Author Topic: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales  (Read 16871 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,402
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #100 on: March 05, 2019, 10:09:43 pm »
That's one radical take on this particular Constitutional right.   I doubt you'd have a similar view of the Constitutional right to abortion.   But in fact both rights are subject to reasonable regulation that doesn't deny the core right. 

If the State can insist on an abortion being performed by doctors with hospital admitting privileges,  then the State can insist that private transfers of firearms be accomplished with a licensed gun dealer as a middleman.    Do either of these measures amount to sound policy?  Perhaps not.  But neither, except in extraordinary circumstances,  infringes upon the Constitutional right that it regulates.

Bottom line is I'd like to see a bit less hypocrisy by those convinced their cherished Constitutional right is being gored.   I've rarely met a pro-2A advocate who was unwilling to savage the abortion right.    Just as I've rarely met a pro-abortion advocate who wasn't willing to take your guns away.    Rights for me,  but not for thee.       
Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.

This Constitutional Right, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was so important that without its inclusion the Constitution would not have been ratified. The discussion is clear, from both the Federalists and the anti-federalists, that reserving the right of the people to be armed was paramount in importance, because it was the Right which secured all others from the ambitions of tyrants, from without or within the newly formed Federation.

There were specific mentions made of the purpose of the RKBA, and those were not the least bashful about the fact that in order to secure Life and Liberty, the Right was essential. Not for the Army, but The People, and that is included in the Amendment. "The Right of The People...."
How absolute was the RKBA? Absolute. "...Shall not be infringed." Period. NO tinkering allowed.

Any law which prohibits the ownership of any firearm to any American who has not had their Rights removed pursuant to the Due Process Conviction for a serious crime is unConstitutional.

Lest we forget, the Founders were radicals. They were the educated and mature upstarts who wrested the New World Colonies from the most powerful Monarchy and Military of their day to form their own Federation of States with a form of government unheard of in their time, guaranteeing that all citizens had equal rights, protected from Government by an armed populace.

By contrast...

NOWHERE in the Constitution is it written that a woman has the Right to kill her offspring, before or after birth.

I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in the writings of the Founders where there was discussion about taking those lives, except to say that the right to Life was the first of those unalienable Rights granted, not by Government, but our Creator. The word "unalienable" was not a misprint, nor an error, but a deliberate statement about the nature of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness....

Unalienable: that which exists, cannot be taken nor transferred, bought nor sold, beyond the authority of any government. An UNalienable Right to Life....listed in the preeminent position of the first and foremost Right, not granted (as no rights are) by some Government, but inherent to every human, and beyond the authority of government or anyone to give, grant, sell, barter, or remove.

That discussion of a "right to abortion" was neither in the Federalist nor anti-Federalist papers, nor it it to be found in the words of the document, nor in any discussion of the forming Republic.

The so called "right to abortion" was a fabrication of the court, nearly two hundred years removed from the Founding of this Republic, for the convenience of the powerful, at the expense of the innocent. Talk about Patriarchy: it removed the responsibility for embarassing offspring from the man who only had to pay to have them conveniently destroyed. It removed the responsibility of motherhood (with any and all stigma which might apply in the 1960s for children born out of wedlock, or who were another inconvenient offshoot of someone's family tree, inconvenient outside of marriage, embarrassing outside of one's social station, and giving someone possibly undesirable a claim, however tenuous, to well entrenched family fortunes.).
It was written to cover the infidelities and inconvenient and undeniable truths that were the result of the misdeeds of the wealthy and powerful, previously concealed by sending the woman, complete with the baby bump, off on some journey, to have the child, and give it up for adoption if she couldn't find a husband in time---all subsidized by the powerful and wealthy to retain 'their good name'--all situations arising from behaviour outside the acceptable social mores of the day, preserving the reputations of those who could afford the cost of preserving their public reputation.

It speaks ill of a culture so driven by its glands that it cannot use a variety of means to prevent there from being any issue over a baby never conceived, that it would murder the most helpless and innocent because it was too inconvenient to prevent their conception in the first place, but follows that out of convenience that culture would murder its own offspring in the pursuit of a lack of responsibility.

The so-called right to "choice" could have been and should have been exercised before the creation of another life. That right exists, to say yes or no to the very act which creates life.

