Universal background checks... really?

[Brain357]

The militia can keep arms. What do you mean?

I see the problem.

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

So, breakfast can keep food, not people?


Do you believe rights that are held collectively that are not also held individually? (warning: this is a trap. You're about to walk into it.)

.

The problem is you keep talking about breakfast. No wonder you are so confused.

The problem is that you keep dodging the questions and pretending your argument is sound, when it is clearly NOT.

It demonstrates your improper interpretation of the 2nd. Your interpretation is completely nonsensical when changed to breakfast. You cannot escape it and so you deflect.

So, again:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

So, breakfast can keep food, not people?

Only an idiot would change it to breakfast. Haha

Well, let's change it to something else, shall we?

You pick.

.

There is no point, we are discussing the second. And it clearly is giving the right for states to have a well regulated militia.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"A properly-working toilet being necessary for a clean house, the right of the people to keep and use plungers shall not be infringed."

So, the toilet has the right to keep and use plungers?

Take your pick on what we use as a substitute. Any way we state it, you sound like a ******* idiot.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I see the problem.

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

So, breakfast can keep food, not people?


Do you believe rights that are held collectively that are not also held individually? (warning: this is a trap. You're about to walk into it.)

.

The problem is you keep talking about breakfast. No wonder you are so confused.

The problem is that you keep dodging the questions and pretending your argument is sound, when it is clearly NOT.

It demonstrates your improper interpretation of the 2nd. Your interpretation is completely nonsensical when changed to breakfast. You cannot escape it and so you deflect.

So, again:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

So, breakfast can keep food, not people?

Only an idiot would change it to breakfast. Haha

Well, let's change it to something else, shall we?

You pick.

.

There is no point, we are discussing the second. And it clearly is giving the right for states to have a well regulated militia.

But, not the right of the PEOPLE to keep arms????

You have ignored the words again.

.

 

[Brain357]

The problem is you keep talking about breakfast. No wonder you are so confused.

The problem is that you keep dodging the questions and pretending your argument is sound, when it is clearly NOT.

It demonstrates your improper interpretation of the 2nd. Your interpretation is completely nonsensical when changed to breakfast. You cannot escape it and so you deflect.

So, again:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

So, breakfast can keep food, not people?

Only an idiot would change it to breakfast. Haha

Well, let's change it to something else, shall we?

You pick.

.

There is no point, we are discussing the second. And it clearly is giving the right for states to have a well regulated militia.

But, not the right of the PEOPLE to keep arms????

You have ignored the words again.

.

Bear arms is a military reference. They have the right to join a militia.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The problem is that you keep dodging the questions and pretending your argument is sound, when it is clearly NOT.

It demonstrates your improper interpretation of the 2nd. Your interpretation is completely nonsensical when changed to breakfast. You cannot escape it and so you deflect.

So, again:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

So, breakfast can keep food, not people?

Only an idiot would change it to breakfast. Haha

Well, let's change it to something else, shall we?

You pick.

.

There is no point, we are discussing the second. And it clearly is giving the right for states to have a well regulated militia.

But, not the right of the PEOPLE to keep arms????

You have ignored the words again.

.

Bear arms is a military reference. They have the right to join a militia.

Keep arms is NOT a military reference. People have the right to KEEP arms.

Explain that.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

The only thing you've "won" is the most irritating troll of the year award. Other than that, you and your sockpuppet should boogie out of here. Countless posters have proven you wrong. You and your sockpuppet are the only two who don't see it.

 

[Brain357]

Only an idiot would change it to breakfast. Haha

Well, let's change it to something else, shall we?

You pick.

.

There is no point, we are discussing the second. And it clearly is giving the right for states to have a well regulated militia.

But, not the right of the PEOPLE to keep arms????

You have ignored the words again.

.

Bear arms is a military reference. They have the right to join a militia.

Keep arms is NOT a military reference. People have the right to KEEP arms.

Explain that.

.

The right to bear arms which is a military reference. The well regulated militia has the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

The militia was to be regulated, not the weapons NOR the individual.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Well, let's change it to something else, shall we?

You pick.

.

There is no point, we are discussing the second. And it clearly is giving the right for states to have a well regulated militia.

But, not the right of the PEOPLE to keep arms????

