Universal background checks... really?

[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

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.

While I agree, the liberals must be made aware that the government has no de jure / lawful authority to pass laws that jeopardize that Right.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Thomas Jefferson

Thank you for your activism on behalf of our Rights.

 

[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.

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.

.

He also agrees that rights have limits. As do most practitioners of the law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

He also agrees that rights have limits. As do most practitioners of the law.

OK.... So....?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Did you see this below from Rockwell?

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.

.

He also agrees that rights have limits. As do most practitioners of the law.

You are a liar candycorn.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Did you see this below from Rockwell?

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.

.

He also agrees that rights have limits. As do most practitioners of the law.

Well, that's what the quote said, but not the limits YOU think it does.

"within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others"

That pretty much ends the "limits" discussion, as far as you're concerned. You don't have the right to control what I do with my liberty.

.

 

[candycorn]

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.

.

He also agrees that rights have limits. As do most practitioners of the law.

Well, that's what the quote said, but not the limits YOU think it does.

"within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others"

That pretty much ends the "limits" discussion, as far as you're concerned. You don't have the right to control what I do with my liberty.

.

The courts do and the law does. Sorry.

 

[candycorn]

He also agrees that rights have limits. As do most practitioners of the law.

OK.... So....?

Thanks for the confirmation. Lol

 

[Rustic]

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

.

He also agrees that rights have limits. As do most practitioners of the law.

Well, that's what the quote said, but not the limits YOU think it does.

"within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others"

That pretty much ends the "limits" discussion, as far as you're concerned. You don't have the right to control what I do with my liberty.

.

The courts do and the law does. Sorry.

So, tyranny via the judiciary.

Go **** yourself. Sorry.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

.

He also agrees that rights have limits. As do most practitioners of the law.

Well, that's what the quote said, but not the limits YOU think it does.

"within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others"

That pretty much ends the "limits" discussion, as far as you're concerned. You don't have the right to control what I do with my liberty.

.

The courts do and the law does. Sorry.

So, tyranny via the judiciary.

Go **** yourself. Sorry.

.

Poor baby...are you upset society has evolved and you haven’t?

No, I am irritated that all you ******* commies are still alive.

I will help you pack so you can get your worthless commie ass the **** out of my country.

I'm not asking.

..

 

[candycorn]

He also agrees that rights have limits. As do most practitioners of the law.

Well, that's what the quote said, but not the limits YOU think it does.

"within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others"

That pretty much ends the "limits" discussion, as far as you're concerned. You don't have the right to control what I do with my liberty.

.

The courts do and the law does. Sorry.

So, tyranny via the judiciary.

Go **** yourself. Sorry.

.

Poor baby...are you upset society has evolved and you haven’t?

No, I am irritated that all you ******* commies are still alive.

I will help you pack so you can get your worthless commie ass the **** out of my country.

I'm not asking.

..

Poor little man…life has passed you by and you’re lashing out. Makes me laugh.

You’re not asking…you are venting your pathetic frustration. We have background checks in this nation. They have been proven legal. They need to be expanded because firearms are a very real threat to public safety.

Sorry if you’re having a bad life. You’ve earned it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

He also agrees that rights have limits. As do most practitioners of the law.

Well, that's what the quote said, but not the limits YOU think it does.

"within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others"

That pretty much ends the "limits" discussion, as far as you're concerned. You don't have the right to control what I do with my liberty.

.

The courts do and the law does. Sorry.

So, tyranny via the judiciary.

Go **** yourself. Sorry.

.

Poor baby...are you upset society has evolved and you haven’t?

No, I am irritated that all you ******* commies are still alive.

I will help you pack so you can get your worthless commie ass the **** out of my country.

I'm not asking.

..

The commie trolls that infest these boards are taunting you because they want to play a sick mind game with you. It allows them to cover up their fear that one day people who are fed up with the B.S. WILL do something about it.

I thank God for our political enemies. They generate anger and anger is a great motivator. Perhaps we've had it too easy.

The reality is, laws may look like they're legal when in fact they are not. Furthermore, if cops can break the law (like watching cops chase unarmed suspects down the road and shooting them in the back), then so too can the courts misapply the law.

I've written about the fact that only the FIRST rulings by the courts are valid. Once they've ruled, if we, the sheeple, don't like those rulings, the proper recourse is to amend the Constitution. People like you and I KNOW, instinctively, that waiting periods, background checks, and gun bans, etc. are patently unconstitutional. No matter how well intentioned, gun laws lead to tyranny and oppression. We have the Right to exhaust all of our nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress.

At this stage we should commit ourselves to not only lobbying our congresscritters as much as possible (phone calls - talk to the staff as well, letters, e mails and going to their Town Hall Meetings), but we must add passive resistance and civil disobedience to the list of ways we fight back.

 

[candycorn]

Well, that's what the quote said, but not the limits YOU think it does.

"within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others"

That pretty much ends the "limits" discussion, as far as you're concerned. You don't have the right to control what I do with my liberty.

.

The courts do and the law does. Sorry.

So, tyranny via the judiciary.

Go **** yourself. Sorry.

.

Poor baby...are you upset society has evolved and you haven’t?

No, I am irritated that all you ******* commies are still alive.

I will help you pack so you can get your worthless commie ass the **** out of my country.

