The House passed legislation mandating federal criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private transactions, in the most high-profile congressional vote on gun control in decades.
The House passed the bill on a 240-190 vote. It faces stiff opposition in the GOP-controlled Senate....
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/27/house-passes-bill-to-require-universal-background-checks-on-gun-sales-1193043 (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/27/house-passes-bill-to-require-universal-background-checks-on-gun-sales-1193043)
NRA-ILA
As proposed, H.R. 8 and S. 42 would forbid a person from transferring a firearm to another person unless facilitated through a licensed firearms dealer. Both parties to the transfer must appear jointly at a willing dealer, who must conduct a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and comply with all state and federal requirements as though he were selling or transferring a firearm out of his own inventory.
While proponents of the bills often refer to it as a background check on sales of firearms, the true effect of H.R. 8 or S. 42 would be criminalizing otherwise lawful conduct with firearms. The overbroad nature of the proposed legislation would criminalize many transfers that take place as part of hunting, recreational shooting, and even self-defense.
ABOUT H.R. 8/S. 42
On January 8, two bills were introduced in Congress to impose so-called "universal" background checks. The bills, H.R. 8 and S. 42, are being misleadingly described as simply requiring background checks on all sales of firearms, but this is just a small part of what these overbroad pieces of legislation would do.
Traps for Law-Abiding Gun Owners
Both bills would make it a crime, subject to certain exceptions, to simply hand a firearm to another person. Any time gun owners carry out this simple act, they would potentially be exposing themselves to criminal penalties. While the bills do create some exceptions, they are overly complicated and create many traps for unwary gun owners. Accidental violations of these complicated provisions are not excused under the proposed legislation.
This legislation is not about public safety. These bills attack law-abiding gun owners by placing further burdens on gun ownership and use. For the anti-gun groups and politicians intent on criminalizing the private transfer of firearms, this legislation is just another step in their effort to extinguish America’s vibrant and legitimate gun culture.
Probably won't pass the Senate.
But hey, you never know, with all the Republican turncoats as of late...
Of course criminals will face none of these restrictions.That's what makes me chuckle about all of this. Does anyone honestly believe that gangbangers and armed criminals on the street give a shit about any of this?
Only two of my guns have papers.
Papers? None of my guns have papers.
Now I understand paper patched bullets. I even have Paul Matthew's book "The Paper Jacket" I always wanted to shoot paper patched bullets in my 45-70.
Funny yu should say that, because my 45/70 is one of my papered guns. I bought it brand new, over the counter.
Papers? None of my guns have papers.You might want to read this one, too: https://shilohrifle.com/accessories/books/paper-patched-bullets-by-orville-c.-loomer/ (https://shilohrifle.com/accessories/books/paper-patched-bullets-by-orville-c.-loomer/)
Now I understand paper patched bullets. I even have Paul Matthew's book "The Paper Jacket" I always wanted to shoot paper patched bullets in my 45-70.
Laws regarding the legal transfer of firearms don't violate the Second Amendment unless the laws are so onerous as to be proxies for the banning or restriction of ownership or use of firearms.Perhaps you may have missed this amendment.
A ban on the ownership of certain classes of weapons (e.g., semi-autos) is Constitutionally problematic.
A ban on the ability to legally carry a firearm in the public square, let alone in the home, for personal protection, is Constitutionally problematic.
But a requirement that private sales be conducted through the medium of a licensed gun dealer that can conduct a background check for a modest fee strikes me as perfectly legal. Unless, of course, the state imposes so many restrictions on licensed gun dealers so that (as with some states and abortion clinics) there few if any licensed gun dealers are left open in the state.
I've made this point before - when it comes to reasonableness and Constitutionality, the left should view restrictions on guns with the same lens that the right views restrictions on abortion, and vice versa. Can abortion clinics be subject to such stringent regulation that most are effectively shut down? If you say yes, then ponder whether a state can regulate all legal gun dealers out of existence. Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Perhaps you may have missed this amendment.
Amendment IV
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.
I've made this point before - when it comes to reasonableness and Constitutionality, the left should view restrictions on guns with the same lens that the right views restrictions on abortion, and vice versa. Can abortion clinics be subject to such stringent regulation that most are effectively shut down? If you say yes, then ponder whether a state can regulate all legal gun dealers out of existence. Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I don't understand your point. How is a requirement that the sale of an item be effected in a prescribed way a violation of the law against unreasonable searches and seizures?And I am not the least bit surprised.
(By the way, I am agnostic regarding whether the Dems' proposed bill is good policy. All I'm saying is that it is likely Constitutional.)
And I am not the least bit surprised.
I can't sell my house, for example, without paying a transfer tax.
I can't sell my car without transferring the registration.
No, because an abortion ALWAYS ends in the death of the innocent.
The right to bear arms does not.
And you ideas are directly opposed to the 2nd amendment, which is there to guarantee the citizen the last right of redress against tyranny. ANYTHING government does to control that right infringes upon its very purpose.
So gun violence isn't a reality?
The 2A addresses the right to own a gun (for self-protection of one's person, home and property, which is a natural right of man). "Redress against tyranny" is bullshit in the context of our Constitutional republic, where our laws have their origin in the actions of our elected representatives, who can be removed from office by the People.
The only result of such legislation will be to make criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens.
Secondly to create advances in 3D printing.
No existing criminals will be impacted.
I don't understand your point. How is a requirement that the sale of an item be effected in a prescribed way a violation of the law against unreasonable searches and seizures?Anything which makes it a crime for me to hand a firearm to a friend at a gun range, loan one to a friend or relative for hunting or recreational shooting, or for me to sell my property to someone known to me to be of good character without the intervention of the government is a no-go.
(By the way, I am agnostic regarding whether the Dems' proposed bill is good policy. All I'm saying is that it is likely Constitutional.)
Papers? None of my guns have papers.
Now I understand paper patched bullets. I even have Paul Matthew's book "The Paper Jacket" I always wanted to shoot paper patched bullets in my 45-70.
So gun violence isn't a reality?
The 2A addresses the right to own a gun (for self-protection of one's person, home and property, which is a natural right of man). "Redress against tyranny" is bullshit in the context of our Constitutional republic, where our laws have their origin in the actions of our elected representatives, who can be removed from office by the People.The Second Amendment makes no mention of guns.
Reasonable restrictions on lawful transfers of property do not implicate the 2A.
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.
"Gun Violence" is no more a reality than hammer violence or rock violence.
All are inanimate objects.
My firearms, and I have been around firearms all my life, have yet to do anything I did not make them do.
They have never removed ammo from the box, loaded themselves, and discharged without my direct input. They stay where I put them, and harm no one.
There is no "Gun Violence".
The violence is all conducted by people regardless of the instrument they may choose, if any.
Force violent PEOPLE to use different tools and they will use something different.
Without the people, there would be no violence.
Maybe you can ban violent people. (IIRC you have argued against that permanent ban, even on an individual and adjudicated basis.)
You said:The Second Amendment makes no mention of guns.
The word is "arms" and includes anything which can be used in that sense, commonly including edged weapons, pointy things, long pointy things, pointy things you make go a long ways, things that go 'thunk' if vigorously applied to another object, and a host of other items including just about anything that can be used to injure an enemy. Firearms fit in there somewhere.
Without playing word games, in the parlance of the day, "Regulated" means "controlled" (as it does today), and "Militia" was defined as "The Army, in its entirety".
