Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Big Government

Big Government Big Government Forum - Political Philosophy Forum


Thanks Tree25Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 9th, 2018, 01:21 PM   #81
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 21,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Where in the Hell did you get that one? Pulled it out of your ass? I never said such.
Sure you did.
Did you say Unalienable rights, as defined in the DOI?
Did you say unalienable rights as defined by any authority other than yourself?
No, you did not.

Besides, unalienable is defined as something that cannot be taken away or denied. I can assure that every single "unalienable right" mentioned in the DOI can be taken away and/or denied by the government under specific circumstances.
Hollywood is offline  
Old January 9th, 2018, 01:53 PM   #82
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Sure you did.
Did you say Unalienable rights, as defined in the DOI?
Did you say unalienable rights as defined by any authority other than yourself?
No, you did not.

Besides, unalienable is defined as something that cannot be taken away or denied. I can assure that every single "unalienable right" mentioned in the DOI can be taken away and/or denied by the government under specific circumstances.
I don't need to post a dissertation on every possible subject in order to have an opinion. The United States Supreme Court opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.


No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it
."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Qualifiers, exceptions, exemptions, explanations, limitations, exclusions, etc. are not necessary. Dude, this is only a discussion board.
Thanks from Sabcat
discollector is offline  
Old January 9th, 2018, 02:11 PM   #83
Put some ice on that
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
No sir, you cannot. They call it a straw-man purchase. A few states don't have unconstitutional gun registration schemes.

My critics on this are making this personal and you shouldn't join them. They're wrong. Trying to give a relative a firearm without government permission is a violation of federal law. That is that this thread is about. Hell, even the link supplied bymy stalker disprove his very criticism.

Last edited by Sabcat; January 9th, 2018 at 02:15 PM.
Sabcat is offline  
Old January 9th, 2018, 03:38 PM   #84
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 21,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
I don't need to post a dissertation on every possible subject in order to have an opinion. The United States Supreme Court opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.


No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it
."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Qualifiers, exceptions, exemptions, explanations, limitations, exclusions, etc. are not necessary. Dude, this is only a discussion board.
Nothing in your post in any way refutes my statements.
Fucking NOTHING...

Please note that your little rant says NOTHING about unalienable rights, which is the subject of our discussion.

Last edited by Hollywood; January 9th, 2018 at 03:41 PM. Reason: typo
Hollywood is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 02:26 PM   #85
Put some ice on that
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,017
Lol. It is all starting to make sense now.



Sabcat is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 02:45 PM   #86
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 7,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
In law, you cannot be held to any contract which violates your unalienable Rights. For example, if a woman were to enter into a marriage contract and forfeit her Right to a Freedom of Speech, it would be unenforceable. Contracts that infringe upon your Rights or are a violation of public policy are, to the extent they violate the law, ultra vires null and void.
And pray tell us WHICH of his UNALIENABLE rights is being violated ?? What happens when his exercise of his claimed rights impinge on those of his neighbors ??

It's a fucking flag pole. What constitutional rights does he have concerning a flag pole ? Second, the pole in question was INSTALLED ON SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHT OF WAY !!!!
Thanks from TreeDoc
BubbaJones is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 03:01 PM   #87
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 7,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
No sir, you cannot. They call it a straw-man purchase. A few states don't have unconstitutional gun registration schemes.

My critics on this are making this personal and you shouldn't join them. They're wrong. Trying to give a relative a firearm without government permission is a violation of federal law. That is that this thread is about. Hell, even the link supplied by my stalker disprove his very criticism.

My boss bought both of his sons weapons for Christmas.

From an NRA article.

https://www.nrablog.com/articles/201...someone-a-gun/


Quote:
First things first, if you have reasonable cause to believe the person you’re gifting a firearm to is prohibited from possessing a firearm or ammunition, or that the person will use the firearm in a crime, you are committing a felony. Don’t do this.

So, you’ve done your research, and are ready to purchase the firearm. Now how do you actually give your intended recipient their gift? Well, if you are in the same state, you could just hand it to them yourself. There’s no national law that prevents someone from giving firearms to a friend or family member in the same state,
Now if you want to transfer that weapon across state lines that's a different story.

Quote:

The ATF recommends that if you want to gift someone a firearm, you should purchase a gift card at the store instead. This way, they’ll get the exact gun they want, there will be no legal issues stemming from your purchase, and it can still be a surprise
Thanks from TreeDoc
BubbaJones is offline  
Old January 25th, 2018, 07:50 AM   #88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,561
OH WELL, who needs the supreme court, we have the ACLU.....
urbrother is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Big Government

Tags
government, permission, things



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trendy Moms Are Asking Their Babies Permission to Pick Them Up Sabcat Progressivism 1 June 24th, 2017 10:07 AM
We Shouldn't Have to Ask the State's Permission to Work Sabcat Big Government 25 March 17th, 2017 07:20 PM
Trumps NSA Advisor Shared Secrets Without Permission skews13 Current Events 6 December 14th, 2016 08:50 AM
Proposed Bill Would Require Women To Ask Men's Permission To Have An Abortion LongWinded Current Events 319 January 24th, 2015 12:50 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.