Universal background checks... really?

[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

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.

Gun rights have limitations. Even Scalia knew that.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

You quoted me to someone who could not respond to a post refuting her position?

 

[Brain357]

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.

Fascinating given easy access to guns is the problem.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Yet here is a quote from you confirming that rights are not absolute.

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

If your right is “absolute” there is no way to deprive it...those on bail are deprived of the right...legally...so therefore the deprivation of the right is not limited to those convicted.

I’m sure you’ll launch another round of personal insults to try to substitute for your inability to argue otherwise.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Gun rights have limitations. Even Scalia knew that.

No they do not - not when the Original Intent is followed. Every so often I have to repost the same post:

“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)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

That is the law as I know it. Now, you I know that is not the law, however. The question is, how did the law get changed? That is elementary. The United States Supreme Court simply kept rehearing the same cases over and over, changing their rulings. The Constitution only allows the United States Supreme Court to interpret the law. They don't get to keep reinterpreting it. That is legislating from the bench. Every ruling that contradicts the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings is ultra vires - null and void in our constitutional Republic.

George Washington, our first president, warned against this practice and told you the consequences thereof:

"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 TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

James Madison, our second president, wrote:

"The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are promulg[at]ed, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow. "

This is exactly the situation that happened when the United States Supreme Court began reversing their own decisions. We obey the law to the letter, but without warning, our nation's highest Court changes the laws. WTH? They change law, the original intent, and now, the high Court is claiming they dole out our Rights. So, I'm simply obeying the de jure law and if you want to change the Second Amendment, amend the damn thing.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Fascinating given easy access to guns is the problem.

That's like blaming cars for DUIs. So, candycorn has a sockpuppet?

 

[Brain357]

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.

Gun rights have limitations. Even Scalia knew that.

No they do not - not when the Original Intent is followed. Every so often I have to repost the same post:

“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)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

That is the law as I know it. Now, you I know that is not the law, however. The question is, how did the law get changed? That is elementary. The United States Supreme Court simply kept rehearing the same cases over and over, changing their rulings. The Constitution only allows the United States Supreme Court to interpret the law. They don't get to keep reinterpreting it. That is legislating from the bench. Every ruling that contradicts the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings is ultra vires - null and void in our constitutional Republic.

George Washington, our first president, warned against this practice and told you the consequences thereof:

"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 TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

James Madison, our second president, wrote:

"The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are promulg[at]ed, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow. "

This is exactly the situation that happened when the United States Supreme Court began reversing their own decisions. We obey the law to the letter, but without warning, our nation's highest Court changes the laws. WTH? They change law, the original intent, and now, the high Court is claiming they dole out our Rights. So, I'm simply obeying the de jure law and if you want to change the Second Amendment, amend the damn thing.

Even Scalia disagrees with you. The 2nd was in regards to a militia and defending the country.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Yet here is a quote from you confirming that rights are not absolute.

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

If your right is “absolute” there is no way to deprive it...those on bail are deprived of the right...legally...so therefore the deprivation of the right is not limited to those convicted.

I’m sure you’ll launch another round of personal insults to try to substitute for your inability to argue otherwise.

I don't have to repeat myself dumbass. But, WTH:

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."

 

[Brain357]

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.

Fascinating given easy access to guns is the problem.

That's like blaming cars for DUIs. So, candycorn has a sockpuppet?

Mass shootings aren’t a problem in countries with strong gun control. When was the last U.K. mass shooting?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Gun rights have limitations. Even Scalia knew that.

No they do not - not when the Original Intent is followed. Every so often I have to repost the same post:

“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)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

That is the law as I know it. Now, you I know that is not the law, however. The question is, how did the law get changed? That is elementary. The United States Supreme Court simply kept rehearing the same cases over and over, changing their rulings. The Constitution only allows the United States Supreme Court to interpret the law. They don't get to keep reinterpreting it. That is legislating from the bench. Every ruling that contradicts the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings is ultra vires - null and void in our constitutional Republic.

George Washington, our first president, warned against this practice and told you the consequences thereof:

"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 TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

James Madison, our second president, wrote:

"The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are promulg[at]ed, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow. "

This is exactly the situation that happened when the United States Supreme Court began reversing their own decisions. We obey the law to the letter, but without warning, our nation's highest Court changes the laws. WTH? They change law, the original intent, and now, the high Court is claiming they dole out our Rights. So, I'm simply obeying the de jure law and if you want to change the Second Amendment, amend the damn thing.

Even Scalia disagrees with you. The 2nd was in regards to a militia and defending the country.

Scalia had no authority to change the original intent of the law.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Fascinating given easy access to guns is the problem.

That's like blaming cars for DUIs. So, candycorn has a sockpuppet?

Mass shootings aren’t a problem in countries with strong gun control. When was the last U.K. mass shooting?

The U.K.is not the drug capital of the world either. candycorn or whatever your name is, feel free to go to the UK

 

[Brain357]

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.

Gun rights have limitations. Even Scalia knew that.

No they do not - not when the Original Intent is followed. Every so often I have to repost the same post:

“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)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

That is the law as I know it. Now, you I know that is not the law, however. The question is, how did the law get changed? That is elementary. The United States Supreme Court simply kept rehearing the same cases over and over, changing their rulings. The Constitution only allows the United States Supreme Court to interpret the law. They don't get to keep reinterpreting it. That is legislating from the bench. Every ruling that contradicts the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings is ultra vires - null and void in our constitutional Republic.

