Universal background checks... really?

[candycorn]

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.

Your anger is, well, funny. Good to see you no longer are arguing that rights do not have limits and are just focusing on personal attacks. A sure sign you’ve lost. But you already know you have.

So please keep it up.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Hmm….supreme court justice vs…. some yahoo on the internet.

From the grave he still knows more about the law than you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Your anger is, well, funny. Good to see you no longer are arguing that rights do not have limits and are just focusing on personal attacks. A sure sign you’ve lost. But you already know you have.

So please keep it up.

Did you see this below from Rockwell?

"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,..." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

That ruling held up under United States Supreme Court rulings of the day. Burger was a political hack. The Constitution did not give future Courts the authority to keep reinterpreting the Constitution.

What part of this are you having a hard time comprehending? We're covering the same ground over and over.

The defense rests, your honor.

.

 

[candycorn]

Your anger is, well, funny. Good to see you no longer are arguing that rights do not have limits and are just focusing on personal attacks. A sure sign you’ve lost. But you already know you have.

So please keep it up.

Did you see this below from Rockwell?

"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,..." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

That ruling held up under United States Supreme Court rulings of the day. Burger was a political hack. The Constitution did not give future Courts the authority to keep reinterpreting the Constitution.

What part of this are you having a hard time comprehending? We're covering the same ground over and over.

The defense rests, your honor.

.

I don’t pay a lot of attention to Rockwell.. He’s already capitulated that rights have limits so my work here is done. At this point, I’m just running up the score.


Did you see where persons on bail have their rights suspended as far as firearm use/ownership goes?
Therefore proving rights have limits.

Something he agrees with.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Your anger is, well, funny. Good to see you no longer are arguing that rights do not have limits and are just focusing on personal attacks. A sure sign you’ve lost. But you already know you have.

So please keep it up.

You lost before you started. But live in your delusional world and keep repeating lies. They'll come true in your mind, but they will remain BULLSHIT. I DID NOT AGREE WITH YOU IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, FASHION OR FORM. YOU ARE A LIAR AND A TROLL.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Hmm….supreme court justice vs…. some yahoo on the internet.

From the grave he still knows more about the law than you.

How would you know? You can't understand simple English.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Your anger is, well, funny. Good to see you no longer are arguing that rights do not have limits and are just focusing on personal attacks. A sure sign you’ve lost. But you already know you have.

So please keep it up.

Did you see this below from Rockwell?

"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,..." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

That ruling held up under United States Supreme Court rulings of the day. Burger was a political hack. The Constitution did not give future Courts the authority to keep reinterpreting the Constitution.

What part of this are you having a hard time comprehending? We're covering the same ground over and over.

The defense rests, your honor.

.

I don’t pay a lot of attention to Rockwell.. He’s already capitulated that rights have limits so my work here is done. At this point, I’m just running up the score.


Did you see where persons on bail have their rights suspended as far as firearm use/ownership goes?
Therefore proving rights have limits.

Something he agrees with.

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS DO NOT HAVE LIMITS AND ANYONE WHO CLAIMS I SAID OTHERWISE IS A LIAR.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Your anger is, well, funny. Good to see you no longer are arguing that rights do not have limits and are just focusing on personal attacks. A sure sign you’ve lost. But you already know you have.

So please keep it up.

Did you see this below from Rockwell?

"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,..." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

That ruling held up under United States Supreme Court rulings of the day. Burger was a political hack. The Constitution did not give future Courts the authority to keep reinterpreting the Constitution.

What part of this are you having a hard time comprehending? We're covering the same ground over and over.

The defense rests, your honor.

.

I don’t pay a lot of attention to Rockwell.. He’s already capitulated that rights have limits so my work here is done. At this point, I’m just running up the score.


Did you see where persons on bail have their rights suspended as far as firearm use/ownership goes?
Therefore proving rights have limits.

Something he agrees with.