But once that Life, that Right to live is created, No One has the Right to take it, except in very narrow circumstances of that person committing heinous crimes, and then only with the full and careful deliberation over the evidence of that crime leading to that verdict. None, then nor now, can make any case that an infant, before or just after birth is a criminal, therefore that right to Life applies. For those who would deny that Right, there is a Court of Final Jurisdiction, A Judge over all Judges, whose verdict will prevail.

Sixty Million slaughtered since Roe?, and you argue that this is a Right?

How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline XenaLee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,398
  • Gender: Female
  • Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #101 on: March 05, 2019, 10:14:18 pm »
Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.

This Constitutional Right, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was so important that without its inclusion the Constitution would not have been ratified. The discussion is clear, from both the Federalists and the anti-federalists, that reserving the right of the people to be armed was paramount in importance, because it was the Right which secured all others from the ambitions of tyrants, from without or within the newly formed Federation.

There were specific mentions made of the purpose of the RKBA, and those were not the least bashful about the fact that in order to secure Life and Liberty, the Right was essential. Not for the Army, but The People, and that is included in the Amendment. "The Right of The People...."
How absolute was the RKBA? Absolute. "...Shall not be infringed." Period. NO tinkering allowed.

Any law which prohibits the ownership of any firearm to any American who has not had their Rights removed pursuant to the Due Process Conviction for a serious crime is unConstitutional.

Lest we forget, the Founders were radicals. They were the educated and mature upstarts who wrested the New World Colonies from the most powerful Monarchy and Military of their day to form their own Federation of States with a form of government unheard of in their time, guaranteeing that all citizens had equal rights, protected from Government by an armed populace.

By contrast...

NOWHERE in the Constitution is it written that a woman has the Right to kill her offspring, before or after birth.

I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in the writings of the Founders where there was discussion about taking those lives, except to say that the right to Life was the first of those unalienable Rights granted, not by Government, but our Creator. The word "unalienable" was not a misprint, nor an error, but a deliberate statement about the nature of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness....

Unalienable: that which exists, cannot be taken nor transferred, bought nor sold, beyond the authority of any government. An UNalienable Right to Life....listed in the preeminent position of the first and foremost Right, not granted (as no rights are) by some Government, but inherent to every human, and beyond the authority of government or anyone to give, grant, sell, barter, or remove.

That discussion of a "right to abortion" was neither in the Federalist nor anti-Federalist papers, nor it it to be found in the words of the document, nor in any discussion of the forming Republic.

The so called "right to abortion" was a fabrication of the court, nearly two hundred years removed from the Founding of this Republic, for the convenience of the powerful, at the expense of the innocent. Talk about Patriarchy: it removed the responsibility for embarassing offspring from the man who only had to pay to have them conveniently destroyed. It removed the responsibility of motherhood (with any and all stigma which might apply in the 1960s for children born out of wedlock, or who were another inconvenient offshoot of someone's family tree, inconvenient outside of marriage, embarrassing outside of one's social station, and giving someone possibly undesirable a claim, however tenuous, to well entrenched family fortunes.).
It was written to cover the infidelities and inconvenient and undeniable truths that were the result of the misdeeds of the wealthy and powerful, previously concealed by sending the woman, complete with the baby bump, off on some journey, to have the child, and give it up for adoption if she couldn't find a husband in time---all subsidized by the powerful and wealthy to retain 'their good name'--all situations arising from behaviour outside the acceptable social mores of the day, preserving the reputations of those who could afford the cost of preserving their public reputation.

It speaks ill of a culture so driven by its glands that it cannot use a variety of means to prevent there from being any issue over a baby never conceived, that it would murder the most helpless and innocent because it was too inconvenient to prevent their conception in the first place, but follows that out of convenience that culture would murder its own offspring in the pursuit of a lack of responsibility.

The so-called right to "choice" could have been and should have been exercised before the creation of another life. That right exists, to say yes or no to the very act which creates life.

But once that Life, that Right to live is created, No One has the Right to take it, except in very narrow circumstances of that person committing heinous crimes, and then only with the full and careful deliberation over the evidence of that crime leading to that verdict. None, then nor now, can make any case that an infant, before or just after birth is a criminal, therefore that right to Life applies. For those who would deny that Right, there is a Court of Final Jurisdiction, A Judge over all Judges, whose verdict will prevail.

