Which of Your Rights Will They Go After....

[PoliticalChic]

...More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."...

And why is this?

Could it be because Gun Nuts and their NRA mouthpiece have been obstructing Public Safety in this area for years?

Could it be because sane folks have grown tired of that obstructionism, and the slaughtered schoolchildren, and Rightist attacks upon the survivors who dare to speak out?

The present Republican control of the Government is not going to last forever; you, like they, will go too far, sometime soon, and get the boot.

Your recent treatment of the Children of Parkland is now burned into the Democratic Party collective hive-mind, and will not fade.

I suggest you cut a deal and shift to support for nationwide standards, background checks, licensure, registration, transaction approval, seizures for cause (felony convictions, mental health diagnosis) etc., while you still have room to maneuver.

Judgment Day's a'comin'... a handful of years, at best... and if you haven't shifted to a Middle Ground by the time it arrives, you're going to get bowled over... at-law... the next time the Dems get a turn at-bat.

Compromise... while you still can.

You have been warned.

Ignore that warning at your own very great peril.

1. What's the difference between the NRA and Planned Parenthood?
One sells arms and the other is the NRA.


2. In no way....none at all....is the NRA nor the USConstitution responsible for the Florida slaughter.

Obama and Liberal policy is.

The following is indisputable:


a. "The [Obama] Justice Department already has sued school districts in Florida, South Carolina and Mississippi for implementing allegedly racist disciplinary policies."
Holder's Anti-Discipline Push May Threaten Students | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD


b. "The Obama-era Departments of Education and Justice – under education secretary Arne Duncan and Attorney General Eric Holder –issued school guidelines in 2014 that claimed students of color are “disproportionately impacted” by suspensions and expulsions, a situation they said leads to a “school-to-prison pipeline” that discriminates against minority and low-income students.

According to the Obama administration’s 2014 “Dear Colleague” guidance, any school district whose disciplinary measures showed “disparate impact” – meaning a disproportionately greater number of minority students are affected – is open to investigation by [Obama] the Departments of Justice and Education, regardless of whether the behavior leading to the discipline is unacceptable."
Broward County Likely ‘Inspiration’ for Obama School Discipline Policy to Report Fewer Arrests, Suspensions | Breitbart


c. "Cruz assaulted students, cursed out teachers, kicked in classroom doors, started fist fights, threw chairs, threatened to kill other students, mutilated small animals, pulled a rifle on his mother, drank gasoline and cut himself, among other "red flags."
Threatening to kill someone is a felony. In addition to locking Cruz away for a while, having a felony record would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.
Cruz was never arrested. He wasn't referred to law enforcement. He wasn't even expelled."
The School-To-Mass-Murder Pipeline


d. Obama warned schools not to discipline school children, no matter their actions, if they were members of an authorized minority....meaning, the group voted Democrat.
As a result, Nikolas Cruz was given a pass....multiple passes.....and that unblemished record allowed him to avoid being identified as a possible homicidal maniac.



e. Liberals are responsible for
creating Gun Free Zones
prescribing psychotropic medicines to children
and for the moronic idea behind the "school-to-prison pipeline" policy that allowed Nikolas Cruz to remain free and obtain a weapon.


f. This primitive, stone-age thinking was made official Broward County policy in a Nov. 5, 2013, agreement titled "Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline."

The first "whereas" clause of the agreement states that "the use of arrests and referrals to the criminal justice system may decrease a student's chance of graduation, entering higher education, joining the military and getting a job."

The agreement's third "whereas” clause specifically cites "students of color" as victims of the old, racist policy of treating criminal behavior criminally.'"
The School-To-Mass-Murder Pipeline



g. "The new policy resulted from an Obama administration effort begun in 2011 to keep students in school and improve racial outcomes (timeline here)..."
https://www.realclearinvestigations...cipline_policy_and_the_parkland_shooting.html





Gun control folks regularly bring up background checks.

Why?

Obama’s Promise Program resulted in Nikolas Cruz not having an arrest record…..nothing that a background check would reveal.

So…..he could buy weapons legally.


Obama, Liberal policies that favor criminals, was responsible for the massacre....not the NRA.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The truest answer to eliminating gun violence is to raise wages and give people some hope. The fact is if you are 18, the chance of your ever retiring is not good if you don't have the full benefit social security, a fully vested IRA or KEOGH, and $320,000.00 in cash.

So, you're saying the Vegas shooter, that owned at least one apartment complex, which gave him more than $500,000 in annual income, and made $5-6 million in profits from its sale just needed some hope?