YOU ARE A LIAR, ATTEMPTING TO TAKE STUFF OUT OF CONTEXT JUST TO TROLL ME. Bite me.

 

[candycorn]

Your anger is, well, funny. Good to see you no longer are arguing that rights do not have limits and are just focusing on personal attacks. A sure sign you’ve lost. But you already know you have.

So please keep it up.

Did you see this below from Rockwell?

"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,..." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

That ruling held up under United States Supreme Court rulings of the day. Burger was a political hack. The Constitution did not give future Courts the authority to keep reinterpreting the Constitution.

What part of this are you having a hard time comprehending? We're covering the same ground over and over.

The defense rests, your honor.

.

I don’t pay a lot of attention to Rockwell.. He’s already capitulated that rights have limits so my work here is done. At this point, I’m just running up the score.


Did you see where persons on bail have their rights suspended as far as firearm use/ownership goes?
Therefore proving rights have limits.

Something he agrees with.

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS DO NOT HAVE LIMITS AND ANYONE WHO CLAIMS I SAID OTHERWISE IS A LIAR.

Here you are saying that people can be deprived of their rights.

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

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

And you can’t deny that those out on bail (and not serving time for a crime) are also denied their rights.

Soooo I win again (not that there was any question about that fact).


But please whip up some more anger. It makes me laugh.


































































Putting your anger in all caps makes me laugh harder still.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

We have been going round and round since Post # 948. That was 141 posts ago and very few people are here to read what I actually said as opposed to what the consummate troll claims I said. I am going to repeat Part 1 of my original post and if you want to follow this without reading 150 posts back, this is my position. This is a repeat of post # 961 and I will make one more post to finish off my own thoughts. Then I will only copy and paste every few pages until the troll tires of lying to you. Also see posts # 959 and 1058 if you want the whole story. Now post # 961 repeated. Stay tuned for my final post.



Post # 961

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."

Final part coming up.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Your anger is, well, funny. Good to see you no longer are arguing that rights do not have limits and are just focusing on personal attacks. A sure sign you’ve lost. But you already know you have.

So please keep it up.

Did you see this below from Rockwell?

"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,..." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

That ruling held up under United States Supreme Court rulings of the day. Burger was a political hack. The Constitution did not give future Courts the authority to keep reinterpreting the Constitution.

What part of this are you having a hard time comprehending? We're covering the same ground over and over.

The defense rests, your honor.

.

I don’t pay a lot of attention to Rockwell.. He’s already capitulated that rights have limits so my work here is done. At this point, I’m just running up the score.


Did you see where persons on bail have their rights suspended as far as firearm use/ownership goes?
Therefore proving rights have limits.

Something he agrees with.

Shut the **** up. He does not. Quit making shit up and post some authority for your bullshit.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

Throughout this silly argument, the nutcases wanting an unending battle make false claims to justify outlawing firearms. Here is the problem we have:

The Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court to interpret the law. The Constitution does not and did not intend that the high Court reinterpret the laws on a whim. Secondly, the American Bar Association is the de facto over-seer of lawyers. It is also the most liberal body in the United States of America. Nobody gets to the United States Supreme Court without the influence of the American Bar Association.

The left argues that since a Right may be temporarily suspended IF YOU DEPRIVE ANOTHER OF THEIR RIGHTS, THEN RIGHTS HAVE LIMITS.

This is a pointless perversion of the truth. Rather than answer the tough questions, the trolls are fixated on well, you can suspend someone's Rights so they cannot be absolute. This is to somehow build the case that we can take people's constitutional Rights just because we want to. That is not the way it works. See my earlier post.

The ONLY way society can exist is if Rights are protected. The left keeps looking for a loop-hole to justify attacking your Rights. It is immoral, despicable, and most of all - dishonest. At the end of the day, if you do not jeopardize the Rights of another, then NOBODY should be threatening YOUR Rights.