That predicate clause would not exist were it not for the perceived need to keep the Army from taking over, (which Tyranny had just been ended in the former Colonies which had been military governorships), and yet an army was needed to secure the borders and fend off attackers.
That means of control over that necessary army was spelled out in the Federalist, and would be provided by the overwhelming numbers of the armed citizenry, who, even in the absence of martial training, would prevail in a contest with the standing army by sheer force of numbers, if the need arose to prevent the overthrow of the civil government and imposition of tyranny.
So, yes, the primary purpose of the RKBA was a bulwark against tyranny.
I would argue Militia did not mean army. It meant every able citizen.
I would argue Militia did not mean army. It meant every able citizen.My Barclay's Dictionary (London, ca, 1820) would argue with you. That is the source of the definition.
My Barclay's Dictionary (London, ca, 1820) would argue with you. That is the source of the definition.
Let's use definitions in common use at the time of the writing of the Amendment.
That, in America we had redefined the 'army' as every able bodied man capable of bearing arms, the English definition of Militia was "The Army, in its entirety."-- In this case, the professional or standing army.
Well, why don't you try to enlighten me? There are rules about legal transfers of lots of stuff. I can't sell my house, for example, without paying a transfer tax. I can't sell my car without transferring the registration. Are you saying these rules are unconstitutional? More to the point, how is requiring the transfer of a gun by done by means of a licensed dealer that can perform a background check unconstitutional as an unreasonable search and seizure?
Attack the Dems' bill on policy grounds, but don't make yourself look foolish by claiming its unconstitutionality. It's not.
So gun violence isn't a reality?
The 2A addresses the right to own a gun (for self-protection of one's person, home and property, which is a natural right of man). "Redress against tyranny" is bullshit in the context of our Constitutional republic, where our laws have their origin in the actions of our elected representatives, who can be removed from office by the People.
Reasonable restrictions on lawful transfers of property do not implicate the 2A.
@Jazzhead 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.@Xena Lee @thackney @Smokin Joe No need to debate, the US code makes it very clear.
Glad you brought this up:
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
Like it or not you are now or were at one time a member of the militia.
No, I disagree. At the time of the founding fathers, militia was in place of a federal standing army.
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm (http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm)
...Here is a typical Anti-federalist view, expressed by Richard Henry Lee (writing under the pseudonym "The Federal Farmer"):
"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permament interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…."...
No, I disagree. At the time of the founding fathers, militia was in place of a federal standing army.
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm (http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm)
...Here is a typical Anti-federalist view, expressed by Richard Henry Lee (writing under the pseudonym "The Federal Farmer"):
"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permament interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…."...
Or, in the parlance of the day as I understand it, "well regulated".Regulation is now and was then, "controlled". Training and discipline does factor into that, but regulations and regulators are for the control of whatever they regulate.
Of course criminals will face none of these restrictions.
Another feel good useless action by people that have no clue about what the heck they are doing. I really wish stupid burned.
There are rules about legal transfers of lots of stuff.
How soon till the democrats demand access to all ATF Form 4473s?
But, but, but, It's just common sense legislation, how could it go wrong. It would NEVER interfere with the right of law abiding citizens.
Shall not be infringed. any and I mean ANY D@MN thing that prevents law abiding citizens from obtaining, or in any way restricts their purchase, ownership, or use of, is an infringement.
But, but, but, It's just common sense legislation, how could it go wrong. It would NEVER interfere with the right of law abiding citizens.
Shall not be infringed. any and I mean ANY D@MN thing that prevents law abiding citizens from obtaining, or in any way restricts their purchase, ownership, or use of, is an infringement.
That's one radical take on this particular Constitutional right. I doubt you'd have a similar view of the Constitutional right to abortion.
Exactly where in the Constitution does it say the right to an abortion shall not be infringed?
Maybe you should take that up with Scalia, who clearly saw no necessary conflict between the prohibition on infringement and a reasonable regulation of firearms.
As Scalia put it in his opinion in D.C. v. Heller, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.â€
Scalia was, I believe, an originalist, so unless he was paid off by the liberal cabal, then it is not as unlimited as all that.
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.
The only result of such legislation will be to make criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens.:amen:
Secondly to create advances in 3D printing.
No existing criminals will be impacted.
I believe the specific language of the constitution and amendments was chose for a reason, not arbitrarily.
I don't equate a right they found through interpretation having the same strength and clarity of one specifically spelled out.
I believe the specific language of the constitution and amendments was chose for a reason, not arbitrarily.
I don't equate a right they found through interpretation having the same strength and clarity of one specifically spelled out.
That's why we have clever lawyers: To distort the plain words of the Constitution until they get interpreted the way they want. The Rats and their fellow travelers have been at this for over a century.
Example: "But but but...the 'Predicate clause' in the Second Amendment allows the States to erase the right to keep and bear arms because they don't have a Militia!!"
Another example: "But but but...the First Amendment creates a wall between the State and religion!"
"But but but...the 14th Amendment demands birthright citizenship!"
That's how plain meaning becomes something else by clever lawyering.
That's why we have clever lawyers: To distort the plain words of the Constitution until they get interpreted the way they want. The Rats and their fellow travelers have been at this for over a century.
Example: "But but but...the 'Predicate clause' in the Second Amendment allows the States to erase the right to keep and bear arms because they don't have a Militia!!"
Another example: "But but but...the First Amendment creates a wall between the State and religion!"
"But but but...the 14th Amendment demands birthright citizenship!"
That's how plain meaning becomes something else by clever lawyering.
Except that the "plain meaning" of the Constitution suggests the interpretations you're rejecting. It took over 200 years and a SCOTUS opinion, for example, for an individual right to KBA to be recognized as a Constitutional right. The 14th amendment says plainly that those born here are citizens. And the First amendment's "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" has always suggested to me, as a literal matter, Jefferson's wall of separation. Indeed, it is the "clever lawyers" who have urged the expansion or clarification of these "enumerated" rights to reach the conclusions you favor.
Keep in mind that, without “clever lawyers†the Bill of Rights would almost certainly not have been incorporated and applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, with the result that the states would be free to outright ban ownership of firearms, including 22 caliber plinkers.
So, be careful whom one belittles. They may have helped more than one imagines.
In the words of Ronald Reagan: "There you go again."
Clever lawyers have informed me the 14th amendment does not apply to states regulating guns. Scroll a couple of posts up.
In McDonald v. Chicago the court applied the second to the states via the 14th Amendment.
Yes, but I've also been told here that unless Congress codifies Heller and McDonald, it isn't a right and a leftist court can erase it as easily as they created it. :shrug:
"Rights are not inherent in the plain language of the Constitution, nor granted by some magical sky spirit. They must be granted by a benevolent government."
I don't believe this claptrap, but it seems to be the prevalent understanding of "rights" in the 21st Century. Health and child care are rights. To not have to hear arguments that challenge one's beliefs are another right. Silly things written into the Constitution are subject to interpretation.
It’s unlikely at this point that it would get summarily reversed, for the same reason that Roe v. Wade won’t get reversed, but that is the problem with that prefatory language.
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.
Precisely.
A "right" is not a right if 18th Century language can be interpreted with evolving 21st Century English to mean the opposite of what it says.
"Elastic Clause."
Yes, but I've also been told here that unless Congress codifies Heller and McDonald, it isn't a right and a leftist court can erase it as easily as they created it. :shrug:
"Rights are not inherent in the plain language of the Constitution, nor granted by some magical sky spirit. They must be granted by a benevolent government."