Try to keep up. The issue I was answering was school shootings.

FYI Paddocks net assets were at least 10 times what you listed. What would have stopped Paddock would have been a ban on AR-15's plus an NCIC information share with States so his mass purchase would have been detected.

You may want to read your own statement...dumbass.
The truest answer to eliminating gun violence is to raise wages and give people some hope.[/QUOIfTE]

In relation to the post about students in school shootings. How many mass shooting did we have in 1956, the last best financial year for the middle class?

Did you imagine (I almost said 'think') that there is such as thing as a perennial 'middle class'?

If so, you are truly a dunce.

The fluidity of the American economic system is legendary.

"Bottom Line: It’s a common misperception that earnings or wealth quintiles are static, closed, private clubs with very little turnover, so that once a household finds itself in an earnings quintile or living below the poverty line in a given year, it’s doomed to stay there for life. But the empirical evidence tells a much different story of dynamic change and turnover in the U.S. economy—people and households move up and down the earnings and wealth quintiles throughout their careers and lives. Many of today’s poor are tomorrow’s rich, and many of today’s rich are tomorrow’s middle class, reflecting the significant upward and downward mobility in the U.S. economy."
OneLife: Income Mobility in the Dynamic U.S. Economy


Wise up.

Did you imagine (I almost said 'think') that there is such as thing as a perennial 'middle class'?

If so, you are truly a dunce.

The fluidity of the American economic system is legendary.

"Bottom Line: It’s a common misperception that earnings or wealth quintiles are static, closed, private clubs with very little turnover, so that once a household finds itself in an earnings quintile or living below the poverty line in a given year, it’s doomed to stay there for life. But the empirical evidence tells a much different story of dynamic change and turnover in the U.S. economy—people and households move up and down the earnings and wealth quintiles throughout their careers and lives. Many of today’s poor are tomorrow’s rich, and many of today’s rich are tomorrow’s middle class, reflecting the significant upward and downward mobility in the U.S. economy."
OneLife: Income Mobility in the Dynamic U.S. Economy


Wise up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.....first.

1. Based on the recent massacre, and the full-court press by the Left, ....
"Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment
More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."
Repeal the Second Amendment? Almost Half of Democrats Say Yes | National Review

....one might think that your right to bear arms is first on their list.


Nay, nay......not so.




2. First on the list for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.

Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia


One smart Liberal, huh?


3. With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:

"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.

Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.


Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech





Again???

"it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."


Here....Fredo Cuomo:



Fredo….I’m not stupid like everybody says….I’m smart.





For the Founders, for Conservatives, for classical liberals.....and for Americans....there is no such thing as
"hate speech."

There is only speech.

And the Liberals are about chipping away at what you can say.

Firearms will be made available by the freemarket or by the blackmarket - the most powerful police force , the KGB, could not stop the blackmarket.

The blackmarket provides heroin, cocaine and at one time marihuana - there is NOTHING the motherfuckers can do.

How stupid the gun-grabbers must be to desire laws that will mean that only criminals have guns.


And....they could simply move to Chicago where all their desired laws are in effect.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Right now, Conservatives are attacking

A free press
The right to vote
The 14th amendment

reproductive choice
the 4th amendment

'Reproductive choice' is newspeak for killing other human beings?

How very Liberal of you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Right now, Conservatives are attacking

A free press
The right to vote
The 14th amendment

reproductive choice
the 4th amendment

 

[PoliticalChic]

...More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."...

And why is this?

Could it be because Gun Nuts and their NRA mouthpiece have been obstructing Public Safety in this area for years?

Could it be because sane folks have grown tired of that obstructionism, and the slaughtered schoolchildren, and Rightist attacks upon the survivors who dare to speak out?

The present Republican control of the Government is not going to last forever; you, like they, will go too far, sometime soon, and get the boot.

Your recent treatment of the Children of Parkland is now burned into the Democratic Party collective hive-mind, and will not fade.

I suggest you cut a deal and shift to support for nationwide standards, background checks, licensure, registration, transaction approval, seizures for cause (felony convictions, mental health diagnosis) etc., while you still have room to maneuver.

Judgment Day's a'comin'... a handful of years, at best... and if you haven't shifted to a Middle Ground by the time it arrives, you're going to get bowled over... at-law... the next time the Dems get a turn at-bat.

Compromise... while you still can.

You have been warned.

Ignore that warning at your own very great peril.

 

[Humorme]

.....first.

