussion that your dumb ass cannot prosecute?

You just stated that people can be legally deprived of their rights….therefore they are not absolute.

Perhaps I’ll purchase you a mirror so you can debate yourself.

There is only one term for some people: ******* idiot.

So candycorn wants to get philosophical. Her position is, since the government can, for a time, suspend your constitutional Rights due to a criminal act that a Right is not absolute.

Hmmm... 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."

So, before I began this reply I Googled the question of "Is there any country where murder is legal?" Here is a sample of the answers I got:

Countries where murder is legal

If, however, you find a country where murder is legal, by all means, enlighten us. So every country on this planet recognizes a basic Right to Life. Does that mean that someone cannot kill you? Does that mean that you can live for as long as you want? When people get a diagnosis that they have a terminal condition, isn't the first thought in their mind that the diagnosis can't be fair and / or it's not fair that they are going to die?

Abel had a Right to Life. Cain had a Right to Life. But, Cain slew Abel and Cain was judged by a higher authority and punished for his act. In America, we built our country around unalterable principles. And so, the Declaration of Independence goes on:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Now, instead of the individual playing judge, jury and executioner we agree to be bound by certain laws that guarantee our unalienable Rights. So, wait, now I have a Right to Life AND a guarantee that our system of jurisprudence will see to it that the Right to Life is protected. Does that mean I can live as long as I want?

Well, I just purchased a clothes dryer. It was quite expensive and it came with a TEN YEAR GUARANTEE. That does not mean that my dryer will not break down. If it does, the manufacturer will make it right.

Ditto for the government we consent to allow to represent us. And here is candycorn, advocating that we disarm people because his / her interpretation of absolute means bad things cannot happen. If you have a Right and I have a Right and you take my Right, there is NO recourse given candycorn's interpretations. Following this illogical path, since no Right is absolute, then it must not exist at all. What the liberals are arguing here is the ultimate form of anarchy.

Some people could argue that the Constitution is a "Social Contract." Okay, I have a contract with my bank. If, at the end of the year, they decide to change those terms, I have the option of opting out and taking my money elsewhere. So, if we bow down to majority rule and deny the First Principles upon which the Republic rests, I have a Right then to rescind my consent to being ruled by tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence referred to that document as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man." Before doing another part of this rant, I'd like to quote Jefferson some more:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."

She isn't making the argument that Rights can be limited.....in truth, her point is that Rights are what she and her side say they are and they will give or take them as they please...

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Now, your little video could be played all day long in the state of Georgia and it would mean NOTHING. I bought a new firearm from a retailer recently. I did NOT go through a background check. The transaction was perfectly legal. So, how did I avoid the background check?

In Ohio, I plunk down my CCW, sign the 4473, pay the nice lady, and leave.

candycorn will say you didn't undergo a background check. Our weapons license is the same as your ccw - EXCEPT we can open carry or conceal carry. I still went through a background check.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now, your little video could be played all day long in the state of Georgia and it would mean NOTHING. I bought a new firearm from a retailer recently. I did NOT go through a background check. The transaction was perfectly legal. So, how did I avoid the background check?

In Ohio, I plunk down my CCW, sign the 4473, pay the nice lady, and leave.

candycorn will say you didn't undergo a background check. Our weapons license is the same as your ccw - EXCEPT we can open carry or conceal carry. I still went through a background check.

If she does, she's lying to herself.
We don't nee a permit to open carry.

 

[Brain357]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The ******* spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

The gun salesman doesn’t want more background checks, shocking. How many criminals you selling to?

 

[candycorn]

What if you’re out on bail while awaiting trial for murder, rape, incest, armed robbery, etc…?

Dangerous people are not eligible for bail. Those people would be considered a risk to society and should not be released. Just because someone is out on bail and is forbidden by the court to possess a firearm, does not mean that person will not try to get a firearm.

You haven't thought this out very well, have you?

Further to the point, you seem to believe that you can prevent crime by prohibition.

.

Sure they are. The cop who shot the guy in the back then dropped a gun next to him was granted bail,

People accused of murder are given bail regularly.

I'm sure in your idiotic mind, you think you've made a point. Your irrational B.S. probably don't even convince you... but if it does, your employer (if anyone was stupid enough to hire you) might offer mental health services through your insurance.