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS HAVE NO LIMITS
We instituted government for the sole purpose to protect those Rights
If someone tries to take your Rights, their Rights are put at risk
In that scenario NOBODY is trying to limit your Rights; they are protecting them.

Having produced numerous court case citations, legal explanations, and challenging the trolls, they have come up with exactly ZERO points from any historical source to bolster their claims. James Madison, the man who authored the Second Amendment said:

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

People can argue about history all day long, but I've quoted the courts of Kentucky, Georgia, and Texas - maybe more and provided irrefutable evidence that the states meant the Second Amendment to be about a citizens unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. I tend to think that the most definitive and authoritative way to end this argument once and for all is to go back to the very FIRST time we used that phrase of bear Arms. It was used more than a decade before the Constitution was ratified.

The FIRST state Declaration of Rights to use the term "bear arms" was that of Pennsylvania in 1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State."

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that is a personal Right and one in which the FIRST time the issue came up in the United States Supreme Court, they ruled that the RIGHT was not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. They upheld the lower state court rulings I cited in the posts I have referenced. And that is the way it is.

 

[candycorn]

Your anger is, well, funny. Good to see you no longer are arguing that rights do not have limits and are just focusing on personal attacks. A sure sign you’ve lost. But you already know you have.

So please keep it up.

Did you see this below from Rockwell?

"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,..." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

That ruling held up under United States Supreme Court rulings of the day. Burger was a political hack. The Constitution did not give future Courts the authority to keep reinterpreting the Constitution.

What part of this are you having a hard time comprehending? We're covering the same ground over and over.

The defense rests, your honor.

.

I don’t pay a lot of attention to Rockwell.. He’s already capitulated that rights have limits so my work here is done. At this point, I’m just running up the score.


Did you see where persons on bail have their rights suspended as far as firearm use/ownership goes?
Therefore proving rights have limits.

Something he agrees with.

Shut the **** up. He does not. Quit making shit up and post some authority for your bullshit.

.

Except I quoted him stating that there are limits to someone’s supposedly “absolute” rights.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Perhaps you two can rent a room and you can make her feel better.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Your anger is, well, funny. Good to see you no longer are arguing that rights do not have limits and are just focusing on personal attacks. A sure sign you’ve lost. But you already know you have.

So please keep it up.

Did you see this below from Rockwell?

"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,..." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

That ruling held up under United States Supreme Court rulings of the day. Burger was a political hack. The Constitution did not give future Courts the authority to keep reinterpreting the Constitution.

What part of this are you having a hard time comprehending? We're covering the same ground over and over.

The defense rests, your honor.

.

I don’t pay a lot of attention to Rockwell.. He’s already capitulated that rights have limits so my work here is done. At this point, I’m just running up the score.


Did you see where persons on bail have their rights suspended as far as firearm use/ownership goes?
Therefore proving rights have limits.

Something he agrees with.

Shut the **** up. He does not. Quit making shit up and post some authority for your bullshit.

.

Except I quoted him stating that there are limits to someone’s supposedly “absolute” rights.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Perhaps you two can rent a room and you can make her feel better.

Read the first quote in my signature again. That is exactly what he said about limits.

"Absolute" and "limited" are not mutually exclusive.

But how they are limited is the key.

Again, read my first signature quote. If you think you are smarter than Thomas Jefferson, I will go ahead and put your commie ass on ignore.


.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Your anger is, well, funny. Good to see you no longer are arguing that rights do not have limits and are just focusing on personal attacks. A sure sign you’ve lost. But you already know you have.

So please keep it up.

Did you see this below from Rockwell?

"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,..." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

That ruling held up under United States Supreme Court rulings of the day. Burger was a political hack. The Constitution did not give future Courts the authority to keep reinterpreting the Constitution.

What part of this are you having a hard time comprehending? We're covering the same ground over and over.

The defense rests, your honor.

.

I don’t pay a lot of attention to Rockwell.. He’s already capitulated that rights have limits so my work here is done. At this point, I’m just running up the score.