I don't believe this claptrap, but it seems to be the prevalent understanding of "rights" in the 21st Century. Health and child care are rights. To not have to hear arguments that challenge one's beliefs are another right. Silly things written into the Constitution are subject to interpretation.
Secondly to create advances in 3D printing.
Can you 3D print bullets?THE BEST METAL 3D PRINTERS IN 2018
You might be right except for one thing: Abortion is not a right. Abortion is the murder of innocents, and is in no wise to be found in the Constitution, by any means. It stands directly against the first enumerated right - The Right to Life. It stands outside of the only means of sanctioning death that the government is Constitutionally allowed.
In that your argument is not only moribund and banal, but so easily dismissed as to not even require a moment of thought.
MEH.
Rights come from our nature as sentient beings, or from the God that created us. Anyone who insists otherwise is trying to take one or more of them from you. The legitimacy of laws and of the government that is empowered to enforce them comes only from the people at whose pleasure the government serves, or else has no true moral or legal authority. Freedom is lost when citizens abdicate their personal responsibility, and instead allow fear, prejudice and envy to guide them.
Can you 3D print bullets?
Disagree. It’s rather well spelled out in Roe itself.
Disagree. It’s rather well spelled out in Roe itself.
With or without casings, primers, and propellant?
I would presume not. You described a "cartridge," not a "bullet."
Roe is wrong.
Perfect illustration of what I've been going on about: Plain Language takes a back seat to interpretation.
Roe is wrong.
If you say so .......
Roe is correct.
Clarification never hurts, does it? The terms get used interchangeably sometimes.
The ruling is correct because of the ruling. Circular reasoning at its finest.
Close second.
Circular reasoning at its finest would be the SCOTUS has the authority to rule on what's constitutional because SCOTUS ruled that it did.
But it's the interpretation of the Constitution that carries the day, not the actual Constitution, as we are constantly reminded. A ruling that incorporates Penumbras and Emanations trumps what us silly mortals think is the law.
If you say so ......
Roe is correct.
But it's the interpretation of the Constitution that carries the day, not the actual Constitution, as we are constantly reminded. A ruling that incorporates Penumbras and Emanations trumps what us silly mortals think is the law.
The ruling is correct because of the ruling. Circular reasoning at its finest.
There is also the principal of stare decisis - an inherently conservative concept. Every woman of child-bearing age has always lived under a Constitution guaranteeing her the right to reproductive choice. Sorry, but it would be judicial activism of the worst sort to deny that essential liberty at this late date.
There is also the principal of stare decisis - an inherently conservative concept. Every woman of child-bearing age has always lived under a Constitution guaranteeing her the right to reproductive choice. Sorry, but it would be judicial activism of the worst sort to deny that essential liberty at this late date.
What a horrid stain on justice that is.
Sure. Her choice happened when her knees came apart.
Why are you so afraid that a woman have the same liberty of self-determination as a man?
Spoken as only a man can.
Roe is wrong on its face. To suggest that privacy condones murder is as ludicrous as the idiocy that claims there is no personhood until birth.
Such a perverson of truth as came down in the Roe decision disabused me forever of the thought of wisdom or justice being meted blindly from the bench. They are blind alright but that is all.
Roe is correct on its face. That one may not like all of the ramifications of a decision does not make the decision inherently wrong.
No, that it is WRONG is what makes it inherently wrong.
Perfect illustration of what I've been going on about: Plain Language takes a back seat to interpretation.
It is not inherently wrong. It is, in fact, substantially correct. It will also never be overturned.
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.Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.
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?
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.
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 light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.
So, with which sophistries have clever lawyers explained that the 2nd is not incorporated upon the Citizens and States through the 14th?
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.)You are saying you believe the Rights in the Constitution are the same as the decision of a judge.
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.
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."
The "Predicate Clause." Though I disagree with it, @Jazzhead can e plIn it better than I.
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 light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.
So, with which sophistries have clever lawyers explained that the 2nd is not incorporated upon the Citizens and States through the 14th?
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.
@Smokin Joe
Not sure what led me to this, but I am humbled.
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.
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.
You and I are in alignment on this. 888high58888
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?
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?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.
By the argument presented above, the answer has to be yes. That, or the argument is invalid.
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.
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.
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 .
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.Words have meaning...
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.
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.
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.
You are saying you believe the Rights in the Constitution are the same as the decision of a judge.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.
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.
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.
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.
Dealing with my @$$hole BIL that thinks we should have universal background checks for private gun sales and transfers.
Ask him why. What does he think it will accomplish.... other than hinder law-abiding citizens even further from exercising their right to self-defense. Cause the criminals sure as hell don't bother with such idiotic legalities.
I have news!
Neither do/will the law abiding. There will be a work-around, even if I have to make the dang thing myself.
Please read the Heller opinion. And here's the thing - Heller was a 5 -4 decision. If you refuse to believe that Heller affirmed your individual right to KBA, then don't go crying when a later SCOTUS majority takes it away. As I've advocated numerous times on this board, the only real solution is to pass a Constitutional amendment making clear that the 2A provides for an individual right, for the purpose of individual self-defense, notwithstanding the 2A's predicate clause which plainly describes the right in terms of the now-obsolete concept of the militia.you just don't get it. Judges do NOT confer rights. In fact, the interpretation by SCOTUS is a made up right itself.
As much as you and Smokin Joe may wish to believe it, the 2A doesn't afford you a right to go shooting "tyrannical" government officials. The Bill of Rights is, generally speaking, intended to secure against government overreach your and my "natural" rights. The natural right which deserves protection is your right of individual self-defense, not to assemble an arsenal so you can stage a revolt against our duly-elected representatives. Bottom line - that natural right, just the same as the natural rights to privacy and self-determination that conservatives disparage, can and are protected by the Constitution - because of the interpretation and construction of that document by the courts.
And just as you insist that fetuses have rights and women do not, so may liberals try to take your gun rights away, and in the same manner - by achieving a SCOTUS majority that will ignore stare decisis and overturn its prior precedents.
Lol! You could always just print one! :cool:
Ask him why. What does he think it will accomplish.... other than hinder law-abiding citizens even further from exercising their right to self-defense. Cause the criminals sure as hell don't bother with such idiotic legalities.He thinks that making it more difficult for honest people will make it more difficult for criminals: I asked him "Now let me ask you two questions: Chicago, Detroit, New York City, all have the most restrictive gun laws in the country, why do they all have the highest murder rates? Second can you name a single gun law that criminals would respect and would prevent them from committing a crime?"
He thinks that making it more difficult for honest people will make it more difficult for criminals: I asked him "Now let me ask you two questions: Chicago, Detroit, New York City, all have the most restrictive gun laws in the country, why do they all have the highest murder rates? Second can you name a single gun law that criminals would respect and would prevent them from committing a crime?"
His reply 1) massive population concentration means the The Most Dangerous States in the United States. Alaska, New Mexico, and Nevada have the highest violent crime rates in the entire United States.% of violent people is directly related to that population. 2) criminals don't respect ANY laws, but why make it easy on them.
My reply to him: Sorry that doesn't follow: Most restrictive gun laws means that they should have very little if any access to firearms, and consequently they would have very little if any violent crime. This proves my point. Law abiding citizens do not have access to a means to defend themselves and become easy prey for the criminals.