Just pointing out that dangerous people are given bail all the time shit brains. That you can’t argue otherwise is rather delicious.

Here you go for another example:

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article210924474.html

The accused name is Serena Escamilla.
Serena Escamilla was given bail…then the bail was even reduced….and she is out on bond awaiting trial.

Judge reduces bond for woman accused of murder

You may remember Serena who was previously arrested numerous times….one of which was for this crime:

Southside major drug bust leads to five arrests

Here is SOME of the bounty from one of her previous arrests before greasing her mother…. She got bail for this too—which is why she was able to kill her mom—she was out on bail **** stain. As were her four other co-defendants (unless they were arrested again).

View attachment 281214

And this was in brick-red Texas….just like the cop was in brick red South Carolina.

I’m sure you’ll come back with some rationalization about this not really happening—just like the video of the guy buying a gun at a gun show no questions asked.

Aren’t you tired of being proven wrong?

Dangerous people get bond regularly. So again…should someone who is accused of murder and is awaiting trial be able to purchase, own, use firearms?

Unless you’re a total sociopath…the answer is no. And I bet you will take the opposite side of the argument.

I guess if you can identify what a sociopath is, then you must have experience. Your posts do show evidence of an individual with mental health issues, way above the pay grade of most of us to identify. I'm pretty sure you are projecting at this juncture, given the fact that no rational person has been swayed by your ignorance.

Do people break the law? Yes. Do corrupt judges put criminals onto the streets? Bet your ass. Do people buy firearms without a background check? Yes. Did they break the law? Probably the statutory law...caveats notwithstanding.

Now, your little video could be played all day long in the state of Georgia and it would mean NOTHING. I bought a new firearm from a retailer recently. I did NOT go through a background check. The transaction was perfectly legal. So, how did I avoid the background check?

In Georgia, they issue a Weapons License to qualified applicants. They are pretty hard to get. I got turned down my first time for an arrest that happened in 1976. I have no idea why the final disposition was not recorded. The case was dismissed the next day after my arrest by a judge when he was apprised of the facts. If you have the license, you've been "checked out."

Secondary to that, there is no constitutional jurisdiction for people to have to forfeit one constitutional Right in order to exercise another. So, I won't be doing any more background checks. If I had to build a firearm with a file and a drill, I'd do that before I'd submit to this idiotic forfeiture of Rights. I thank you and your insane posts that helped me research the fine points of the law a bit more clearly.

You point out the times when the system (especially judges) let murderers go, but that same POS would uphold a felony arrest for a misdemeanor crime if he had strong feelings about the issue. All of it has no bearing on the issue at hand. It points to weaknesses in our corrupt legal system.

No it underscores that constitutional rights have limits.

Background checks are a natural and logical extension of those limits.

I sponsor extending the limits to include barring all sales of firearms without background checks and prohibiting those households with mentally ill persons from having firearms without obtaining a waiver.

You guys interjecting race and of course hatred is fine. It just means I won the argument

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The ******* spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

The gun salesman doesn’t want more background checks, shocking. How many criminals you selling to?

If a "criminal" is so dangerous so as not to be trusted with a firearm, what in the Hell are they doing roaming our streets?

If that individual has a penis, they might rape your wife or daughter. They might walk into a bar, get sloppy drunk and then get in a car only to drive a few miles before crashing and killing an innocent family.

If they are a mean S.O.B. they might poison the county water supply or drug your children with tainted Halloween candy. They might steal a truck and make it an assault vehicle. What in the Hell are you doing allowing those kinds of people back on the streets?

 

[candycorn]

What if you’re out on bail while awaiting trial for murder, rape, incest, armed robbery, etc…?

People are temporarily deprived of their unalienable Rights when serving time for a crime. Those Rights should be restored upon completion of their sentence.

Judges should never release anyone who poses a threat to the community. Those you allude to should be held and their cases fast tracked and a speedy trial afforded to them.

People accused of murder are granted bail regularly. But thanks for admitting rights are not absolute.

You are lying and stupid as dog shit. Rights are absolute. Period. Do you want to wander into a philosophical discussion that your dumb ass cannot prosecute?

You just stated that people can be legally deprived of their rights….therefore they are not absolute.

Perhaps I’ll purchase you a mirror so you can debate yourself.

There is only one term for some people: ******* idiot.