Did you see where persons on bail have their rights suspended as far as firearm use/ownership goes?
Therefore proving rights have limits.

Something he agrees with.

Shut the **** up. He does not. Quit making shit up and post some authority for your bullshit.

.

Except I quoted him stating that there are limits to someone’s supposedly “absolute” rights.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Perhaps you two can rent a room and you can make her feel better.

Here, I will help you out with that Thomas Jefferson quote in my sig:

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." —Thomas Jefferson

The difference between Rockwell and you is he actually uses quotes from early court opinions and from founders to back up his argument.

You don't.

.

 

[2aguy]

Your anger is, well, funny. Good to see you no longer are arguing that rights do not have limits and are just focusing on personal attacks. A sure sign you’ve lost. But you already know you have.

So please keep it up.

Did you see this below from Rockwell?

"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,..." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

That ruling held up under United States Supreme Court rulings of the day. Burger was a political hack. The Constitution did not give future Courts the authority to keep reinterpreting the Constitution.

What part of this are you having a hard time comprehending? We're covering the same ground over and over.

The defense rests, your honor.

.

I don’t pay a lot of attention to Rockwell.. He’s already capitulated that rights have limits so my work here is done. At this point, I’m just running up the score.


Did you see where persons on bail have their rights suspended as far as firearm use/ownership goes?
Therefore proving rights have limits.

Something he agrees with.

rights have limits

Therefore, you believe that means you can take them completely away.......

You are a moron.....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Your anger is, well, funny. Good to see you no longer are arguing that rights do not have limits and are just focusing on personal attacks. A sure sign you’ve lost. But you already know you have.

So please keep it up.

Did you see this below from Rockwell?

"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,..." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

That ruling held up under United States Supreme Court rulings of the day. Burger was a political hack. The Constitution did not give future Courts the authority to keep reinterpreting the Constitution.

What part of this are you having a hard time comprehending? We're covering the same ground over and over.

The defense rests, your honor.

.

I don’t pay a lot of attention to Rockwell.. He’s already capitulated that rights have limits so my work here is done. At this point, I’m just running up the score.


Did you see where persons on bail have their rights suspended as far as firearm use/ownership goes?
Therefore proving rights have limits.

Something he agrees with.

rights have limits

Therefore, you believe that means you can take them completely away.......

You are a moron.....

And the ultimate question is, how do my rights become limited by her equal rights if I own and posses a certain weapon?

Candyass MUST believe that my mere possession of a weapons she fears is in violation of her rights.

That shit is gonna start a war.


.

 

[Flash]

Americans will not comply with stupid ass gun control. The Democrats got an earful in the idiotic House Committee meeting yesterday.

American Patriots decided not to comply when the filthy government tried to take away their right to keep and bear arms at Concord and Lexington, didn't they? Because they didn't comply the stupid Democrats can sit at their high and mighty seats on the Committee and advocate giving away the rights that the Patriots fought to establish.

Sparks fly at assault-weapons ban hearing on Capitol Hill, ex-cop vows she would 'not comply'

Sparks fly at assault-weapons ban hearing on Capitol Hill, ex-cop vows she would 'not comply'

A former police officer made a bold proclamation during a congressional hearing Wednesday regarding a proposed assault-weapons ban: she would not comply.

Dianna Muller, who served in the Tulsa Police Department for 22 years and is the founder of gun advocacy group The DC Project, was among the witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing. The session on an otherwise contentious issue flew largely under the radar amid the Trump-Ukraine controversy and Democrats' impeachment push. But reflecting the gun control divide in the country -- amid a spate of deadly mass shootings that prompted renewed calls for strict laws -- Muller said that such a ban would force lawful gun owners to either give up their arms or become criminals.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Americans will not comply with stupid ass gun control. The Democrats got an earful in the idiotic House Committee meeting yesterday.