Sixty Million slaughtered since Roe?, and you argue that this is a Right?


Hell yeah!!!     :patriot: 888high58888

Quote
Lest we forget, the Founders were radicals. They were the educated and mature upstarts who wrested the New World Colonies from the most powerful Monarchy and Military of their day to form their own Federation of States with a form of government unheard of in their time, guaranteeing that all citizens had equal rights, protected from Government by an armed populace.
No quarter given to the enemy within...ever.

You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out of it.

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,800
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #102 on: March 05, 2019, 10:15:07 pm »
Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.

This Constitutional Right, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was so important that without its inclusion the Constitution would not have been ratified. The discussion is clear, from both the Federalists and the anti-federalists, that reserving the right of the people to be armed was paramount in importance, because it was the Right which secured all others from the ambitions of tyrants, from without or within the newly formed Federation.

There were specific mentions made of the purpose of the RKBA, and those were not the least bashful about the fact that in order to secure Life and Liberty, the Right was essential. Not for the Army, but The People, and that is included in the Amendment. "The Right of The People...."
How absolute was the RKBA? Absolute. "...Shall not be infringed." Period. NO tinkering allowed.

Any law which prohibits the ownership of any firearm to any American who has not had their Rights removed pursuant to the Due Process Conviction for a serious crime is unConstitutional.

Lest we forget, the Founders were radicals. They were the educated and mature upstarts who wrested the New World Colonies from the most powerful Monarchy and Military of their day to form their own Federation of States with a form of government unheard of in their time, guaranteeing that all citizens had equal rights, protected from Government by an armed populace.

By contrast...

NOWHERE in the Constitution is it written that a woman has the Right to kill her offspring, before or after birth.

I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in the writings of the Founders where there was discussion about taking those lives, except to say that the right to Life was the first of those unalienable Rights granted, not by Government, but our Creator. The word "unalienable" was not a misprint, nor an error, but a deliberate statement about the nature of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness....

Unalienable: that which exists, cannot be taken nor transferred, bought nor sold, beyond the authority of any government. An UNalienable Right to Life....listed in the preeminent position of the first and foremost Right, not granted (as no rights are) by some Government, but inherent to every human, and beyond the authority of government or anyone to give, grant, sell, barter, or remove.

That discussion of a "right to abortion" was neither in the Federalist nor anti-Federalist papers, nor it it to be found in the words of the document, nor in any discussion of the forming Republic.

The so called "right to abortion" was a fabrication of the court, nearly two hundred years removed from the Founding of this Republic, for the convenience of the powerful, at the expense of the innocent. Talk about Patriarchy: it removed the responsibility for embarassing offspring from the man who only had to pay to have them conveniently destroyed. It removed the responsibility of motherhood (with any and all stigma which might apply in the 1960s for children born out of wedlock, or who were another inconvenient offshoot of someone's family tree, inconvenient outside of marriage, embarrassing outside of one's social station, and giving someone possibly undesirable a claim, however tenuous, to well entrenched family fortunes.).
It was written to cover the infidelities and inconvenient and undeniable truths that were the result of the misdeeds of the wealthy and powerful, previously concealed by sending the woman, complete with the baby bump, off on some journey, to have the child, and give it up for adoption if she couldn't find a husband in time---all subsidized by the powerful and wealthy to retain 'their good name'--all situations arising from behaviour outside the acceptable social mores of the day, preserving the reputations of those who could afford the cost of preserving their public reputation.

It speaks ill of a culture so driven by its glands that it cannot use a variety of means to prevent there from being any issue over a baby never conceived, that it would murder the most helpless and innocent because it was too inconvenient to prevent their conception in the first place, but follows that out of convenience that culture would murder its own offspring in the pursuit of a lack of responsibility.

The so-called right to "choice" could have been and should have been exercised before the creation of another life. That right exists, to say yes or no to the very act which creates life.

But once that Life, that Right to live is created, No One has the Right to take it, except in very narrow circumstances of that person committing heinous crimes, and then only with the full and careful deliberation over the evidence of that crime leading to that verdict. None, then nor now, can make any case that an infant, before or just after birth is a criminal, therefore that right to Life applies. For those who would deny that Right, there is a Court of Final Jurisdiction, A Judge over all Judges, whose verdict will prevail.