1. Based on the recent massacre, and the full-court press by the Left, ....
"Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment
More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."
Repeal the Second Amendment? Almost Half of Democrats Say Yes | National Review

....one might think that your right to bear arms is first on their list.


Nay, nay......not so.




2. First on the list for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.

Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia


One smart Liberal, huh?


3. With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:

"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.

Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.


Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech





Again???

"it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."


Here....Fredo Cuomo:



Fredo….I’m not stupid like everybody says….I’m smart.





For the Founders, for Conservatives, for classical liberals.....and for Americans....there is no such thing as
"hate speech."

There is only speech.

And the Liberals are about chipping away at what you can say.

Firearms will be made available by the freemarket or by the blackmarket - the most powerful police force , the KGB, could not stop the blackmarket.

The blackmarket provides heroin, cocaine and at one time marihuana - there is NOTHING the motherfuckers can do.

That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.

We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.

But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.

Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.

Unfortunately , we must learn to live and survive in an UNfree world.

Five fascists "Justices" will rule that we do not have an individual right to carry firearms. Please read Heller's dissenting opinion.


.

The dissenting opinion is worthless. It is the words of the losers. What scares the Hell out of me is the HOLDING. The holding is the law - period. Here is why Heller was the worst United States Supreme Court decision in my lifetime:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

What the Hell do they mean, "like most rights?" The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, NOT on the individual. What do they mean "most rights?" You mean some rights are unlimited and some aren't? So which ones does the Court think are are unlimited? Did you know that the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this, they said, that Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION.

The Right exists; it predates the Constitution; the feds don't have de jure jurisdiction to deny it and the Court had no authority to declare such a thing.

So firearms are what? a human right? like breathing?

~S~

The Right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable Right. Some synonyms for unalienable are inherent, natural, God given, and absolute.

 

[Contumacious]

.....first.

1. Based on the recent massacre, and the full-court press by the Left, ....
"Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment
More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."
Repeal the Second Amendment? Almost Half of Democrats Say Yes | National Review

....one might think that your right to bear arms is first on their list.


Nay, nay......not so.




2. First on the list for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.

Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia


One smart Liberal, huh?


3. With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:

"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.

Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.


Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech





Again???

"it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."


Here....Fredo Cuomo:



Fredo….I’m not stupid like everybody says….I’m smart.





For the Founders, for Conservatives, for classical liberals.....and for Americans....there is no such thing as
"hate speech."

There is only speech.

And the Liberals are about chipping away at what you can say.

Firearms will be made available by the freemarket or by the blackmarket - the most powerful police force , the KGB, could not stop the blackmarket.

The blackmarket provides heroin, cocaine and at one time marihuana - there is NOTHING the motherfuckers can do.

That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.

We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.

But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.

Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.

Unfortunately , we must learn to live and survive in an UNfree world.

Five fascists "Justices" will rule that we do not have an individual right to carry firearms. Please read Heller's dissenting opinion.


.

The dissenting opinion is worthless. It is the words of the losers. What scares the Hell out of me is the HOLDING. The holding is the law - period. Here is why Heller was the worst United States Supreme Court decision in my lifetime:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

What the Hell do they mean, "like most rights?" The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, NOT on the individual. What do they mean "most rights?" You mean some rights are unlimited and some aren't? So which ones does the Court think are are unlimited? Did you know that the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this, they said, that Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION.

The Right exists; it predates the Constitution; the feds don't have de jure jurisdiction to deny it and the Court had no authority to declare such a thing.

I understand that the dissenting opinion is worthless , my point is that 4 justices were willing to ignore the nation's history and the fact that we are - supposed to be - free people ,in order to disarm us.

I do agree that the Heller majority was also awful


.

 

[Cecilie1200]

.....first.

1. Based on the recent massacre, and the full-court press by the Left, ....
"Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment
More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."
Repeal the Second Amendment? Almost Half of Democrats Say Yes | National Review

....one might think that your right to bear arms is first on their list.


Nay, nay......not so.




2. First on the list for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.

Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia


One smart Liberal, huh?


3. With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:

"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.

Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.


Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech





Again???

"it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."


Here....Fredo Cuomo:



Fredo….I’m not stupid like everybody says….I’m smart.





For the Founders, for Conservatives, for classical liberals.....and for Americans....there is no such thing as
"hate speech."

There is only speech.

And the Liberals are about chipping away at what you can say.

Firearms will be made available by the freemarket or by the blackmarket - the most powerful police force , the KGB, could not stop the blackmarket.