So candycorn wants to get philosophical. Her position is, since the government can, for a time, suspend your constitutional Rights due to a criminal act that a Right is not absolute.

Hmmm... 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."

So, before I began this reply I Googled the question of "Is there any country where murder is legal?" Here is a sample of the answers I got:

Countries where murder is legal

If, however, you find a country where murder is legal, by all means, enlighten us. So every country on this planet recognizes a basic Right to Life. Does that mean that someone cannot kill you? Does that mean that you can live for as long as you want? When people get a diagnosis that they have a terminal condition, isn't the first thought in their mind that the diagnosis can't be fair and / or it's not fair that they are going to die?

Abel had a Right to Life. Cain had a Right to Life. But, Cain slew Abel and Cain was judged by a higher authority and punished for his act. In America, we built our country around unalterable principles. And so, the Declaration of Independence goes on:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Now, instead of the individual playing judge, jury and executioner we agree to be bound by certain laws that guarantee our unalienable Rights. So, wait, now I have a Right to Life AND a guarantee that our system of jurisprudence will see to it that the Right to Life is protected. Does that mean I can live as long as I want?

Well, I just purchased a clothes dryer. It was quite expensive and it came with a TEN YEAR GUARANTEE. That does not mean that my dryer will not break down. If it does, the manufacturer will make it right.

Ditto for the government we consent to allow to represent us. And here is candycorn, advocating that we disarm people because his / her interpretation of absolute means bad things cannot happen. If you have a Right and I have a Right and you take my Right, there is NO recourse given candycorn's interpretations. Following this illogical path, since no Right is absolute, then it must not exist at all. What the liberals are arguing here is the ultimate form of anarchy.

Some people could argue that the Constitution is a "Social Contract." Okay, I have a contract with my bank. If, at the end of the year, they decide to change those terms, I have the option of opting out and taking my money elsewhere. So, if we bow down to majority rule and deny the First Principles upon which the Republic rests, I have a Right then to rescind my consent to being ruled by tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence referred to that document as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man." Before doing another part of this rant, I'd like to quote Jefferson some more:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."

Tl dr

 

[Brain357]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The ******* spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

The gun salesman doesn’t want more background checks, shocking. How many criminals you selling to?

If a "criminal" is so dangerous so as not to be trusted with a firearm, what in the Hell are they doing roaming our streets?

If that individual has a penis, they might rape your wife or daughter. They might walk into a bar, get sloppy drunk and then get in a car only to drive a few miles before crashing and killing an innocent family.

If they are a mean S.O.B. they might poison the county water supply or drug your children with tainted Halloween candy. They might steal a truck and make it an assault vehicle. What in the Hell are you doing allowing those kinds of people back on the streets?

Well we have the fullest jails in the world so we have more locked up than anyone else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No it underscores that constitutional rights have limits.
Background checks are a natural and logical extension of those limits.

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

People are temporarily deprived of their unalienable Rights when serving time for a crime. Those Rights should be restored upon completion of their sentence.

Judges should never release anyone who poses a threat to the community. Those you allude to should be held and their cases fast tracked and a speedy trial afforded to them.

People accused of murder are granted bail regularly. But thanks for admitting rights are not absolute.

You are lying and stupid as dog shit. Rights are absolute. Period. Do you want to wander into a philosophical discussion that your dumb ass cannot prosecute?

You just stated that people can be legally deprived of their rights….therefore they are not absolute.

Perhaps I’ll purchase you a mirror so you can debate yourself.

There is only one term for some people: ******* idiot.

So candycorn wants to get philosophical. Her position is, since the government can, for a time, suspend your constitutional Rights due to a criminal act that a Right is not absolute.

Hmmm... 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."

So, before I began this reply I Googled the question of "Is there any country where murder is legal?" Here is a sample of the answers I got:

Countries where murder is legal

If, however, you find a country where murder is legal, by all means, enlighten us. So every country on this planet recognizes a basic Right to Life. Does that mean that someone cannot kill you? Does that mean that you can live for as long as you want? When people get a diagnosis that they have a terminal condition, isn't the first thought in their mind that the diagnosis can't be fair and / or it's not fair that they are going to die?