You have ignored the words again.

.

Bear arms is a military reference. They have the right to join a militia.

Keep arms is NOT a military reference. People have the right to KEEP arms.

Explain that.

.

The right to bear arms which is a military reference. The well regulated militia has the right to keep and bear arms.

The individual has the Right too - according to the current United States Supreme Court.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well, let's change it to something else, shall we?

You pick.

.

There is no point, we are discussing the second. And it clearly is giving the right for states to have a well regulated militia.

But, not the right of the PEOPLE to keep arms????

You have ignored the words again.

.

Bear arms is a military reference. They have the right to join a militia.

Keep arms is NOT a military reference. People have the right to KEEP arms.

Explain that.

.

The right to bear arms which is a military reference. The well regulated militia has the right to keep and bear arms.

But, it doesn't say the MILITIA has the right, you dumb ****. It says THE PEOPLE have the right.

That's why I showed the the breakfast change. You are too ******* stupid to get it.

.

 

[Brain357]

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.

The militia was to be regulated, not the weapons NOR the individual.

The militia has the right to bear arms.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

The militia was to be regulated, not the weapons NOR the individual.

The militia has the right to bear arms.

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

 

[Brain357]

There is no point, we are discussing the second. And it clearly is giving the right for states to have a well regulated militia.

But, not the right of the PEOPLE to keep arms????

You have ignored the words again.

.

Bear arms is a military reference. They have the right to join a militia.

Keep arms is NOT a military reference. People have the right to KEEP arms.

Explain that.

.

The right to bear arms which is a military reference. The well regulated militia has the right to keep and bear arms.

The individual has the Right too - according to the current United States Supreme Court.

Yes they clearly were wrong on the definition of bear arms, which made their decision very wrong.

 

[Brain357]

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.

The militia was to be regulated, not the weapons NOR the individual.

The militia has the right to bear arms.

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

The people have a right to join the well regulated militia.

 

[miketx]

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.

The militia was to be regulated, not the weapons NOR the individual.

The militia has the right to bear arms.

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

The people have a right to join the well regulated militia.

There is no joining liar. We are the militia by default.

 

[Brain357]

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.

The militia was to be regulated, not the weapons NOR the individual.

The militia has the right to bear arms.

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

For about two hundred years, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear and mostly undisputed, despite the gnarled syntax of the text itself: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Generations of Supreme Court and academic opinion held that the amendment did not confer on individuals a right “to keep and bear Arms” but, rather, referred only to the privileges belonging to state militias. This was not a controversial view. The late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said, in 1991, that the idea that the Second Amendment conferred a right for individuals to bear arms was “a fraud on the American public.” Burger was no liberal, and his view simply reflected the overwhelming consensus on the issue at the time.

Politics Changed the Reading of the Second Amendment—and Can Change It Again

 

[Porter Rockwell]

There is no point, we are discussing the second. And it clearly is giving the right for states to have a well regulated militia.

But, not the right of the PEOPLE to keep arms????

You have ignored the words again.

.

Bear arms is a military reference. They have the right to join a militia.

Keep arms is NOT a military reference. People have the right to KEEP arms.

Explain that.

.

The right to bear arms which is a military reference. The well regulated militia has the right to keep and bear arms.

But, it doesn't say the MILITIA has the right, you dumb ****. It says THE PEOPLE have the right.

That's why I showed the the breakfast change. You are too ******* stupid to get it.

.

I think that candycorn and Brainless are one in the same. I'll do part 2 of my rant and then just repeat it every few pages. They or she don't have anything; she's just looking for some validation from people who DO have the ability to think.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

The militia was to be regulated, not the weapons NOR the individual.

The militia has the right to bear arms.

Asked and answered:

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

The militia was to be regulated, not the weapons NOR the individual.

The militia has the right to bear arms.

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

The people have a right to join the well regulated militia.

No, *****. It does NOT say that.

It says CLEARLY, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Militia service has never been a right, but a DUTY.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

The militia was to be regulated, not the weapons NOR the individual.

The militia has the right to bear arms.

Then, why does it say "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd, dumb ****?

.

The people have a right to join the well regulated militia.

The people have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms that predates the Constitution. Another asked and answered point. You need some new material.