The blackmarket provides heroin, cocaine and at one time marihuana - there is NOTHING the motherfuckers can do.

That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.

We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.

But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.

Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.

Unfortunately , we must learn to live and survive in an UNfree world.

Five fascists "Justices" will rule that we do not have an individual right to carry firearms. Please read Heller's dissenting opinion.


.

The dissenting opinion is worthless. It is the words of the losers. What scares the Hell out of me is the HOLDING. The holding is the law - period. Here is why Heller was the worst United States Supreme Court decision in my lifetime:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

What the Hell do they mean, "like most rights?" The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, NOT on the individual. What do they mean "most rights?" You mean some rights are unlimited and some aren't? So which ones does the Court think are are unlimited? Did you know that the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this, they said, that Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION.

The Right exists; it predates the Constitution; the feds don't have de jure jurisdiction to deny it and the Court had no authority to declare such a thing.

So firearms are what? a human right? like breathing?

~S~

Yes, defending your ability to keep breathing from those who might wish to prevent it IS a human right. The right to life means nothing without the right to protect and defend that right.

 

[Humorme]

.....first.

1. Based on the recent massacre, and the full-court press by the Left, ....
"Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment
More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."
Repeal the Second Amendment? Almost Half of Democrats Say Yes | National Review

....one might think that your right to bear arms is first on their list.


Nay, nay......not so.



2. First on the list for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.

Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia


One smart Liberal, huh?


3. With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:

"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.

Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.


Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech





Again???

"it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."


Here....Fredo Cuomo:



Fredo….I’m not stupid like everybody says….I’m smart.





For the Founders, for Conservatives, for classical liberals.....and for Americans....there is no such thing as
"hate speech."

There is only speech.

And the Liberals are about chipping away at what you can say.

Firearms will be made available by the freemarket or by the blackmarket - the most powerful police force , the KGB, could not stop the blackmarket.

The blackmarket provides heroin, cocaine and at one time marihuana - there is NOTHING the motherfuckers can do.

That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.

We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.

But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.

Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.

Unfortunately , we must learn to live and survive in an UNfree world.

Five fascists "Justices" will rule that we do not have an individual right to carry firearms. Please read Heller's dissenting opinion.


.

The dissenting opinion is worthless. It is the words of the losers. What scares the Hell out of me is the HOLDING. The holding is the law - period. Here is why Heller was the worst United States Supreme Court decision in my lifetime:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

What the Hell do they mean, "like most rights?" The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, NOT on the individual. What do they mean "most rights?" You mean some rights are unlimited and some aren't? So which ones does the Court think are are unlimited? Did you know that the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this, they said, that Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION.

The Right exists; it predates the Constitution; the feds don't have de jure jurisdiction to deny it and the Court had no authority to declare such a thing.

I understand that the dissenting opinion is worthless , my point is that 4 justices were willing to ignore the nation's history and the fact that we are - supposed to be - free people ,in order to disarm us.

I do agree that the Heller majority was also awful


.

These are scary times. Roberts turned on the conservatives; Kagan is card carrying communist; Sotomayor won't be far behind her. None of the people on the Supreme Court are true constitutionalists.

Once we've made our final appeals to that body we will have to make the same decisions our forefathers had to make.

 

[Cecilie1200]

...More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."...

And why is this?

Could it be because Gun Nuts and their NRA mouthpiece have been obstructing Public Safety in this area for years?

No, they haven't. And it's because useful idiots like you have been erroneously and disingenuously convincing people that "public safety" means "give up your freedom for a promise of safety".

Could it be because sane folks have grown tired of that obstructionism, and the slaughtered schoolchildren, and Rightist attacks upon the survivors who dare to speak out?

No, it's because useful idiots like you have convinced people that ignorance is sanity, exercising rights is "obstructionism", and children are wise leaders. Which, granted, has produced a group of people who actually are at the same level of wisdom as children.

The present Republican control of the Government is not going to last forever; you, like they, will go too far, sometime soon, and get the boot.

Thank you for reminding us that our liberty is only safe until the next Democrat election win.

Your recent treatment of the Children of Parkland is now burned into the Democratic Party collective hive-mind, and will not fade.

Democrat victimhood and delusions of oppression are burned into their collective hive-mind even if Republicans never say a word. I think it's good that you recognize that Democrats only have one brain amongst them and are as intelligent as your average insect, though.

I suggest you cut a deal and shift to support for nationwide standards, background checks, licensure, registration, transaction approval, seizures for cause (felony convictions, mental health diagnosis) etc., while you still have room to maneuver.