I'm not asking.

..

The commie trolls that infest these boards are taunting you because they want to play a sick mind game with you. It allows them to cover up their fear that one day people who are fed up with the B.S. WILL do something about it.

I thank God for our political enemies. They generate anger and anger is a great motivator. Perhaps we've had it too easy.

The reality is, laws may look like they're legal when in fact they are not. Furthermore, if cops can break the law (like watching cops chase unarmed suspects down the road and shooting them in the back), then so too can the courts misapply the law.

I've written about the fact that only the FIRST rulings by the courts are valid. Once they've ruled, if we, the sheeple, don't like those rulings, the proper recourse is to amend the Constitution. People like you and I KNOW, instinctively, that waiting periods, background checks, and gun bans, etc. are patently unconstitutional. No matter how well intentioned, gun laws lead to tyranny and oppression. We have the Right to exhaust all of our nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress.

At this stage we should commit ourselves to not only lobbying our congresscritters as much as possible (phone calls - talk to the staff as well, letters, e mails and going to their Town Hall Meetings), but we must add passive resistance and civil disobedience to the list of ways we fight back.

Lobbying lawmakers is the way it’s supposed to work. Kudos.

 

[M14 Shooter]

He also agrees that rights have limits. As do most practitioners of the law.

OK.... So....?

Thanks for the confirmation. Lol

Thanks for demonstrating you have no point to associate with your statement of obvious fact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We have background checks in this nation. They have been proven legal.

When did the USSC uphold background checks?
Cite the case and quote the holding.

They need to be expanded because firearms are a very real threat to public safety.

As always, you cannot demonstrate the need for, or the efficacy of, the restrictions you seek to place on the rights of the law abiding.

 

[Rustic]

Well, that's what the quote said, but not the limits YOU think it does.

"within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others"

That pretty much ends the "limits" discussion, as far as you're concerned. You don't have the right to control what I do with my liberty.

.

The courts do and the law does. Sorry.

So, tyranny via the judiciary.

Go **** yourself. Sorry.

.

Poor baby...are you upset society has evolved and you haven’t?

No, I am irritated that all you ******* commies are still alive.

I will help you pack so you can get your worthless commie ass the **** out of my country.

I'm not asking.

..

Poor little man…life has passed you by and you’re lashing out. Makes me laugh.

You’re not asking…you are venting your pathetic frustration. We have background checks in this nation. They have been proven legal. They need to be expanded because firearms are a very real threat to public safety.

Sorry if you’re having a bad life. You’ve earned it.

Na, not really
Repeat offenders are the problem, execute repeat offenders… Problem solved

 

[candycorn]

The courts do and the law does. Sorry.

So, tyranny via the judiciary.

Go **** yourself. Sorry.

.

Poor baby...are you upset society has evolved and you haven’t?

No, I am irritated that all you ******* commies are still alive.

I will help you pack so you can get your worthless commie ass the **** out of my country.

I'm not asking.

..

Poor little man…life has passed you by and you’re lashing out. Makes me laugh.

You’re not asking…you are venting your pathetic frustration. We have background checks in this nation. They have been proven legal. They need to be expanded because firearms are a very real threat to public safety.

Sorry if you’re having a bad life. You’ve earned it.

Na, not really
Repeat offenders are the problem, execute repeat offenders… Problem solved

I’m against the death penalty but I see nothing wrong with 3 strikes laws when applied responsibly

 

[candycorn]

We have background checks in this nation. They have been proven legal.

When did the USSC uphold background checks?
Cite the case and quote the holding.

They need to be expanded because firearms are a very real threat to public safety.

As always, you cannot demonstrate the need for, or the efficacy of, the restrictions you seek to place on the rights of the law abiding.

Until it’s overturned it’s the law.

And it works.

It would work much better when background checks are expanded.

 

[2aguy]

We have background checks in this nation. They have been proven legal.

When did the USSC uphold background checks?
Cite the case and quote the holding.

They need to be expanded because firearms are a very real threat to public safety.

As always, you cannot demonstrate the need for, or the efficacy of, the restrictions you seek to place on the rights of the law abiding.

Until it’s overturned it’s the law.

And it works.

It would work much better when background checks are expanded.

It would work much better when background checks are expanded

And see....I can say that spreading pixie dust on a Fir Tree at the full moon on October 31st will reduce illegal gun purchasing, and it would have as much validity as you saying background checks will do the same thing..

It would work much better when background checks are expanded

You can't show this, and, in fact, we show you every time that criminals will not be stopped, at all....and mass shooters can simply pass any background check, or they get their guns illegally....

Just saying..."Background checks will work..." doesn't mean anything...you need to actually explain how they are supposed to work, considering criminals simply use straw buyers or steal their guns...

 

[M14 Shooter]

We have background checks in this nation. They have been proven legal.

When did the USSC uphold background checks?
Cite the case and quote the holding.

They need to be expanded because firearms are a very real threat to public safety.

As always, you cannot demonstrate the need for, or the efficacy of, the restrictions you seek to place on the rights of the law abiding.

Until it’s overturned it’s the law.

And thus, your "they have been proven legal" claim is... another lie.

And it works.
It would work much better when background checks are expanded.

You cannot demonstrate either of these statements to be true.