His reply was to post some B.S. Study that says more guns equal more crime.
https://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html?fbclid=IwAR0zhLrAdLog4h5simIFPCLxPsKDe2besj5KtcVkkG-O9sDHcOcANFdJAQ4 (https://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html?fbclid=IwAR0zhLrAdLog4h5simIFPCLxPsKDe2besj5KtcVkkG-O9sDHcOcANFdJAQ4)
I have news!
Neither do/will the law abiding. There will be a work-around, even if I have to make the dang thing myself.
Yessir!
Any 10 Thumbed mechanical illitetate who thinks a competent machinist can't whip up perfectly functional guns from a 1911A1 to a 1927 Thompson (Tommy gun) or .50 BMG is whistling past the graveyard.
They are Not rocket science!
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.
It's frustrating, isn't it. I have a step-son that is a bleeding heart liberal. I rarely talk to him any more... after a rather heated discussion over "globull warming" once...lol. I have no respect for anyone that falls for the BS the leftist, anti-American Democrats feeds them. Can't help it. :shrug:
Hey, at least you are honest. Don't feel bad, I have a father in law who reads a magazine that rants and raves about being unbiased (lol). He too believes in the global warming b.s. It gets on my nerves, but I give him a pass because of his age and his dementia.
ANY attack on the 2A, is alarming. Especially with 1 MILLION coming across.
Please read the Heller opinion. And here's the thing - Heller was a 5 -4 decision. If you refuse to believe that Heller affirmed your individual right to KBA, then don't go crying when a later SCOTUS majority takes it away. As I've advocated numerous times on this board, the only real solution is to pass a Constitutional amendment making clear that the 2A provides for an individual right, for the purpose of individual self-defense, notwithstanding the 2A's predicate clause which plainly describes the right in terms of the now-obsolete concept of the militia.Ever read this?
As much as you and Smokin Joe may wish to believe it, the 2A doesn't afford you a right to go shooting "tyrannical" government officials. The Bill of Rights is, generally speaking, intended to secure against government overreach your and my "natural" rights. The natural right which deserves protection is your right of individual self-defense, not to assemble an arsenal so you can stage a revolt against our duly-elected representatives. Bottom line - that natural right, just the same as the natural rights to privacy and self-determination that conservatives disparage, can and are protected by the Constitution - because of the interpretation and construction of that document by the courts.
And just as you insist that fetuses have rights and women do not, so may liberals try to take your gun rights away, and in the same manner - by achieving a SCOTUS majority that will ignore stare decisis and overturn its prior precedents.
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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --
I understand, @Smokin Joe , why you don't accept a woman's right to decide for herself whether or not to have a child. But why do you abandon your conservative instincts to demand the state make the call? why is this not an issue of individual conscience?
I understand, @Smokin Joe , why you don't accept a woman's right to decide for herself whether or not to have a child. But why do you abandon your conservative instincts to demand the state make the call? why is this not an issue of individual conscience?The preeminent Right to Life, without which there are no other Rights.
The preeminent Right to Life, without which there are no other Rights.
Consider:
No one can force a woman to have sex (that's a crime and a violation of her Right to choose--a mate).
No one can force a woman to become pregnant (That is also a choice, on her part, and her mate's)
But at the point where she is pregnant, there are two lives to consider. That other life, the one who has had no choice in anything, should, by rights, be protected. That member of The People has the inherent unalienable Rights the rest of us possess, including the Right to Live. They have the right to not have their life taken in the absence of having committed a heinous crime, and having been duly convicted of that crime through Due Process, been sentenced to death.
The State exists to protect our Rights.
We would not rip a convicted murderer to shreds, that would be considered "cruel and unusual punishment", yet you argue to allow women to do exactly that to thousands of babies a day, babies who have not been convicted of any crime, whose only offense in the eyes of their mothers is to exist--a state of being they had no choice in.
That flies in the face of American Jurisprudence. Either we have those unalienable Rights--all of us--or none of us do, effectively. Playing word games by deciding that those yet to be or just born are less than human creates a class of subhumans. That is a slippery slope, one which humanity has been down before--with similar results, I might add.
Twenty one Million, Thirty Million, Fifty Million lives taken, seen as crimes against humanity....
But Sixty Million dead is a "Right"?
Get real. It's an unimaginably obscene distortion to claim a Right to the wholesale slaughter of humans, and just as obscene to declare a class of humans as less than human to justify it.
I did not read every post. I hope this is current news, but what 'house' did is outright stupid. We already have background checks since 1993...on gun sales. What a waste. I think it is called the Brady Bill.There is much more than background checks involved, It is the handing of a firearm to your son to go hunting, passing a rifle to a friend at the range to try out, all considered loosely as 'transfers', which could net someone a felony.
There is much more than background checks involved, It is the handing of a firearm to your son to go hunting, passing a rifle to a friend at the range to try out, all considered loosely as 'transfers', which could net someone a felony.
If I want to give my grandkids (mostly old enough to vote) a firearm, knowing them to be of good character, I should be able to do so without government intervention or interference. If we want to have an impromptu shooting contest at the range, and to make things fair, exchange firearms for the purpose of the contest, each shooting a fraction with the other's firearm, we should be able to without having to answer to the police over an improper exchange of firearms without a background check. This infringement of the RKBA will not affect criminals, but will create a procedural minefield for the law abiding. It is just the beginning of a Communist wish list that ends with us all being disarmed.
What I haven't been able to find is How are they going to Know that you sold, or even loaned, a firearm to your hunting buddy without him having a background check?Gun narcs, rabbit cops, and a database.....which means firearm registration or it won't be enforceable.
And if they do find out, what is going to be the penalty?
What America REALLY needs are federal and state laws requiring a background check before anyone is allowed to register to vote.Not to mention some serious tox screens (drug tests) on those voting in Congress...If you gotta pass one to run a drilling rig you should have to pass one to run a country.
I understand, @Smokin Joe , why you don't accept a woman's right to decide for herself whether or not to have a child. But why do you abandon your conservative instincts to demand the state make the call? why is this not an issue of individual conscience?
What America REALLY needs are federal and state laws requiring a background check before anyone is allowed to register to vote.
What America REALLY needs are federal and state laws requiring a background check before anyone is allowed to register to vote.This should be coupled with a civics literacy test.
Because the right to live of the innocent out trumps the right of convenience of the mother.
Just as you have the right to act as you want in your home. But when your acts interfereswith the rights of your neighbors, it is not allowed.
EXCELLENT! Woman has all kind of rights to HER BODY...but not when she carry's another life. That life has, no say so, if she aborts.
you just don't get it. Judges do NOT confer rights. In fact, the interpretation by SCOTUS is a made up right itself.
You are stating the moral argument, and it is one that I agree with. But the discussion is about legal rights, and a pre-viable fetus has no such rights, vis a vis its mother.Just because it is legal does not make it moral. If we are not living in a moral and just society we are on our way to ruin.
That's simply the way it has to be for legal purposes. The mother is alive, the fetus cannot survive on its own and is biologically dependent on the mother. It is the mother who gets to decide. You can and should make your moral arguments, because persuasion is a good thing. Coercion by the State is not.
Just because it is legal does not make it moral. If we are not living in a moral and just society we are on our way to ruin.
Because the right to live of the innocent out trumps the right of convenience of the mother.
"in exercise of her natural right of self-determination "
Can a man claim self-determination and refuse to pay child support?
You are stating the moral argument, and it is one that I agree with. But the discussion is about legal rights, and a pre-viable fetus has no such rights, vis a vis its mother.