Abel had a Right to Life. Cain had a Right to Life. But, Cain slew Abel and Cain was judged by a higher authority and punished for his act. In America, we built our country around unalterable principles. And so, the Declaration of Independence goes on:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Now, instead of the individual playing judge, jury and executioner we agree to be bound by certain laws that guarantee our unalienable Rights. So, wait, now I have a Right to Life AND a guarantee that our system of jurisprudence will see to it that the Right to Life is protected. Does that mean I can live as long as I want?

Well, I just purchased a clothes dryer. It was quite expensive and it came with a TEN YEAR GUARANTEE. That does not mean that my dryer will not break down. If it does, the manufacturer will make it right.

Ditto for the government we consent to allow to represent us. And here is candycorn, advocating that we disarm people because his / her interpretation of absolute means bad things cannot happen. If you have a Right and I have a Right and you take my Right, there is NO recourse given candycorn's interpretations. Following this illogical path, since no Right is absolute, then it must not exist at all. What the liberals are arguing here is the ultimate form of anarchy.

Some people could argue that the Constitution is a "Social Contract." Okay, I have a contract with my bank. If, at the end of the year, they decide to change those terms, I have the option of opting out and taking my money elsewhere. So, if we bow down to majority rule and deny the First Principles upon which the Republic rests, I have a Right then to rescind my consent to being ruled by tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence referred to that document as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man." Before doing another part of this rant, I'd like to quote Jefferson some more:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."

Tl dr

Not my fault. Others WILL read it and realize you are illiterate and this is not about saving lives for you. It is about CONTROL. Well, you aren't going to win because we just denied you the power of control. Peck your keyboard while those who did read the first part of the rant laugh their ass off at you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

People are temporarily deprived of their unalienable Rights when serving time for a crime. Those Rights should be restored upon completion of their sentence.

Judges should never release anyone who poses a threat to the community. Those you allude to should be held and their cases fast tracked and a speedy trial afforded to them.

People accused of murder are granted bail regularly. But thanks for admitting rights are not absolute.

You are lying and stupid as dog shit. Rights are absolute. Period. Do you want to wander into a philosophical discussion that your dumb ass cannot prosecute?

You just stated that people can be legally deprived of their rights….therefore they are not absolute.

Perhaps I’ll purchase you a mirror so you can debate yourself.

There is only one term for some people: ******* idiot.

So candycorn wants to get philosophical. Her position is, since the government can, for a time, suspend your constitutional Rights due to a criminal act that a Right is not absolute.

Hmmm... 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."

So, before I began this reply I Googled the question of "Is there any country where murder is legal?" Here is a sample of the answers I got:

Countries where murder is legal

If, however, you find a country where murder is legal, by all means, enlighten us. So every country on this planet recognizes a basic Right to Life. Does that mean that someone cannot kill you? Does that mean that you can live for as long as you want? When people get a diagnosis that they have a terminal condition, isn't the first thought in their mind that the diagnosis can't be fair and / or it's not fair that they are going to die?

Abel had a Right to Life. Cain had a Right to Life. But, Cain slew Abel and Cain was judged by a higher authority and punished for his act. In America, we built our country around unalterable principles. And so, the Declaration of Independence goes on:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Now, instead of the individual playing judge, jury and executioner we agree to be bound by certain laws that guarantee our unalienable Rights. So, wait, now I have a Right to Life AND a guarantee that our system of jurisprudence will see to it that the Right to Life is protected. Does that mean I can live as long as I want?

Well, I just purchased a clothes dryer. It was quite expensive and it came with a TEN YEAR GUARANTEE. That does not mean that my dryer will not break down. If it does, the manufacturer will make it right.

Ditto for the government we consent to allow to represent us. And here is candycorn, advocating that we disarm people because his / her interpretation of absolute means bad things cannot happen. If you have a Right and I have a Right and you take my Right, there is NO recourse given candycorn's interpretations. Following this illogical path, since no Right is absolute, then it must not exist at all. What the liberals are arguing here is the ultimate form of anarchy.

Some people could argue that the Constitution is a "Social Contract." Okay, I have a contract with my bank. If, at the end of the year, they decide to change those terms, I have the option of opting out and taking my money elsewhere. So, if we bow down to majority rule and deny the First Principles upon which the Republic rests, I have a Right then to rescind my consent to being ruled by tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence referred to that document as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man." Before doing another part of this rant, I'd like to quote Jefferson some more:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."