Sixty Million slaughtered since Roe?, and you argue that this is a Right?


That is one amazing post, @Smokin Joe    :beer:

« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 01:06:37 am by DCPatriot »
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,308
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #103 on: March 05, 2019, 10:16:43 pm »
Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.

YUP.
GREAT post.
 :beer:

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #104 on: March 05, 2019, 10:17:55 pm »
So, with which sophistries have clever lawyers explained that the 2nd is not incorporated upon the Citizens and States through the 14th?

The "Predicate Clause."  Though I disagree with it, @Jazzhead can explain it better than I.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 01:03:19 am by Cyber Liberty »
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,402
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #105 on: March 05, 2019, 10:24:37 pm »
Unlike some here,  I don't believe that some Constitutional rights are more equal than others.   (Note that I am not suggesting that the 2A is less equal than others because of the predicate clause, although liberals typically take that position.)     

Whether a Constitutional right is established by the text of the document or by operation of the Supreme Court's authority to interpret and construe the document,  it remains subject to reasonable regulation that does not infringe on the core right.    The State may regulate neither guns nor abortion out of existence.     But, as I said, if the State can require abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges, it can require private firearms transactions to take place through the medium of a licensed gun dealer.   I'd like to see less hypocrisy of the "rights for me but not for thee" variety.
You are saying you believe the Rights in the Constitution are the same as the decision of a judge.

That either diminishes the text of the Constitution by placing it on an equal plane with the rulings of some jurist who is subject to corrupting influence and error, or you are saying their rulings are equal to the written words, ratified by the States and accepted thereby. You either debase the one or exalt the other.

If there is no mention of something in the Constitution, but only at the hand of a jurist, I must question the practice of calling it a Constitutional Right. There is no mention of a right to slaughter babies, nor any phrase within the document which can, by extension, be made to support the ruling that such a right exists. The ruling is unConstitutional, in itself.
Just as Robert's rewriting a law which had been clearly defined by its proponents to call a "penalty" a "tax", and then ruling a revenue measure originating in the Senate to be Constitutional (One in violation of the Separation of Powers, the other patently contrary to the requirement that revenue measures originate in the House of Representatives), the ruling is in violation (TWICE!) of the very document the Court is sworn to uphold. No SCOTUS ruling has ever been ratified by the States, unlike the written word of the Constitution. You are placing the writings of FIVE justices above the writings of the Founders and the entire ratification process, in effect giving them the power to make law of whole cloth without recourse.

To go at it from a little bit different angle, what part of the Constitution would have to be amended to remove the Right to Abortion?  There is none. It isn't there.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,402
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #106 on: March 05, 2019, 10:28:50 pm »
The "Predicate Clause."  Though I disagree with it, @Jazzhead can e plIn it better than I.
That's nonsense. Only by trying to twist the meaning of the Predicate clause could anyone ignore the clear language of "...the Right of the People, to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Don't let them leave that phrase out, ever!
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline To-Whose-Benefit?

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,613
  • Gender: Male
    • Wulf Anson Author
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #107 on: March 05, 2019, 10:29:29 pm »
The "Predicate Clause."  Though I disagree with it, @Jazzhead can e plIn it better than I.

Hah!

Predicate only states the security/existence of a Free State cannot be insured, Without a well regulated Militia, and if you Don't Have a State, Free or Not, the remainder of the 2A is moot.

The remainder of it, Sec 1, cements the Supremacy of the Federal Constitution over the rights of Individual States.


I swear, these people all must have got their degrees at BJ Clinton Law School where Every word becomes a matter of what the word IS means.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 10:35:03 pm by To-Whose-Benefit? »
My 'Viking Hunter' High Adventure Alternate History Series is FREE, ALL 3 volumes, at most ebook retailers including Ibooks, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, and more.

In Vol 2 the weapons come out in a winner take all war on two fronts.

Vol 3 opens with the rigged murder trial of the villain in a Viking Court under Viking law to set the stage for the hero's own murder trial.

http://wulfanson.blogspot.com

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #108 on: March 05, 2019, 10:38:05 pm »
Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.