That's simply the way it has to be for legal purposes. The mother is alive, the fetus cannot survive on its own and is biologically dependent on the mother. It is the mother who gets to decide. You can and should make your moral arguments, because persuasion is a good thing. Coercion by the State is not.
The state already charges murder of two when a pregnant woman is killed. The state has already ruled this to be an independent life with rights of it's own.
No, the fetus doesn't have independent rights of its own. What you claim are its legal "rights" are in fact derived from that of the mother. That's because the fetus' interest and the mother's interest coincide. The mother is harmed when her unborn child is harmed by a third party.
The abortion debate concerns the situation where the fetus' interest is in opposition to that of the mother. The fetus is unexpected and unwanted. Yes, the moral argument is compelling. But as a legal matter, the mother's rights can and must trump the "right" of an pre-viable fetus. It is her body, and the fetus cannot survive without that body. It is the woman's decision, and no one else's.
@thackney
So.....,you are not oppossed to abortion in order to save the life or health of the mother?
Many, but not all, states have legally defined person to include the unborn child.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx (http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx)
This thread is about the Rats' lust for gun/people control. Let's leave the abortion discussion to a thread about abortion. This side discussion has gone on long enough.
Please get back on topic.
Libs insist on the choice right but seek to undermine or overrule the Heller decision protecting your right to own a gun to protect your family.
Sorry about the thread drift, CL. I had raised the subject in pointing out the hypocrisy of both conservatives and liberals on the subject of the Constitution's protection of natural rights. Both conservatives and liberals frame their positions as "rights for me but not for thee". Libs insist on the choice right but seek to undermine or overrule the Heller decision protecting your right to own a gun to protect your family. Conservatives love the Heller decision but condemn the Constitution's protection of the rights of women to reproductive liberty.
Senate Democrats called on the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday to hold a hearing on universal background checks.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a vociferous advocate for gun control measures, led a group of 37 Democrats in sending a letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Senate panel, calling on him to consider legislation currently pending before the committee that would universalize background checks.
More at link
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin joined 37 of her Senate colleagues in calling on Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to hold hearings on universal background checks legislation.
Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Bipartisan Background Checks Act. Senator Baldwin and her colleagues helped introduced the Senate counterpart bill, the Background Check Expansion Act, which is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The House also passed the Enhanced Background Checks Act, a bill aimed at closing the “Charleston loophole†in the background check system that made it possible for the gunman in Charleston’s AME Church in Graham’s home state to purchase a firearm.
“We noted with interest your statement in the press that you intended to have the Committee work on ‘red flag’ legislation and potentially also background checks, both actions we would strongly support,†the Senators wrote in a letter to Chairman Graham. “We respectfully request that you hold a hearing on this critical legislation as soon as possible.â€
The letter, led by Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), was also signed by U.S. Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Tom Carper (D-DE), Bob Casey (D-PA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Edward Markey (D-MA), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tina Smith (D-MN), Tom Udall (D-NM), Mark Warner (D-VA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).
More at link
This one sentence sums up why your position on firearms ownership is wrong, JH. Any defense of the 2A has to start with a clear understanding of why it was included in the Constitution in the first place.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:(KJV)
There was a time within my lifetime, where the nobility of a woman could best be described in the words, "Don't worry about me, save my baby!"
**nononono* :0001: *****rollingeyes*****
@roamer_1
ONLY if she had no existing children to care for.
If the Dems win the White House, and pack the SCOTUS with liberals, the Heller decision will be overturned in favor of an interpretation limiting the 2A to the obsolete concept of the citizen militia. That's the reality. The gun right, with respect to your own personal security, needs to be codified, not left dangling to the whim of a future SCOTUS majority. I understand why it was included in the Constitution in the first place, to address a situation that no longer exists. In the modern context, it is seriously defective.Then your opinion is the Constitution is meaningless and we have no basis for discussion.
Then your opinion is the Constitution is meaningless and we have no basis for discussion.
The 2A was very clearly codified but you're saying that particular codification is defective.
Bingo. He's been consistent for quite some time in saying the Constitution isn't really the law. The law is what judges (often leftist activists) say it is. No matter what the Constitution may say in clear language, it's subject to review by clever lawyers and activist judges.
Then your opinion is the Constitution is meaningless and we have no basis for discussion.
Bingo. He's been consistent for quite some time in saying the Constitution isn't really the law. The law is what judges (often leftist activists) say it is. No matter what the Constitution may say in clear language, it's subject to review by clever lawyers and activist judges.
There is no better example of unclear language in the Constitution than the Second Amendment. You should be thanking clever lawyers and activist judges for the temporary liberty you enjoy today. If the Dems get their way in the next election and pack the Court, you can kiss your guns goodbye.
The only true solution is to Codify!
The process of collecting and arranging the laws of a country or state into a code, t. e., into a complete system of positive law, scientifically ordered, and promulgated by legislative authority.
What is Common Law vs. Civil Law?
Examining the President’s Legal Responsibilities
A Guide For Finding A Good Immigration Attorney
The Four Pillars of the Rule of Law
Domestic Violence Laws
Important 2018 Law Changes You Should Know
Divorce Process: Fundamentals You Need To Know
Ten Cheap Law Schools That Are Actually Good
Mortgage Law: Judicial vs. Non-Judicial Foreclosure
Four Curious Facts About Blue Sky Laws
Related Legal Terms
CODE, EDICT, CODE CIVIL, COMPILED STATUTES, CAPITULARY, WISBY, LAWS OF, POSITIVE EAW, STATUTE BOOK, CODEX REPETITSE PRAELECTIOUIS, MANIFESTO
I understand why it was included in the Constitution in the first place, to address a situation that no longer exists.
There is no better example of unclear language in the Constitution than the Second Amendment. You should be thanking clever lawyers and activist judges for the temporary liberty you enjoy today. If the Dems get their way in the next election and pack the Court, you can kiss your guns goodbye.
The only true solution is to Codify!
@Jazzhead
What condition exactly 'no longer exists'?
There is no better example of unclear language in the Constitution than the Second Amendment. You should be thanking clever lawyers and activist judges for the temporary liberty you enjoy today. If the Dems get their way in the next election and pack the Court, you can kiss your guns goodbye.
The only true solution is to Codify!
I have a far more realistic view of the stakes than you do. But go on, keep on believing the myth that the 2A preserves your right to assemble an arsenal to shoot elected officials when our Republic provides for a perfectly reasonable mechanism for voting the bums out.
That a God-given right to self defense, secured by plain language in the 2nd Amendment, is "temporary" is a testament to how far off the moorings the Constitution has been dragged by clever lawyers and activist judges.
What makes you think a leftist SCOTUS won't simply scuttle any attempt to "codify" an Amendment to the Constitution? I'm sure plenty of emanations and penumbras could be created to justify it.
If by 'realistic' you mean flaccid I'll agree.
Seriously, I highly doubt your view is more realistic than mine. You obviously cannot see where all of this is inevitably headed. Or maybe you do.
Folks here love to label such women as murderers,
I have a far more realistic view of the stakes than you do. But go on, keep on believing the myth that the 2A preserves your right to assemble an arsenal to shoot elected officials when our Republic provides for a perfectly reasonable mechanism for voting the bums out.
The only true solution is to declare war.
Bingo. He's been consistent for quite some time in saying the Constitution isn't really the law.
What makes you so sure politicians would be shot? It's cops who will get to find out how well their body armor can withstand a round from a 30-06.
Politicians won't be the ones tasked with disarming the public. That makes this particular argument a non-sequitur.