Tl dr

Your surrender is accepted.

 

[candycorn]

People accused of murder are granted bail regularly. But thanks for admitting rights are not absolute.

You are lying and stupid as dog shit. Rights are absolute. Period. Do you want to wander into a philosophical discussion that your dumb ass cannot prosecute?

You just stated that people can be legally deprived of their rights….therefore they are not absolute.

Perhaps I’ll purchase you a mirror so you can debate yourself.

There is only one term for some people: ******* idiot.

So candycorn wants to get philosophical. Her position is, since the government can, for a time, suspend your constitutional Rights due to a criminal act that a Right is not absolute.

Hmmm... 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."

So, before I began this reply I Googled the question of "Is there any country where murder is legal?" Here is a sample of the answers I got:

Countries where murder is legal

If, however, you find a country where murder is legal, by all means, enlighten us. So every country on this planet recognizes a basic Right to Life. Does that mean that someone cannot kill you? Does that mean that you can live for as long as you want? When people get a diagnosis that they have a terminal condition, isn't the first thought in their mind that the diagnosis can't be fair and / or it's not fair that they are going to die?

Abel had a Right to Life. Cain had a Right to Life. But, Cain slew Abel and Cain was judged by a higher authority and punished for his act. In America, we built our country around unalterable principles. And so, the Declaration of Independence goes on:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Now, instead of the individual playing judge, jury and executioner we agree to be bound by certain laws that guarantee our unalienable Rights. So, wait, now I have a Right to Life AND a guarantee that our system of jurisprudence will see to it that the Right to Life is protected. Does that mean I can live as long as I want?

Well, I just purchased a clothes dryer. It was quite expensive and it came with a TEN YEAR GUARANTEE. That does not mean that my dryer will not break down. If it does, the manufacturer will make it right.

Ditto for the government we consent to allow to represent us. And here is candycorn, advocating that we disarm people because his / her interpretation of absolute means bad things cannot happen. If you have a Right and I have a Right and you take my Right, there is NO recourse given candycorn's interpretations. Following this illogical path, since no Right is absolute, then it must not exist at all. What the liberals are arguing here is the ultimate form of anarchy.

Some people could argue that the Constitution is a "Social Contract." Okay, I have a contract with my bank. If, at the end of the year, they decide to change those terms, I have the option of opting out and taking my money elsewhere. So, if we bow down to majority rule and deny the First Principles upon which the Republic rests, I have a Right then to rescind my consent to being ruled by tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence referred to that document as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man." Before doing another part of this rant, I'd like to quote Jefferson some more:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."

Tl dr

Not my fault. Others WILL read it and realize you are illiterate and this is not about saving lives for you. It is about CONTROL. Well, you aren't going to win because we just denied you the power of control. Peck your keyboard while those who did read the first part of the rant laugh their ass off at you.

Yawn.

 

[candycorn]

People accused of murder are granted bail regularly. But thanks for admitting rights are not absolute.

You are lying and stupid as dog shit. Rights are absolute. Period. Do you want to wander into a philosophical discussion that your dumb ass cannot prosecute?

You just stated that people can be legally deprived of their rights….therefore they are not absolute.

Perhaps I’ll purchase you a mirror so you can debate yourself.

There is only one term for some people: ******* idiot.

So candycorn wants to get philosophical. Her position is, since the government can, for a time, suspend your constitutional Rights due to a criminal act that a Right is not absolute.

Hmmm... 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."

So, before I began this reply I Googled the question of "Is there any country where murder is legal?" Here is a sample of the answers I got:

Countries where murder is legal

If, however, you find a country where murder is legal, by all means, enlighten us. So every country on this planet recognizes a basic Right to Life. Does that mean that someone cannot kill you? Does that mean that you can live for as long as you want? When people get a diagnosis that they have a terminal condition, isn't the first thought in their mind that the diagnosis can't be fair and / or it's not fair that they are going to die?

Abel had a Right to Life. Cain had a Right to Life. But, Cain slew Abel and Cain was judged by a higher authority and punished for his act. In America, we built our country around unalterable principles. And so, the Declaration of Independence goes on:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Now, instead of the individual playing judge, jury and executioner we agree to be bound by certain laws that guarantee our unalienable Rights. So, wait, now I have a Right to Life AND a guarantee that our system of jurisprudence will see to it that the Right to Life is protected. Does that mean I can live as long as I want?