This Constitutional Right, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was so important that without its inclusion the Constitution would not have been ratified. The discussion is clear, from both the Federalists and the anti-federalists, that reserving the right of the people to be armed was paramount in importance, because it was the Right which secured all others from the ambitions of tyrants, from without or within the newly formed Federation.

There were specific mentions made of the purpose of the RKBA, and those were not the least bashful about the fact that in order to secure Life and Liberty, the Right was essential. Not for the Army, but The People, and that is included in the Amendment. "The Right of The People...."
How absolute was the RKBA? Absolute. "...Shall not be infringed." Period. NO tinkering allowed.

Any law which prohibits the ownership of any firearm to any American who has not had their Rights removed pursuant to the Due Process Conviction for a serious crime is unConstitutional.

Lest we forget, the Founders were radicals. They were the educated and mature upstarts who wrested the New World Colonies from the most powerful Monarchy and Military of their day to form their own Federation of States with a form of government unheard of in their time, guaranteeing that all citizens had equal rights, protected from Government by an armed populace.

By contrast...

NOWHERE in the Constitution is it written that a woman has the Right to kill her offspring, before or after birth.

I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in the writings of the Founders where there was discussion about taking those lives, except to say that the right to Life was the first of those unalienable Rights granted, not by Government, but our Creator. The word "unalienable" was not a misprint, nor an error, but a deliberate statement about the nature of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness....

Unalienable: that which exists, cannot be taken nor transferred, bought nor sold, beyond the authority of any government. An UNalienable Right to Life....listed in the preeminent position of the first and foremost Right, not granted (as no rights are) by some Government, but inherent to every human, and beyond the authority of government or anyone to give, grant, sell, barter, or remove.

That discussion of a "right to abortion" was neither in the Federalist nor anti-Federalist papers, nor it it to be found in the words of the document, nor in any discussion of the forming Republic.

The so called "right to abortion" was a fabrication of the court, nearly two hundred years removed from the Founding of this Republic, for the convenience of the powerful, at the expense of the innocent. Talk about Patriarchy: it removed the responsibility for embarassing offspring from the man who only had to pay to have them conveniently destroyed. It removed the responsibility of motherhood (with any and all stigma which might apply in the 1960s for children born out of wedlock, or who were another inconvenient offshoot of someone's family tree, inconvenient outside of marriage, embarrassing outside of one's social station, and giving someone possibly undesirable a claim, however tenuous, to well entrenched family fortunes.).
It was written to cover the infidelities and inconvenient and undeniable truths that were the result of the misdeeds of the wealthy and powerful, previously concealed by sending the woman, complete with the baby bump, off on some journey, to have the child, and give it up for adoption if she couldn't find a husband in time---all subsidized by the powerful and wealthy to retain 'their good name'--all situations arising from behaviour outside the acceptable social mores of the day, preserving the reputations of those who could afford the cost of preserving their public reputation.

It speaks ill of a culture so driven by its glands that it cannot use a variety of means to prevent there from being any issue over a baby never conceived, that it would murder the most helpless and innocent because it was too inconvenient to prevent their conception in the first place, but follows that out of convenience that culture would murder its own offspring in the pursuit of a lack of responsibility.

The so-called right to "choice" could have been and should have been exercised before the creation of another life. That right exists, to say yes or no to the very act which creates life.

But once that Life, that Right to live is created, No One has the Right to take it, except in very narrow circumstances of that person committing heinous crimes, and then only with the full and careful deliberation over the evidence of that crime leading to that verdict. None, then nor now, can make any case that an infant, before or just after birth is a criminal, therefore that right to Life applies. For those who would deny that Right, there is a Court of Final Jurisdiction, A Judge over all Judges, whose verdict will prevail.

Sixty Million slaughtered since Roe?, and you argue that this is a Right?

Effin A. Fantastic post.

Online Lando Lincoln

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,477
  • Gender: Male
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #109 on: March 05, 2019, 10:55:37 pm »
Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.


@Smokin Joe

Not sure what led me to this, but I am humbled. 
There are some among us who live in rooms of experience we can never enter.
John Steinbeck

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #110 on: March 05, 2019, 11:33:42 pm »
So, with which sophistries have clever lawyers explained that the 2nd is not incorporated upon the Citizens and States through the 14th?