The God-given right to self-defense is secured by the Heller Court's construction of the 2A. The 2A's predicate clause permits an alternate construction that would limit the Constitution's protection to the militia context, whatever the heck that means nowadays. That alternate construction may be just an election or two away. It is to prevent that from happening that I advocate codification of the individual right.
Do you really think you'd get away with shooting cops? Seriously, the idiotic braggadocio of some gunowners is amazing.
It took 200 years, but the Court has finally recognized the individual right. Build on that recognition by codifying it. Sure beats shooting cops - that's a war you won't be able to win.
And he is correct. The law is whatever the judges say it is. That's why The National Lampoon could exist in 1973 but not in 2019. Same Constitutional right to free expression, different laws.
Nope. The Heller decisions does not secure the God-given right. The 2nd Amendment does, and a leftist SCOTUS will scuttle any attempts to codify with relative ease on the way to a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms.
That's it for me...I refuse to engage your circle-talk. I'm just watching this thread to make sure it doesn't get hijacked again.
She doesn't kill the child. She hires someone to do it.
Distrust of the government. Everything is hunky-dory now in the modern, a gogo world don'tchaknow?
That is how stupid leftists think we unsophisticates are.
Codification would effectively protect the right. And as to the 2A alone securing the God-given right - believe that myth at your peril.
That's a stupid thing to say. The principle has already been established by Heller. Now the task is to work within the framework provided by the Constitution to codify that result so it can't be taken away by a future Court.
And as to the 2A alone securing the God-given right - believe that myth at your peril.
All you are doing is proving that the 2A as originally envisioned is no myth. It's authors knew the monarch's/statist's/authoritarian's singularly largest threat is a free and sovereign people, and work to continually erode the most prominent tangible symbol of that sovereignty that an individual can possess.
There is no other reason for them to be so fixated on constraining the right of law abiding people to own firearms.
You seem fine with their efforts.
You and I are heir to these God given rights. Its too damn bad you and so many others are willing to hand them over so quickly. None of us will like where this attitude leads us.
ha ha ha
Not as stupid as what is coming through the leftist agenda. They not only promote murder. They are enacting laws to make it legal.
The shit IS going to hit the fan in this country. It is inevitable. I have a cop friend that says when it happens, the badge is coming off.
It is not inevitable. Calm the <Nope> down. *****rollingeyes*****
You must be living on a different planet. Calls for gun control are not coming from those concerned with insurrection against the government, they are coming from folks concerned with doing something about some of the highest rates of gun violence - citizens killing citizens - in the Western world.
They don't want to restrict the citizens' militia, they want to restrict your ability to own a gun, or certain types of disfavored guns, if you choose. Heller is the Constitutional bulwark against these efforts, not the 2A. Heller's protection of your gun right is exceedingly vulnerable - same as the protection of a woman's right to choose that some conservatives have no problem whatsoever in taking away.
I am not "fine with their efforts". To the contrary, I am advocating the only practical means - codification of the individual RKBA - to prevent a future SCOTUS majority from overturning Heller and taking your guns away.
Then your opinion is the Constitution is meaningless and we have no basis for discussion.And therein lies the heart of the lawyer/liberal mindset: One needs the Judicial branch to interpret all portions of the Constitution, an act that the Judicial branch has no power codified in the Constitution itself to actually perform.
The 2A was very clearly codified but you're saying that particular codification is defective.
And therein lies the heart of the lawyer/liberal mindset: One needs the Judicial branch to interpret all portions of the Constitution, an act that the Judicial branch has no power codified in the Constitution itself to actually perform.
That act has the effect of making unelected judges rule this country by their whims, with the only way to control them is for their removal by Congress, something that only very rarely in our history has occurred.
We as free people do not need some unelected judge to interpret our rules we live by, particularly the unalienable rights we enjoy.
The God-given right to self-defense is secured by the Heller Court's construction of the 2A. The 2A's predicate clause permits an alternate construction that would limit the Constitution's protection to the militia context, whatever the heck that means nowadays. That alternate construction may be just an election or two away. It is to prevent that from happening that I advocate codification of the individual right.Look at your ridiculous argument.
It is inevitable. And I AM calm. 'Everyone' here knows when I'm not. :laugh:Ok...that was good...lolololololololololololol
God gave us a right, and that's the end of it.
All you are doing is proving that the 2A as originally envisioned is no myth. It's authors knew the monarch's/statist's/authoritarian's singularly largest threat is a free and sovereign people, and work to continually erode the most prominent tangible symbol of that sovereignty that an individual can possess.
There is no other reason for them to be so fixated on constraining the right of law abiding people to own firearms.
You seem fine with their efforts.
You and I are heir to these God given rights. Its too damn bad you and so many others are willing to hand them over so quickly. None of us will like where this attitude leads us.
No that's not the end of it. God can't protect and secure your rights. That's the purpose of the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights. Problem is, the 2A's plain language limited its application to the citizen militia, not the "God given" right of individual self-defense. It took the Heller opinion to confirm that the Constitution secures and protects that individual right. Yes, it took the decision of a majority of unelected judges. And a different future majority can take it away. So that's why I advocate codifying the individual right. Go ahead and reject my advice - but don't blame me when a future court decides the 2A has nothing to do with your guns.
..SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! Do I need to post the 2nd...word for word? NO INFRINGING.. unconstitutional to do anything else. BTW The constitution and BILL OF RIGHTS came from Bible principle's. We are a Christian nation. Founded by Christians. I have to prove that out too? You don't have to believe in God, but your rights came from God. You are totally wrong. It is about taking away gun rights. People will die with or without guns. That is the PLOY they want to use to take away gun rights. You youngsters buy into the B.S. Same as Obamcare was NOT ABOUT HEALTH..but the ploy was to sell it under "health" Lenin controlled people for 70 years with his "health plan". Obamcare was communism, a plan to put in job killing regulations and invoke 19 new taxes on we the people. Yet, some still think it was about 'health". Hitler had the same Obamcare plan. Mandated, no choice. This bill about guns will not stop, ANY DEATHS. FOOLISH THINKING. It esp. will NOT stop any citizens death. Every communist country that took guns away from the people, died at Communist hands. MILLIONS. 58 MILLION UNDER MAO. You need some history lessons. Was this truth "not kind"? FACTS.
Time for a well regulated m!litia.
---------------------------
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
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.
No that's not the end of it. God can't protect and secure your rights. That's the purpose of the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights. Problem is, the 2A's plain language limited its application to the citizen militia, not the "God given" right of individual self-defense. It took the Heller opinion to confirm that the Constitution secures and protects that individual right. Yes, it took the decision of a majority of unelected judges. And a different future majority can take it away. So that's why I advocate codifying the individual right. Go ahead and reject my advice - but don't blame me when a future court decides the 2A has nothing to do with your guns.
Your argument is not with me, sir. Read the dissenting opinions in Heller, who view the 2A through the prism of the predicate clause. Your rights may come from God, but God can't protect them. Your precious gun right is hanging by the thread of a SCOTUS majority. The 2A is defective, and the individual right needs to be codified.
Don't shoot me, pal, I'm just the messenger.
As long as we have RINO's and liberal gun grabbers, the 2A will always hang by a thread. Keep strongly in mind, that the 2A is the right upon which all of our other rights are dependent. Think about it.
The God-given right to self-defense is secured by the Heller Court's construction of the 2A. The 2A's predicate clause permits an alternate construction that would limit the Constitution's protection to the militia context, whatever the heck that means nowadays. That alternate construction may be just an election or two away. It is to prevent that from happening that I advocate codification of the individual right.If it is a God-Given Right, (unalienable), then the Court did not grant it, and nothing the court does can take that Right away.