Well, I just purchased a clothes dryer. It was quite expensive and it came with a TEN YEAR GUARANTEE. That does not mean that my dryer will not break down. If it does, the manufacturer will make it right.

Ditto for the government we consent to allow to represent us. And here is candycorn, advocating that we disarm people because his / her interpretation of absolute means bad things cannot happen. If you have a Right and I have a Right and you take my Right, there is NO recourse given candycorn's interpretations. Following this illogical path, since no Right is absolute, then it must not exist at all. What the liberals are arguing here is the ultimate form of anarchy.

Some people could argue that the Constitution is a "Social Contract." Okay, I have a contract with my bank. If, at the end of the year, they decide to change those terms, I have the option of opting out and taking my money elsewhere. So, if we bow down to majority rule and deny the First Principles upon which the Republic rests, I have a Right then to rescind my consent to being ruled by tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence referred to that document as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man." Before doing another part of this rant, I'd like to quote Jefferson some more:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."

Tl dr

Your surrender is accepted.

My victory is clear. He agrees that rights can be suspended.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The ******* spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

The gun salesman doesn’t want more background checks, shocking. How many criminals you selling to?

If a "criminal" is so dangerous so as not to be trusted with a firearm, what in the Hell are they doing roaming our streets?

If that individual has a penis, they might rape your wife or daughter. They might walk into a bar, get sloppy drunk and then get in a car only to drive a few miles before crashing and killing an innocent family.

If they are a mean S.O.B. they might poison the county water supply or drug your children with tainted Halloween candy. They might steal a truck and make it an assault vehicle. What in the Hell are you doing allowing those kinds of people back on the streets?

Well we have the fullest jails in the world so we have more locked up than anyone else.

We have more drug addicts than anywhere in the world; Americans consume 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; EVERY mass shooting not done by a political jihadist is done by someone on SSRIs and / or known by the mental health community to be a threat; for every drug addict in a mental health facility there are more than TEN in prison - as if we are to punish the addiction out of them.

We have piss poor mental health facilities and no way to help most people who suffer from disorders. We have pills, police and political propaganda prostitutes from the left who want to use that as leverage to take our Rights and make America a third world sh!+hole.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You are lying and stupid as dog shit. Rights are absolute. Period. Do you want to wander into a philosophical discussion that your dumb ass cannot prosecute?

You just stated that people can be legally deprived of their rights….therefore they are not absolute.

Perhaps I’ll purchase you a mirror so you can debate yourself.

There is only one term for some people: ******* idiot.

So candycorn wants to get philosophical. Her position is, since the government can, for a time, suspend your constitutional Rights due to a criminal act that a Right is not absolute.

Hmmm... 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."

So, before I began this reply I Googled the question of "Is there any country where murder is legal?" Here is a sample of the answers I got:

Countries where murder is legal

If, however, you find a country where murder is legal, by all means, enlighten us. So every country on this planet recognizes a basic Right to Life. Does that mean that someone cannot kill you? Does that mean that you can live for as long as you want? When people get a diagnosis that they have a terminal condition, isn't the first thought in their mind that the diagnosis can't be fair and / or it's not fair that they are going to die?

Abel had a Right to Life. Cain had a Right to Life. But, Cain slew Abel and Cain was judged by a higher authority and punished for his act. In America, we built our country around unalterable principles. And so, the Declaration of Independence goes on:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Now, instead of the individual playing judge, jury and executioner we agree to be bound by certain laws that guarantee our unalienable Rights. So, wait, now I have a Right to Life AND a guarantee that our system of jurisprudence will see to it that the Right to Life is protected. Does that mean I can live as long as I want?

Well, I just purchased a clothes dryer. It was quite expensive and it came with a TEN YEAR GUARANTEE. That does not mean that my dryer will not break down. If it does, the manufacturer will make it right.

Ditto for the government we consent to allow to represent us. And here is candycorn, advocating that we disarm people because his / her interpretation of absolute means bad things cannot happen. If you have a Right and I have a Right and you take my Right, there is NO recourse given candycorn's interpretations. Following this illogical path, since no Right is absolute, then it must not exist at all. What the liberals are arguing here is the ultimate form of anarchy.