The "Predicate Clause."  Though I disagree with it, @Jazzhead can e plIn it better than I.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #111 on: March 06, 2019, 12:51:44 am »
The question I have is why did the Dems do this when they held the House, the Senate and the Executive?

There is more here than meets the eye.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #112 on: March 06, 2019, 12:58:40 am »
The question I have is why did the Dems do this when they held the House, the Senate and the Executive?

There is more here than meets the eye.

Same reason the GOP blew off doing the wall while they were in charge.  They don't want a solution, they want the issue.  It's always about the issue and a solution would upset their lucrative apple cart.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #113 on: March 06, 2019, 01:05:08 am »
@Smokin Joe

Not sure what led me to this, but I am humbled.

@Smokin Joe  is very good.  I am humbled too.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #114 on: March 06, 2019, 01:13:03 am »
You are saying you believe the Rights in the Constitution are the same as the decision of a judge.

That either diminishes the text of the Constitution by placing it on an equal plane with the rulings of some jurist who is subject to corrupting influence and error, or you are saying their rulings are equal to the written words, ratified by the States and accepted thereby. You either debase the one or exalt the other.

If there is no mention of something in the Constitution, but only at the hand of a jurist, I must question the practice of calling it a Constitutional Right. There is no mention of a right to slaughter babies, nor any phrase within the document which can, by extension, be made to support the ruling that such a right exists. The ruling is unConstitutional, in itself.
Just as Robert's rewriting a law which had been clearly defined by its proponents to call a "penalty" a "tax", and then ruling a revenue measure originating in the Senate to be Constitutional (One in violation of the Separation of Powers, the other patently contrary to the requirement that revenue measures originate in the House of Representatives), the ruling is in violation (TWICE!) of the very document the Court is sworn to uphold. No SCOTUS ruling has ever been ratified by the States, unlike the written word of the Constitution. You are placing the writings of FIVE justices above the writings of the Founders and the entire ratification process, in effect giving them the power to make law of whole cloth without recourse.

To go at it from a little bit different angle, what part of the Constitution would have to be amended to remove the Right to Abortion?  There is none. It isn't there.

There is no mention of telephones, telephone wires, or the internet in the Constitution, and yet somehow, the 4th Amendment was reamed out to cover them.  Was that an illegitimate expansion of penumbras and rights not expressly found in the Constitution as well?

By the argument presented above, the answer has to be yes.  That, or the argument is invalid.

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #115 on: March 06, 2019, 01:14:38 am »
Same reason the GOP blew off doing the wall while they were in charge.  They don't want a solution, they want the issue.  It's always about the issue and a solution would upset their lucrative apple cart.

Most likely. 

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #116 on: March 06, 2019, 01:23:21 am »
Most likely.

You and I are in alignment on this.   888high58888
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #117 on: March 06, 2019, 01:29:20 am »
You and I are in alignment on this.   888high58888

Yes

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 79,322
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #118 on: March 06, 2019, 01:38:01 am »
Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.

This Constitutional Right, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was so important that without its inclusion the Constitution would not have been ratified. The discussion is clear, from both the Federalists and the anti-federalists, that reserving the right of the people to be armed was paramount in importance, because it was the Right which secured all others from the ambitions of tyrants, from without or within the newly formed Federation.

There were specific mentions made of the purpose of the RKBA, and those were not the least bashful about the fact that in order to secure Life and Liberty, the Right was essential. Not for the Army, but The People, and that is included in the Amendment. "The Right of The People...."
How absolute was the RKBA? Absolute. "...Shall not be infringed." Period. NO tinkering allowed.

Any law which prohibits the ownership of any firearm to any American who has not had their Rights removed pursuant to the Due Process Conviction for a serious crime is unConstitutional.

Lest we forget, the Founders were radicals. They were the educated and mature upstarts who wrested the New World Colonies from the most powerful Monarchy and Military of their day to form their own Federation of States with a form of government unheard of in their time, guaranteeing that all citizens had equal rights, protected from Government by an armed populace.

By contrast...

NOWHERE in the Constitution is it written that a woman has the Right to kill her offspring, before or after birth.