No that's not the end of it. God can't protect and secure your rights. That's the purpose of the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights. Problem is, the 2A's plain language limited its application to the citizen militia, not the "God given" right of individual self-defense. It took the Heller opinion to confirm that the Constitution secures and protects that individual right. Yes, it took the decision of a majority of unelected judges. And a different future majority can take it away. So that's why I advocate codifying the individual right. Go ahead and reject my advice - but don't blame me when a future court decides the 2A has nothing to do with your guns.No, the problem is that you are misreading the predicate clause. I gave you the background on that, from the Federalist, yet you persist.
God can't protect and secure your rights. That's the purpose of the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights.
No. Every woman that I know, of a certain age, would have given themselves to bring that child to life. Every one.
@Jazzhead
See. This is a thought pattern. It is where our thinking diverges. I don't serve two masters.
In my way of thinking it WAS God who inspired a group of men to write the Constitution and fight to the death to see it done.
God IS protecting and securing my rights through me.
There isn't any judge, legislature, etc. who can change my mind. Or deny me those rights. They will do so at their own peril.
@roamer_1
IF you are not mistaken,and I am certain you are,in that case every woman you know of a certain age is irresponsible and shouldn't be allowed to have more children if she is ready to abandon the ones she is already responsible for
@Jazzhead
Please read The Problem with Lawyers and the Constitution (https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/the-problem-with-lawyers-and-the-constitution/)
Also posted Here (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,350127.msg1907684.html#msg1907684) but few were interested at the time. It's VERY relevant to the discussion on this thread IMHO.
No that's not the end of it. God can't protect and secure your rights. That's the purpose of the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights. Problem is, the 2A's plain language limited its application to the citizen militia, not the "God given" right of individual self-defense. It took the Heller opinion to confirm that the Constitution secures and protects that individual right. Yes, it took the decision of a majority of unelected judges. And a different future majority can take it away. So that's why I advocate codifying the individual right. Go ahead and reject my advice - but don't blame me when a future court decides the 2A has nothing to do with your guns.
Ridiculous. Likewise, I would gladly lay down my life to save any one of my children. Without a single thought like that.
Pete seems to be putting a lot of words in other peoples mouths today.
@JazzheadFred, you, sir, get it!
See. This is a thought pattern. It is where our thinking diverges. I don't serve two masters.
In my way of thinking it WAS God who inspired a group of men to write the Constitution and fight to the death to see it done.
God IS protecting and securing my rights through me.
There isn't any judge, legislature, etc. who can change my mind. Or deny me those rights. They will do so at their own peril.
@Cyber Liberty
No,I am NOT. Are he and others on this thread saying any self-respecting women would abandon their living children who are already born and need them in order to give birth to another child she can then abandon later?
People who hold that position are as far from being moral as it is possible to be. You have been brainwashed by your religious superstitions,and refuse to think.
BTW,Isn't your Christian God supposed to have appeared and ordered the soldiers that defeated an enemy city to "take the children by their heels and base their brains out against the city walls to make sure no more are ever born to offend God"?
Hell,the mythical creature you worship is a fan of murdering infants,so you have no moral high ground to stand on if you believe the Holy Bible.
No,I am NOT. Are he and others on this thread saying any self-respecting women would abandon their living children who are already born and need them in order to give birth to another child she can then abandon later?
People who hold that position are as far from being moral as it is possible to be. You have been brainwashed by your religious superstitions,and refuse to think.
BTW,Isn't your Christian God supposed to have appeared and ordered the soldiers that defeated an enemy city to "take the children by their heels and base their brains out against the city walls to make sure no more are ever born to offend God"?
Hell,the mythical creature you worship is a fan of murdering infants,so you have no moral high ground to stand on if you believe the Holy Bible.
Pete. God made that command because the ones he wanted slaughtered weren't fully human beings.
:thumbsup:How do the + 1.2mm lawyers in this country affect us? Bigtime.
Lawyers, like any other profession have 1 over riding purpose.
That purpose is to Get Paid.
Not to act as a moral arbitor and safe guard of anything else. There are bounds to that but Those are what Disbarment and their own criminal prosecutions are for.
And to that end of getting Paid they will argue/fight Any other purpose.
Pete. God made that command because the ones he wanted slaughtered weren't fully human beings.
@Jazzhead
See. This is a thought pattern. It is where our thinking diverges. I don't serve two masters.
In my way of thinking it WAS God who inspired a group of men to write the Constitution and fight to the death to see it done.
God IS protecting and securing my rights through me.
There isn't any judge, legislature, etc. who can change my mind. Or deny me those rights. They will do so at their own peril.
Lawyers, like any other profession have 1 over riding purpose.
That purpose is to Get Paid.
Not to act as a moral arbitor and safe guard of anything else. There are bounds to that but Those are what Disbarment and their own criminal prosecutions are for.
And to that end of getting Paid they will argue/fight Any other purpose.
@bigheadfred
Uh,huh. That's the excuse mass murderers always make. The Nazi's,for one,were fond of making that claim.
Fine. Go get yourself shot. God'll love you for it. *****rollingeyes*****
What I know is I ain't gonna hide in a hole waiting for some g-damned judge to make my life better when everything is coming apart.
:hijack:QuoteThe Nazi's were merely another group who tried what many others did. Stalin and Mao were better at it than Hitler.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,353854.msg1934170/topicseen.html#new (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,353854.msg1934170/topicseen.html#new)
@bigheadfred
True. Mao and his pals no doubt hold the world record for mass murder,but nobody really cared about how many Chinese were murdered by their own people. Just like nobody really seems to care about the Gypsies,homosexuals,Slavs,and petty criminals executed by the Nazi's. All they care about is the Jews that were murdered. Jews have the best PR departments in the world.
According to the Bible and other documents and also oral traditions, including some from Native Americans, There was a race of giants preflood and after on this planet. According to the Bible and the Book of Enoch they came to earth as "fallen angels' and corrupted the bloodline(s) of humans. In the Bible the Israelites were commanded to wipe out any people who still had those bloodlines.
"According to the Paiutes, the Si-Te-Cah were a red-haired band of cannibalistic giants.[1] The Si-Te-Cah and the Paiutes were at war, and after a long struggle a coalition of tribes trapped the remaining Si-Te-Cah in Lovelock Cave. When they refused to come out, the Indians piled brush before the cave mouth and set it aflame. The Si-Te-Cah were annihilated. " wikipediaQuoteAre you familiar with Gobekli Tepe? Intentionally buried around 12,000 years ago.
Nope. Never heard of them,OR the red-headed giants the Indians killed.QuoteThe Smithsonian has admitted to destroying and/or hiding any evidence of giants. The SCOTUS has demanded they release any information in 2020.
There are megalithic structures worldwide that cannot be explained as to their construction. Who built them? It sure as hell wasn't simple hunter gatherers or even later cultures who had the use of copper or bronze tools.
Elongated skulls found around the world. King Tut had an elongated skull. Look up the Paracas skulls in Peru. Elongated skulls in Russia, the Ukraine, etc.
There has been a systematic destruction of evidence that points to anything that falls outside of the Darwinian THEORY of evolution. Careers have been ruined.
IMO, the Vatican is one of the worst offenders at hiding anything that would loosen their iron grip and control over people. That includes what books or information that is in the Bible.