Some people could argue that the Constitution is a "Social Contract." Okay, I have a contract with my bank. If, at the end of the year, they decide to change those terms, I have the option of opting out and taking my money elsewhere. So, if we bow down to majority rule and deny the First Principles upon which the Republic rests, I have a Right then to rescind my consent to being ruled by tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence referred to that document as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man." Before doing another part of this rant, I'd like to quote Jefferson some more:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."

Tl dr

Not my fault. Others WILL read it and realize you are illiterate and this is not about saving lives for you. It is about CONTROL. Well, you aren't going to win because we just denied you the power of control. Peck your keyboard while those who did read the first part of the rant laugh their ass off at you.

Yawn.

As the man said, Your surrender was accepted.

 

[Brain357]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The ******* spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

The gun salesman doesn’t want more background checks, shocking. How many criminals you selling to?

If a "criminal" is so dangerous so as not to be trusted with a firearm, what in the Hell are they doing roaming our streets?

If that individual has a penis, they might rape your wife or daughter. They might walk into a bar, get sloppy drunk and then get in a car only to drive a few miles before crashing and killing an innocent family.

If they are a mean S.O.B. they might poison the county water supply or drug your children with tainted Halloween candy. They might steal a truck and make it an assault vehicle. What in the Hell are you doing allowing those kinds of people back on the streets?

Well we have the fullest jails in the world so we have more locked up than anyone else.

We have more drug addicts than anywhere in the world; Americans consume 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; EVERY mass shooting not done by a political jihadist is done by someone on SSRIs and / or known by the mental health community to be a threat; for every drug addict in a mental health facility there are more than TEN in prison - as if we are to punish the addiction out of them.

We have piss poor mental health facilities and no way to help most people who suffer from disorders. We have pills, police and political propaganda prostitutes from the left who want to use that as leverage to take our Rights and make America a third world sh!+hole.

There is room for lots of improvements.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You are lying and stupid as dog shit. Rights are absolute. Period. Do you want to wander into a philosophical discussion that your dumb ass cannot prosecute?

You just stated that people can be legally deprived of their rights….therefore they are not absolute.

Perhaps I’ll purchase you a mirror so you can debate yourself.

There is only one term for some people: ******* idiot.

So candycorn wants to get philosophical. Her position is, since the government can, for a time, suspend your constitutional Rights due to a criminal act that a Right is not absolute.

Hmmm... 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."

So, before I began this reply I Googled the question of "Is there any country where murder is legal?" Here is a sample of the answers I got:

Countries where murder is legal

If, however, you find a country where murder is legal, by all means, enlighten us. So every country on this planet recognizes a basic Right to Life. Does that mean that someone cannot kill you? Does that mean that you can live for as long as you want? When people get a diagnosis that they have a terminal condition, isn't the first thought in their mind that the diagnosis can't be fair and / or it's not fair that they are going to die?

Abel had a Right to Life. Cain had a Right to Life. But, Cain slew Abel and Cain was judged by a higher authority and punished for his act. In America, we built our country around unalterable principles. And so, the Declaration of Independence goes on:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Now, instead of the individual playing judge, jury and executioner we agree to be bound by certain laws that guarantee our unalienable Rights. So, wait, now I have a Right to Life AND a guarantee that our system of jurisprudence will see to it that the Right to Life is protected. Does that mean I can live as long as I want?

Well, I just purchased a clothes dryer. It was quite expensive and it came with a TEN YEAR GUARANTEE. That does not mean that my dryer will not break down. If it does, the manufacturer will make it right.

Ditto for the government we consent to allow to represent us. And here is candycorn, advocating that we disarm people because his / her interpretation of absolute means bad things cannot happen. If you have a Right and I have a Right and you take my Right, there is NO recourse given candycorn's interpretations. Following this illogical path, since no Right is absolute, then it must not exist at all. What the liberals are arguing here is the ultimate form of anarchy.

Some people could argue that the Constitution is a "Social Contract." Okay, I have a contract with my bank. If, at the end of the year, they decide to change those terms, I have the option of opting out and taking my money elsewhere. So, if we bow down to majority rule and deny the First Principles upon which the Republic rests, I have a Right then to rescind my consent to being ruled by tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence referred to that document as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man." Before doing another part of this rant, I'd like to quote Jefferson some more:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."