I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in the writings of the Founders where there was discussion about taking those lives, except to say that the right to Life was the first of those unalienable Rights granted, not by Government, but our Creator. The word "unalienable" was not a misprint, nor an error, but a deliberate statement about the nature of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness....

Unalienable: that which exists, cannot be taken nor transferred, bought nor sold, beyond the authority of any government. An UNalienable Right to Life....listed in the preeminent position of the first and foremost Right, not granted (as no rights are) by some Government, but inherent to every human, and beyond the authority of government or anyone to give, grant, sell, barter, or remove.

That discussion of a "right to abortion" was neither in the Federalist nor anti-Federalist papers, nor it it to be found in the words of the document, nor in any discussion of the forming Republic.

The so called "right to abortion" was a fabrication of the court, nearly two hundred years removed from the Founding of this Republic, for the convenience of the powerful, at the expense of the innocent. Talk about Patriarchy: it removed the responsibility for embarassing offspring from the man who only had to pay to have them conveniently destroyed. It removed the responsibility of motherhood (with any and all stigma which might apply in the 1960s for children born out of wedlock, or who were another inconvenient offshoot of someone's family tree, inconvenient outside of marriage, embarrassing outside of one's social station, and giving someone possibly undesirable a claim, however tenuous, to well entrenched family fortunes.).

It was written to cover the infidelities and inconvenient and undeniable truths that were the result of the misdeeds of the wealthy and powerful, previously concealed by sending the woman, complete with the baby bump, off on some journey, to have the child, and give it up for adoption if she couldn't find a husband in time---all subsidized by the powerful and wealthy to retain 'their good name'--all situations arising from behaviour outside the acceptable social mores of the day, preserving the reputations of those who could afford the cost of preserving their public reputation.

It speaks ill of a culture so driven by its glands that it cannot use a variety of means to prevent there from being any issue over a baby never conceived, that it would murder the most helpless and innocent because it was too inconvenient to prevent their conception in the first place, but follows that out of convenience that culture would murder its own offspring in the pursuit of a lack of responsibility.

The so-called right to "choice" could have been and should have been exercised before the creation of another life. That right exists, to say yes or no to the very act which creates life.

But once that Life, that Right to live is created, No One has the Right to take it, except in very narrow circumstances of that person committing heinous crimes, and then only with the full and careful deliberation over the evidence of that crime leading to that verdict. None, then nor now, can make any case that an infant, before or just after birth is a criminal, therefore that right to Life applies. For those who would deny that Right, there is a Court of Final Jurisdiction, A Judge over all Judges, whose verdict will prevail.

Sixty Million slaughtered since Roe?, and you argue that this is a Right?


Let me join the chorus saluting your excellent post @Smokin Joe   This should be published ...

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #119 on: March 06, 2019, 02:33:44 am »
Nice rhetoric, @Smokin Joe , but unpersuasive. Fact is, the plain language of the Second Amendment doesn't provide for an individual right.  That was only secured by a 5 - 4 SCOTUS majority,  same as what established a woman's right to reproductive choice.

In both cases, too, that individual right is at the mercy of a future Court majority.   Which is why I place such value on the principle of stare decisive.

« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 02:35:16 am by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,402
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #120 on: March 06, 2019, 06:40:50 am »
There is no mention of telephones, telephone wires, or the internet in the Constitution, and yet somehow, the 4th Amendment was reamed out to cover them.  Was that an illegitimate expansion of penumbras and rights not expressly found in the Constitution as well?

By the argument presented above, the answer has to be yes.  That, or the argument is invalid.
Then you misunderstand. The extension of the 4th to cover alternate means of communication is just the extension of a right which existed, enumerated, to be secure in your records and communications. That the technology changed does not change the nature of the material contained therein.

 to wit:

Quote
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The underlined phrase would logically include communications (in the days of the founders, letters, included under "papers"), as well as business or personal records.

Had a person carved their communications on planks or shells, or painted them on animal skins, and kept them, the government would have had no right to search them either without a warrant, even though they were not on paper.

By logical extension, the means and devices which replaced parchment or paper for communications and keeping records would be included, including voice communications which had an expectation of being between two people in private (the recording of which must be consensual, and have a periodic sound which indicates that recording was being made), computer files, e-mail, and any other communication conducted between two people not in a public place or an open forum.