IMO, we have been lied to about the true history of people on this planet. History is written by the victors. Those victors have one thing in common. To rule and control. By any means necessary.
FDR knew about the attack on Perl Harbor before it happened. Truman used the atom bomb to wipe out hundreds of thousands of people. What the hell is the difference? Exterminating large groups of people who differ from "us", is the way this world works.
I want to argue with you about the rest of it,but don't know enough about it to argue at this point,and am too tired to look it up.
Hope this doesn't get me banned from the internet.
There are good lawyers and there are bad lawyers. I seem to have been lumped in with the bad ones for sounding an alarm that gun owners don't want to hear - that the 2A is inadequate to protect their rights and that a legislative fix is imperative before the thin reed of Heller is swept away.
It's your flippin' problem, not mine.
I did not accuse you of being a bad lawyer, merely pointed out that in Lawerying, like any other trade, IF you're gonna be a success, The Customer Is Always Right.
So it looks like it's You who have the flippin' problem here.
I am in no way unaware that Case Law and Precedent and anything else can be overturned, twisted, etc.
And that had we a Judiciary which simply ruled in Constitutional matters from an Originalist POV this conversation would be moot.
You seek the world as you wish it to be, not as it is. For a taste of the latter, read the dissenting opinions in Heller and know just how fragile the individual RKBA really is.
You seek the world as you wish it to be, not as it is. For a taste of the latter, read the dissenting opinions in Heller and know just how fragile the individual RKBA really is.
Just had to go do it, didn't you?
RKBA itself is solid as Gibraltar.
How it hits the street, thanks to chiseling Lawyers, is another story.
Constitution and Amendments are a written Document, their meaning doesn't change.
Neither does the Non interpretable Meaning of their plain and straightforward English.
And they're winning.
If I may, the Left doesn't see the world as it is either. They see it as they want it to see it and then try to make it happen.
And they're winning.
But, but, but, It's just common sense legislation, how could it go wrong. It would NEVER interfere with the right of law abiding citizens.
Shall not be infringed. any and I mean ANY D@MN thing that prevents law abiding citizens from obtaining, or in any way restricts their purchase, ownership, or use of, is an infringement.
Yes, they are. And we make it easy for them, by continuing to indulge in fantasies about citizens using guns to confront government tyranny.The time to confront Government Tyranny is always now. Especially when this is still a war of words, when the epithet is the worst thing hurled.
No that's not the end of it. God can't protect and secure your rights. That's the purpose of the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights. Problem is, the 2A's plain language limited its application to the citizen militia, not the "God given" right of individual self-defense. It took the Heller opinion to confirm that the Constitution secures and protects that individual right. Yes, it took the decision of a majority of unelected judges. And a different future majority can take it away. So that's why I advocate codifying the individual right. Go ahead and reject my advice - but don't blame me when a future court decides the 2A has nothing to do with your guns.Funny, isn't it that the God who created all of our rights you feel is limited and needs to 'be helped out'.
If I may, the Left doesn't see the world as it is either. They see it as they want it to see it and then try to make it happen.
And they're winning.
Yes, they are. And we make it easy for them, by continuing to indulge in fantasies about citizens using guns to confront government tyranny.
@skeeterThey are determined. And thats 2/3s of the battle.
I have a minor clarification to make. They INSIST it IS the way they want it to be,regardless of the evidence,the logic,or the sanity. That is how they get away with insisting you are wrong and breaking the law if you don't agree with them. Or at least that is the "tool" they use to try to quieten dissent.
Thou must NOT question the religious beliefs of the left or risk being called a Nazi or slave-monger. Even THEY know that if their plans are open to question that they fall apart.
I will take it even one step further. Even THEY KNOW they must lie to the public in order to get the public to support them. They justify this by claiming they are doing it for your own good. How lucky are we to have such thoughtful masters?
They are determined. And thats 2/3s of the battle.
We are not.
Nation's survive and thrive when they're able to communicate clearly and honestly, and they can just as easily fall to pieces when dishonest actors pollute or confuse language as a means of obtaining their ends.
I didn't read this entire thread and I'm not going to.It's a pretty safe prediction, I fear.
A Fishrrman off-the-wall prediction for the future (probably mid-to-distant):
At some point, those who embrace the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms are going to have to USE those arms, en masse, to defend that right.
Or else...they're gonna lose it.
They are determined. And thats 2/3s of the battle.
We are not.
What we are is divided.
Not here against people who are SO conformed they would rather see litigation than to stand for themselves. They have made their choice. I am here to stand with people to ride the river with. Not people who don't know what a river is. Or where that river is at.
Litigation is peaceful dispute resolution. So is legislation. I'd rather fix the problem with the 2A than take up arms to murder my brothers. Americans who are Democrats are still my neighbors.
But as you say, your reward is in the next world, so kill 'em all and let God sort it out. Enjoy!
Litigation is peaceful dispute resolution. So is legislation. I'd rather fix the problem with the 2A than take up arms to murder my brothers. Americans who are Democrats are still my neighbors.
But as you say, your reward is in the next world, so kill 'em all and let God sort it out. Enjoy!
Litigation is peaceful dispute resolution.
@JazzheadAll it does is raise the power of the legal profession as well as the judicial system, which causes unelected people to exert more control of the lives of people who live in a Constitutional Republic.
I would remit the proposition that litigation and legislation has caused, or been the cause, of more murder than outright murder. As it is codified.
All it does is raise the power of the legal profession as well as the judicial system, which causes unelected people to exert more control of the lives of people who live in a Constitutional Republic.
I wonder how we survived as a nation prior to this elevation?
I didn't read this entire thread and I'm not going to.
A Fishrrman off-the-wall prediction for the future (probably mid-to-distant):
At some point, those who embrace the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms are going to have to USE those arms, en masse, to defend that right.
Or else...they're gonna lose it.
I didn't read this entire thread and I'm not going to.
A Fishrrman off-the-wall prediction for the future (probably mid-to-distant):
At some point, those who embrace the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms are going to have to USE those arms, en masse, to defend that right.
Or else...they're gonna lose it.
Red haired cannibals? NEPHILLUM. Mixture of fallen angles, who bred with human women. And Pete's reference sounds like OLD TESTAMENT..or book of enoch, which was removed from Bible and I know nothing about that. Nephillum, sp? also have 6 fingers, 6 toes, double row of teeth. Red hair. They are huge people. One guy is still alive and weights 800+ pounds, over 7 feet tall. If people google. There is a video of him talking, but no picture. He was in our military, I think, or they just experimented on him. He is NOT as huge as the original, but still is big. He is not a cannibal. I always wondered why, my old world European mother said, red haired people were from the devil. Now I know. Has to be old folk lore of Nephillum. No one liked red hair. So, my mom-in-law had red hair. She also was a big woman....mmmm. I wonder?
Having been witness to a double homicide that killed six things all I can do is say:
At a guess I would give credit to my grandma who was always bitching at us kids to stop eating off the Gravy Train.
As an aside I give a challenge to our esteemed member @Jazzhead
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,350928.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,350928.0.html)
A month-long real world thread with over 7000 page views. Without the backbiting bitching insulting personal attacks. Yeah. I am a convicted killer. With the will to put forth the education /information to prevent more destruction. Where is his contribution?
@mystery-ak @Cyber Liberty
I'll kill the robot thread if it is eating too much bandwidth.
Yes...needs to be done...now.
“America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.â€
― Claire Wolfe