Tl dr

Your surrender is accepted.

My victory is clear. He agrees that rights can be suspended.

NOBODY accepted your premise and since you were too stupid to read the response, NOBODY is taking you seriously. Your point was unequivocally refuted.

 

[Brain357]

You just stated that people can be legally deprived of their rights….therefore they are not absolute.

Perhaps I’ll purchase you a mirror so you can debate yourself.

There is only one term for some people: ******* idiot.

So candycorn wants to get philosophical. Her position is, since the government can, for a time, suspend your constitutional Rights due to a criminal act that a Right is not absolute.

Hmmm... 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."

So, before I began this reply I Googled the question of "Is there any country where murder is legal?" Here is a sample of the answers I got:

Countries where murder is legal

If, however, you find a country where murder is legal, by all means, enlighten us. So every country on this planet recognizes a basic Right to Life. Does that mean that someone cannot kill you? Does that mean that you can live for as long as you want? When people get a diagnosis that they have a terminal condition, isn't the first thought in their mind that the diagnosis can't be fair and / or it's not fair that they are going to die?

Abel had a Right to Life. Cain had a Right to Life. But, Cain slew Abel and Cain was judged by a higher authority and punished for his act. In America, we built our country around unalterable principles. And so, the Declaration of Independence goes on:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Now, instead of the individual playing judge, jury and executioner we agree to be bound by certain laws that guarantee our unalienable Rights. So, wait, now I have a Right to Life AND a guarantee that our system of jurisprudence will see to it that the Right to Life is protected. Does that mean I can live as long as I want?

Well, I just purchased a clothes dryer. It was quite expensive and it came with a TEN YEAR GUARANTEE. That does not mean that my dryer will not break down. If it does, the manufacturer will make it right.

Ditto for the government we consent to allow to represent us. And here is candycorn, advocating that we disarm people because his / her interpretation of absolute means bad things cannot happen. If you have a Right and I have a Right and you take my Right, there is NO recourse given candycorn's interpretations. Following this illogical path, since no Right is absolute, then it must not exist at all. What the liberals are arguing here is the ultimate form of anarchy.

Some people could argue that the Constitution is a "Social Contract." Okay, I have a contract with my bank. If, at the end of the year, they decide to change those terms, I have the option of opting out and taking my money elsewhere. So, if we bow down to majority rule and deny the First Principles upon which the Republic rests, I have a Right then to rescind my consent to being ruled by tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence referred to that document as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man." Before doing another part of this rant, I'd like to quote Jefferson some more:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."

Tl dr

Not my fault. Others WILL read it and realize you are illiterate and this is not about saving lives for you. It is about CONTROL. Well, you aren't going to win because we just denied you the power of control. Peck your keyboard while those who did read the first part of the rant laugh their ass off at you.

Yawn.

As the man said, Your surrender was accepted.

So that’s what you say when you are losing?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The ******* spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

The gun salesman doesn’t want more background checks, shocking. How many criminals you selling to?

If a "criminal" is so dangerous so as not to be trusted with a firearm, what in the Hell are they doing roaming our streets?

If that individual has a penis, they might rape your wife or daughter. They might walk into a bar, get sloppy drunk and then get in a car only to drive a few miles before crashing and killing an innocent family.

If they are a mean S.O.B. they might poison the county water supply or drug your children with tainted Halloween candy. They might steal a truck and make it an assault vehicle. What in the Hell are you doing allowing those kinds of people back on the streets?

Well we have the fullest jails in the world so we have more locked up than anyone else.

We have more drug addicts than anywhere in the world; Americans consume 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; EVERY mass shooting not done by a political jihadist is done by someone on SSRIs and / or known by the mental health community to be a threat; for every drug addict in a mental health facility there are more than TEN in prison - as if we are to punish the addiction out of them.

We have piss poor mental health facilities and no way to help most people who suffer from disorders. We have pills, police and political propaganda prostitutes from the left who want to use that as leverage to take our Rights and make America a third world sh!+hole.

There is room for lots of improvements.

That is why I did nearly four decades of research and now could reduce mass shootings by 90 percent without tax increases, any new bureaucracies and NO GUN CONTROL. The effect those suggestions would have on other firearm deaths are yet to be determined, but it would be substantial.