Yeah, the suggestion of Democrat shills is ALWAYS "compromise by immediately surrendering! Your only hope is to give us everything we want RIGHT NOW!" If you weren't all a bunch of bugs, you'd understand why that's never a persuasive argument.

Judgment Day's a'comin'... a handful of years, at best... and if you haven't shifted to a Middle Ground by the time it arrives, you're going to get bowled over... at-law... the next time the Dems get a turn at-bat.

Compromise... while you still can.

You have been warned.

Ignore that warning at your own very great peril.

"We are going to punish you mightily for daring to think you have rights and can exercise them freely! You evil bastards, how dare you disagree!"

Feel free to start your insurrection any time you like, Robespierre. Just remember: we're armed, and you aren't, by your own choice.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable Right. Some synonyms for unalienable are inherent, natural, God given, and absolute.

The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right/liberty granted via the 1689 English bill of Rights, your right to life is an unalienable/inalienable right, your right to self defense is part of the right to life. Arms are merely tools used and allowed via civil rights, you don't always need "arms" to defend yourself. You getting your ass kicked in a fist fight doesn't warrant you the use of "arms" for defense or retaliation.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

These are scary times. Roberts turned on the conservatives; Kagan is card carrying communist; Sotomayor won't be far behind her. None of the people on the Supreme Court are true constitutionalists.

Once we've made our final appeals to that body we will have to make the same decisions our forefathers had to make.

Yet they all have degrees in law and one hell of a lot more knowledge then you when it comes to the Constitution. gofigure

Our forefathers were taxed and not represented in England, you have a representative in Congress at both the state and federal levels, so no, nothing decision wise would be the same. SMFH

 

[sparky]

Firearms will be made available by the freemarket or by the blackmarket - the most powerful police force , the KGB, could not stop the blackmarket.

The blackmarket provides heroin, cocaine and at one time marihuana - there is NOTHING the motherfuckers can do.

That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.

We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.

But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.

Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.

Unfortunately , we must learn to live and survive in an UNfree world.

Five fascists "Justices" will rule that we do not have an individual right to carry firearms. Please read Heller's dissenting opinion.


.

The dissenting opinion is worthless. It is the words of the losers. What scares the Hell out of me is the HOLDING. The holding is the law - period. Here is why Heller was the worst United States Supreme Court decision in my lifetime:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

What the Hell do they mean, "like most rights?" The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, NOT on the individual. What do they mean "most rights?" You mean some rights are unlimited and some aren't? So which ones does the Court think are are unlimited? Did you know that the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this, they said, that Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION.

The Right exists; it predates the Constitution; the feds don't have de jure jurisdiction to deny it and the Court had no authority to declare such a thing.

So firearms are what? a human right? like breathing?

~S~

The Right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable Right. Some synonyms for unalienable are inherent, natural, God given, and absolute.

An unalienable right ?

or 'natural' as opposed to 'legal' right?

interesting

so just how many unalienable rights do we have?

~S~

 

[PoliticalChic]

That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.

We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.

But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.

Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.

Unfortunately , we must learn to live and survive in an UNfree world.

Five fascists "Justices" will rule that we do not have an individual right to carry firearms. Please read Heller's dissenting opinion.


.

The dissenting opinion is worthless. It is the words of the losers. What scares the Hell out of me is the HOLDING. The holding is the law - period. Here is why Heller was the worst United States Supreme Court decision in my lifetime:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

What the Hell do they mean, "like most rights?" The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, NOT on the individual. What do they mean "most rights?" You mean some rights are unlimited and some aren't? So which ones does the Court think are are unlimited? Did you know that the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this, they said, that Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION.

The Right exists; it predates the Constitution; the feds don't have de jure jurisdiction to deny it and the Court had no authority to declare such a thing.

So firearms are what? a human right? like breathing?

~S~

The Right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable Right. Some synonyms for unalienable are inherent, natural, God given, and absolute.

An unalienable right ?

or 'natural' as opposed to 'legal' right?

interesting

so just how many unalienable rights do we have?

~S~

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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

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. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

"Burlamaqui (Politic c. #, . 15) defines natural liberty as "the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they may judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men;" and therefore it has been justly said, that "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 have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Potter's Dwarris, ch. 13, p. 429.

 

[sparky]

So if my 'life' is an unalienable right, why am i paying $$$$ for health insurance Chick?

~S~

 

[sparky]

For that matter, why am I paying for all the 'aliens' unalienable right to life .....??????