George Washington, our first president, warned against this practice and told you the consequences thereof:

"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 TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

James Madison, our second president, wrote:

"The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are promulg[at]ed, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow. "

This is exactly the situation that happened when the United States Supreme Court began reversing their own decisions. We obey the law to the letter, but without warning, our nation's highest Court changes the laws. WTH? They change law, the original intent, and now, the high Court is claiming they dole out our Rights. So, I'm simply obeying the de jure law and if you want to change the Second Amendment, amend the damn thing.

Even Scalia disagrees with you. The 2nd was in regards to a militia and defending the country.

Scalia had no authority to change the original intent of the law.

But he sure messed up the original intent.

The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure

 

[Brain357]

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.

Fascinating given easy access to guns is the problem.

That's like blaming cars for DUIs. So, candycorn has a sockpuppet?

Mass shootings aren’t a problem in countries with strong gun control. When was the last U.K. mass shooting?

The U.K.is not the drug capital of the world either. candycorn or whatever your name is, feel free to go to the UK

Are you losing already? Shame.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

See my first signature quote below.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Even Scalia disagrees with you. The 2nd was in regards to a militia and defending the country.

Scalia disagrees with YOU on that part.

The right may not be unlimited, but the 2nd is clear. No federal authority. States only.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Gun rights have limitations. Even Scalia knew that.

No they do not - not when the Original Intent is followed. Every so often I have to repost the same post:

“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)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

That is the law as I know it. Now, you I know that is not the law, however. The question is, how did the law get changed? That is elementary. The United States Supreme Court simply kept rehearing the same cases over and over, changing their rulings. The Constitution only allows the United States Supreme Court to interpret the law. They don't get to keep reinterpreting it. That is legislating from the bench. Every ruling that contradicts the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings is ultra vires - null and void in our constitutional Republic.

George Washington, our first president, warned against this practice and told you the consequences thereof:

"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 TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

James Madison, our second president, wrote:

"The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are promulg[at]ed, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow. "

This is exactly the situation that happened when the United States Supreme Court began reversing their own decisions. We obey the law to the letter, but without warning, our nation's highest Court changes the laws. WTH? They change law, the original intent, and now, the high Court is claiming they dole out our Rights. So, I'm simply obeying the de jure law and if you want to change the Second Amendment, amend the damn thing.

Even Scalia disagrees with you. The 2nd was in regards to a militia and defending the country.

Scalia had no authority to change the original intent of the law.

But he sure messed up the original intent.

The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure

Stevens is so ******* wrong on so many things, he had no business on the SCOTUS and now he is shooting off his commie mouth about shit he should not discuss. He's a hack.

 

[Brain357]

Scalia Was Wrong On Gun History, But That's Not The Point

 

[Brain357]

Gun rights have limitations. Even Scalia knew that.

No they do not - not when the Original Intent is followed. Every so often I have to repost the same post:

“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)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

That is the law as I know it. Now, you I know that is not the law, however. The question is, how did the law get changed? That is elementary. The United States Supreme Court simply kept rehearing the same cases over and over, changing their rulings. The Constitution only allows the United States Supreme Court to interpret the law. They don't get to keep reinterpreting it. That is legislating from the bench. Every ruling that contradicts the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings is ultra vires - null and void in our constitutional Republic.

George Washington, our first president, warned against this practice and told you the consequences thereof:

"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 TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

James Madison, our second president, wrote:

"The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are promulg[at]ed, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow. "

This is exactly the situation that happened when the United States Supreme Court began reversing their own decisions. We obey the law to the letter, but without warning, our nation's highest Court changes the laws. WTH? They change law, the original intent, and now, the high Court is claiming they dole out our Rights. So, I'm simply obeying the de jure law and if you want to change the Second Amendment, amend the damn thing.

Even Scalia disagrees with you. The 2nd was in regards to a militia and defending the country.

Scalia had no authority to change the original intent of the law.

But he sure messed up the original intent.

The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure

Stevens is so ******* wrong on so many things, he had no business on the SCOTUS and now he is shooting off his commie mouth about shit he should not discuss. He's a hack.

Really wrong is ignoring well regulated and militia, and getting the meaning of bear arms wrong.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Scalia Was Wrong On Gun History, But That's Not The Point

Tell us why we should give a rat **** what some communist hack blogger things about a SCOTUS decision. That is in no way persuasive.

I think Scalia was wrong in that, with the clear intent of the 2nd being a reservation of power to the states, he FAILED to declare all federal gun laws unconstitutional.

.

 

[Brain357]

Scalia Was Wrong On Gun History, But That's Not The Point

Tell us why we should give a rat **** what some communist hack blogger things about a SCOTUS decision. That is in no way persuasive.

I think Scalia was wrong in that, with the clear intent of the 2nd being a reservation of power to the states, he FAILED to declare all federal gun laws unconstitutional.

.

The study is what matters.


However, after consulting two databases which together contain about 140,000 texts from the early modern and founding periods, Dennis Baron has concluded otherwise: “Non-military uses of ‘bear arms’ are not just rare — they’re almost nonexistent.” In the roughly 1,500 occurrences Barron found from the 1600s and 1700s, “only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action.” And that, he argues, makes perfect sense, since a non-military usage of “bear arms” was and remains simply bizarre: “we still can’t bear arms against a rabbit, or a mugger, or a tin can on a tree stump in the yard. That is just not how we talk.”