American Patriots decided not to comply when the filthy government tried to take away their right to keep and bear arms at Concord and Lexington, didn't they? Because they didn't comply the stupid Democrats can sit at their high and mighty seats on the Committee and advocate giving away the rights that the Patriots fought to establish.

Sparks fly at assault-weapons ban hearing on Capitol Hill, ex-cop vows she would 'not comply'

Sparks fly at assault-weapons ban hearing on Capitol Hill, ex-cop vows she would 'not comply'

A former police officer made a bold proclamation during a congressional hearing Wednesday regarding a proposed assault-weapons ban: she would not comply.

Dianna Muller, who served in the Tulsa Police Department for 22 years and is the founder of gun advocacy group The DC Project, was among the witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing. The session on an otherwise contentious issue flew largely under the radar amid the Trump-Ukraine controversy and Democrats' impeachment push. But reflecting the gun control divide in the country -- amid a spate of deadly mass shootings that prompted renewed calls for strict laws -- Muller said that such a ban would force lawful gun owners to either give up their arms or become criminals.

I really appreciate your post. I do hope that you will consider what I have to say.

Whether gun owners win or lose the political battle will depend upon one thing:

Who really has the jurisdiction over your unalienable Rights?

Americans are becoming way too liberal and if we continue to acquiesce to arguing this as a political and / or legal matter, bowing down to more recent court decisions, we lose in the final analysis. That is what we get for not holding the court's feet to the fire and telling the judicial branch of government that they had NO authority to over-rule the founders / framers and the initial precedents set by the courts up to the FIRST rulings.

If every gun owner knows exactly why we cannot compromise and we cannot comply with gun control, they are less likely to try to appease socialists and communists

 

[Flash]

Americans will not comply with stupid ass gun control. The Democrats got an earful in the idiotic House Committee meeting yesterday.

American Patriots decided not to comply when the filthy government tried to take away their right to keep and bear arms at Concord and Lexington, didn't they? Because they didn't comply the stupid Democrats can sit at their high and mighty seats on the Committee and advocate giving away the rights that the Patriots fought to establish.

Sparks fly at assault-weapons ban hearing on Capitol Hill, ex-cop vows she would 'not comply'

Sparks fly at assault-weapons ban hearing on Capitol Hill, ex-cop vows she would 'not comply'

A former police officer made a bold proclamation during a congressional hearing Wednesday regarding a proposed assault-weapons ban: she would not comply.

Dianna Muller, who served in the Tulsa Police Department for 22 years and is the founder of gun advocacy group The DC Project, was among the witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing. The session on an otherwise contentious issue flew largely under the radar amid the Trump-Ukraine controversy and Democrats' impeachment push. But reflecting the gun control divide in the country -- amid a spate of deadly mass shootings that prompted renewed calls for strict laws -- Muller said that such a ban would force lawful gun owners to either give up their arms or become criminals.

I really appreciate your post. I do hope that you will consider what I have to say.

Whether gun owners win or lose the political battle will depend upon one thing:

Who really has the jurisdiction over your unalienable Rights?

Americans are becoming way too liberal and if we continue to acquiesce to arguing this as a political and / or legal matter, bowing down to more recent court decisions, we lose in the final analysis. That is what we get for not holding the court's feet to the fire and telling the judicial branch of government that they had NO authority to over-rule the founders / framers and the initial precedents set by the courts up to the FIRST rulings.

If every gun owner knows exactly why we cannot compromise and we cannot comply with gun control, they are less likely to try to appease socialists and communists

The Second Amendment is essential to maintaining the long term freedom and deterrence against tyranny and all organized threats to the peace and prosperity of us all. Although it does also bring with it more gun crimes than countries without guns, we accept that fact as a part of the right to keep and bear arms - just like countries with cars have more car crash deaths than countries without cars, and we accept that fact because cars are needed by the people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms comparable to arms that may be used against them is necessary to the security of a free State, and thus must not be infringed.