~S~

 

[PoliticalChic]

So if my 'life' is an unalienable right, why am i paying $$$$ for health insurance Chick?

~S~

I hope that was an attempt at humor....'cause, otherwise, it was a really stupid post.

 

[Humorme]

That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.

We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.

But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.

Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.

Unfortunately , we must learn to live and survive in an UNfree world.

Five fascists "Justices" will rule that we do not have an individual right to carry firearms. Please read Heller's dissenting opinion.


.

The dissenting opinion is worthless. It is the words of the losers. What scares the Hell out of me is the HOLDING. The holding is the law - period. Here is why Heller was the worst United States Supreme Court decision in my lifetime:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

What the Hell do they mean, "like most rights?" The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, NOT on the individual. What do they mean "most rights?" You mean some rights are unlimited and some aren't? So which ones does the Court think are are unlimited? Did you know that the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this, they said, that Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION.

The Right exists; it predates the Constitution; the feds don't have de jure jurisdiction to deny it and the Court had no authority to declare such a thing.

So firearms are what? a human right? like breathing?

~S~

The Right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable Right. Some synonyms for unalienable are inherent, natural, God given, and absolute.

An unalienable right ?

or 'natural' as opposed to 'legal' right?

interesting

so just how many unalienable rights do we have?

~S~

It sounds like someone needs a civics lesson. Welcome to America. Now, let us start with the Declaration of Independence:

"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."

That is the three basic unalienable Rights; however, they are not all inclusive. The Declaration merely says that among those...

Of this Declaration, the author, Thomas Jefferson said:

"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man." -

And what did the United States Supreme Court say relative to that document?

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: ‘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.’ While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

One of the founding fathers, George Mason, explained these Rights this way:

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." ~ Virginia Declaration of Rights

The first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this with regard to the Second Amendment, they ruled as follows:

"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 U.S. 542 (1875)

The Second Amendment is not a grant from the government to keep and bear Arms. Yet the Right indisputably exists. That is why the Court ruled that the Right with these words:

"Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

The Right exists. It is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence as it predates the Constitution.

Before the United States Supreme Court ruled in the above case, the states had been interpreting the Right. Let me share a few rulings with you:

"The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; ... For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing [of] concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former is unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise."

Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 KY. (2 LITT.) 90 (Kentucky 1822)

Then Georgia weighed in:

"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)


Our "own Magna Charta" would be the Declaration of Independence. That document established the principle of unalienable Rights.

The state of Texas weighed in a little later, They ruled:


"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, at 401-402 (1859)

These are the holdings of the lower courts, then reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the Cruikshank decision. Let's help you understand this better:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them" United States Justice Joseph Story (Story was nominated by President James Madison, second president of the United States and founding father. Story agreed with Madison on this issue much like Gorsuch agrees with Trump.)

Unalienable Rights are those Rights which were bestowed upon you buy your Creator (whomever you deem that to be or wherever you evolved from.) Government does not grant you those Rights and you owe nobody to exercise them.

The Constitution spells out the basic Rights you are guaranteed and, at the end, if there is something not mentioned in the Constitution the Bill of Rights says that is reserved to the states or the people.

Outside of that you have "legal" rights that are more of a creation of government and subject to their control. The non-existent "right to vote" is an example. You weren't born with it; it's subject to the government being able to change it or the terms thereof with or without your consent. Think about marriage. If people had a Right to get married, why do they get a license? A license, according to legal dictionaries is permission from a governmental entity to do that which is otherwise illegal to do." If it's a Right and it's legal to do, why do you need a license? Obviously our society does not see it as being an unalienable Right. They're wrong, but that's another thread.

Legal / statutory laws are the creation of man and you might very well have to subject yourself to them, but under our Constitution:

Only six years into our Republic, the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature, by a private act, affecting particular persons ONLY, can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another?"

VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

Do you need some more information or is this sufficient?

 

[Humorme]

For that matter, why am I paying for all the 'aliens' unalienable right to life .....??????

~S~

Maybe you don't. I'll bet you wouldn't ***** to find out that aliens without papers are paying $12 BILLION DOLLARS a year into Socialist Security and can never draw a thin dime out in retirement.

The honest answer is, in their zeal to get rid of little brown people from south of the border, the right propped up a plank out of the Communist Manifesto, sabotaging the effort to eliminate the 16th Amendment and rid this country of the IRS - which would have given you a minimum 25 percent wage increase and INSURE that, regardless of your status in this country, you were taxed the same as everyone else. It would have taken that annoying argument off the table.