The 4th wasn't reamed out, the right was (by judicial ruling) extended to cover those more modern devices and communications, extending the protections of that Amemdment to cover more modern means of communication.

By contrast, nowhere in the Constitution is there a Right to kill a baby at any age, nor the unborn. There is nothing, no Right, to extend. The SCOTUS created the "right" out of thin air.

If anything, the 5th Amendment would preclude the slaughter of innocents:

 
Quote
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

and the 14th Amendment (Section 1):

Quote
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws .

Nothing that says you can kill unborn babies, or even freshly born ones, but plenty to the contrary.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,402
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #121 on: March 06, 2019, 06:57:37 am »
Nice rhetoric, @Smokin Joe , but unpersuasive. Fact is, the plain language of the Second Amendment doesn't provide for an individual right.  That was only secured by a 5 - 4 SCOTUS majority,  same as what established a woman's right to reproductive choice.

In both cases, too, that individual right is at the mercy of a future Court majority.   Which is why I place such value on the principle of stare decisive.
Words have meaning...
Quote
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What other Rights of The People aren't for The People? Or are you the one ignoring plain text to support an unsupportable position?

Do those "People" not count for the 1st, 4th, 5th, and other Amendments, or are you picking and choosing? Because if the people aren't just that, The People, no one has any rights. There is no reason that the phrase would have been included in the Second Amendment if it did not mean exactly what it says: The Right of The People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.  After all, the Militia is to be regulated (kept from taking over) by the mass of the People, armed, and that was the specific reasoning behind not only the 2nd, but in deciding whether or not to have a standing professional Federal Army.  The threat of a Military takeover was more than balanced by the People, armed, who would resist such.

From Federalist 46:
Quote
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

It isn't about duck hunting, nor even defense against brigands, the 2nd Amendment exists to keep the Government in check; the selfsame government which proposes further infringements to add to the ones already unConstitutionally in existence.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #122 on: March 06, 2019, 01:16:55 pm »
You are saying you believe the Rights in the Constitution are the same as the decision of a judge.

That either diminishes the text of the Constitution by placing it on an equal plane with the rulings of some jurist who is subject to corrupting influence and error, or you are saying their rulings are equal to the written words, ratified by the States and accepted thereby. You either debase the one or exalt the other.

If there is no mention of something in the Constitution, but only at the hand of a jurist, I must question the practice of calling it a Constitutional Right. There is no mention of a right to slaughter babies, nor any phrase within the document which can, by extension, be made to support the ruling that such a right exists. The ruling is unConstitutional, in itself.
Just as Robert's rewriting a law which had been clearly defined by its proponents to call a "penalty" a "tax", and then ruling a revenue measure originating in the Senate to be Constitutional (One in violation of the Separation of Powers, the other patently contrary to the requirement that revenue measures originate in the House of Representatives), the ruling is in violation (TWICE!) of the very document the Court is sworn to uphold. No SCOTUS ruling has ever been ratified by the States, unlike the written word of the Constitution. You are placing the writings of FIVE justices above the writings of the Founders and the entire ratification process, in effect giving them the power to make law of whole cloth without recourse.

To go at it from a little bit different angle, what part of the Constitution would have to be amended to remove the Right to Abortion?  There is none. It isn't there.
Fealty to unelected robed individuals is what this country rejected when we went against King George and created those marvelous documents of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Some here believe the fealty is warranted, but true Americans know otherwise.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #123 on: March 06, 2019, 04:09:43 pm »
Fealty to unelected robed individuals is what this country rejected when we went against King George and created those marvelous documents of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Some here believe the fealty is warranted, but true Americans know otherwise.

The Constitution's plain language does not provide for an individual RKBA.    That right that you and your fellow "true Americans" enjoy is the result of a decision by "unelected judges", exercising their enumerated powers under the Constitution.       
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #124 on: March 06, 2019, 06:26:40 pm »
The Constitution's plain language does not provide for an individual RKBA.    That right that you and your fellow "true Americans" enjoy is the result of a decision by "unelected judges", exercising their enumerated powers under the Constitution.     
now you are just hallucinating if you believe some judges are giving me rights.

Nothing is further from the truth as they most certainly don't possess the power you bestow upon them.  Succinct Responses by @Smokin Joe have apparently gone over your head.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington