Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Gun Control Gun Control Forum - For topics and discussions about gun laws, gun policies, and gun rights


Thanks Tree131Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 7th, 2017, 11:20 AM   #11
Have you seen my Iguana
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 22,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Stupidity directly linked to anarchism.....
Quote:



You sometimes here people say that Liberals are so much smarter than Conservatives but what people fail to mention is that Libertarians have the highest IQs, of all, so they are smarter than both Liberals and Conservatives :

"Abstract

Research has consistently shown that intelligence is positively correlated with socially liberal beliefs and negatively correlated with religious beliefs. This should lead one to expect that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats. However, I find that individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat (2–5 IQ points), and that individuals who supported the Republican Party in elections have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who supported the Democratic Party (2 IQ points). I reconcile these findings with the previous literature by showing that verbal intelligence is correlated with both socially and economically liberal beliefs (β = .10–.32). My findings suggest that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans."


------



"The Triple Nine Society, which only allows members who have an IQ higher than 99.9% of the general public, released results of a survey answered by their members. The results? Ultra free market libertarian. They were against Government healthcare or business interference in the same way they were against drug war, gun control, and the War in Iraq. They advocated legalizing gay marriage, ALL drugs, an opt-out for Social Security, and to make Affirmative Action illegal. Although still the minority, a much larger than the general public support limiting the Federal Reserve or abolishing it. They also supported using the death penalty more often."




https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...zCuMk4RntJXi3_
Sabcat is online now  
Old November 7th, 2017, 12:08 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
125 is the prefect IQ, not too high and not too low.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old November 7th, 2017, 12:41 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 8,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Surprise!, Surprise!, Surprise!

The more guns a country has, the more mass shootings it has.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/w...T.nav=top-news

But it's worth it!
Quote:
Fortunately, this decision by a conservative court is going to be changing this on all levels of government as we go forward.
There is no question that District of Columbia v. Heller was precisely the sort of judicial activism the conservative justices of the Supreme Court promised not to do. In a 5 to 4 decision those justices ruled that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for personal self-defense, despite the amendment’s opening language - “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ” - which pretty clearly says that gun ownership was specifically preserved by the founding fathers in the interest of the common defense against a tyrannical government (remember, this was the issue on their minds back then). Gun rights advocates cheered. Gun control advocates cried foul.

But even though the 5-4 majority ruling makes an intellectual end run around the language of the Second Amendment to get to their ruling, they very clearly state that society (government, convened to collectively protect us from what we can’t protect ourselves from as individuals) has the right to, and legitimate interest in controlling gun ownership, in several specific ways.

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

That language refers to many of the gun control ideas being discussed now. Prohibitions on carrying ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ certainly might apply to assault rifles. Ammunition clips that hold 100 bullets…30…even 10, are hardly ‘usual’, certainly not for self-defense, or hunting.

“..conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” might include requiring that everybody who wants to own a gun has to get a permit, and have a background check, conditions and qualifications that already pertain to purchases through gun stores, but not through private gun shows.

“…laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” That certainly seems to challenge the NRA’s idea that more guns in schools is a good idea.

And perhaps most striking, the majority ruling in Heller specifically leaves open the question of whether the public has a right to carry “concealed weapons”, a bedrock claim of gun rights advocates.

Despite these critical qualifications, gun rights advocates say they are protected by the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, yet selectively ignore the many ways the court allows for some forms of gun control. And despite the way the court enshrines gun ownership as a personal right, gun control advocates criticize the ruling, yet selectively fail to acknowledge or try to take political advantage of the ways it gives them the legal ammunition to accomplish much of what they want. Why is that?

First, of course, because few of us have read the ruling. We take our news in bits and bites from the media, and rarely dig any further. (I hadn’t read the ruling until just the other day.) In fact, many of us don’t really read or watch or listen to the news at all. We get our information from advocates, or friends, or social connections, sources who generally share and thus only reinforce our ideologies and basic values.

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns | Big Think
skews13 is offline  
Old November 7th, 2017, 01:51 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther View Post
All these shootings are having an affect on me. On the one hand something needs to be done about it. On the other, it has to be a uniquely American solution based on the psychology of he US. Talking about and demanding gun control isnt going to do shit! Sure, we can strictly control or prohibit them. But we all know, or should, how this turns out. Prohibition and the war on drugs ought to tell us how spectacular of a failure this will be. Where there is a demand someone will fill in the gap of supply. Or... Think of abortion. It was banned or strictly controlled, but women still sought it out anyways when their options were nonexistent.

Half of the country does not like to be told what to do by anyone and the other doesn't like to be told what to do by republicans.

Also, someone brought up the issue of the mentally unstable still be able to acquire guns easily, regardless of the controls in place. What about that? And the borderline cliche of criminals ( especially drug gangs) still getting guns whenever they want because they have the resources to do so because of the human appetite for mind altering substances. That will not change either.



Im at work. So my concentration ain't the best.

I have addressed this many, many times before.

The way to resolve the issue of gun violence is to attack those issues which cost us the most lives. Virtually all mass shooters fit one of two categories:

1) Political jihadists and

2) People that have been under the care / supervision of a psychologist / psychiatrist and / or some doctor that has prescribed SSRIs (psychotropic drugs usually for depression and anxiety but, doled out like candy if you know the magic words.)

Why do we keep allowing political jihadists (aka Muslims) to come into the United States while they have declared war against us?

Why do we allow the mental health and doctors in general to prescribe SSRIs as a first option instead of the last one?

Why do we allow the medical community to let their patients run amok in a free society while being on drugs KNOWN to have homicidal and suicidal tendencies associated with the drugs usage?

Gun owners in general don't want to pursue this until AFTER a mass shooting and then only to ward off liberal gun grabs.
Thanks from Sabcat and justoneman
discollector is offline  
Old November 7th, 2017, 05:11 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by justoneman View Post
I find this hard to believe. For example: Mexico has very strict gun laws. A citizen cannot own larger tha a 22 caliber and there is only one place to legally buy a gun if you can get through the red tape.

Therefore one should expect virtually no gun violence in Mexico.
And there wouldn't be if there wasn't a flood of weapons coming over the border.
goober is offline  
Old November 7th, 2017, 06:01 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Katmandu
Posts: 4,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Surprise!, Surprise!, Surprise!

The more guns a country has, the more mass shootings it has.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/w...T.nav=top-news

But it's worth it!
Mass shootings is a factoid cooked up by anti-second amendment extremists. In the past few decades the number of firearms in America as skyrocketed, over 100 million new firearms, while at the same time gun crime has plummeted it. The number of legal permit holders has tripled over the same period. So the gun grabbers cook up a new meaningless statistic, mass shootings.

You want to see areas with the most mass shootings, look to the areas with the strictest gun laws like Chicago and California.

Mass Shootings | Gun Violence Archive
Libertine is offline  
Old November 7th, 2017, 06:42 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
justoneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 3,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
And there wouldn't be if there wasn't a flood of weapons coming over the border.
So what you are saying is that laws are not stopping illegal weapons from going over the border?

I find that very funny. Are you advocating for more border security or are you saying that laws are not enough to stop a criminal from using a weapon in a crime?
Thanks from Sabcat
justoneman is online now  
Old November 7th, 2017, 07:08 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
There is no question that District of Columbia v. Heller was precisely the sort of judicial activism the conservative justices of the Supreme Court promised not to do. In a 5 to 4 decision those justices ruled that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for personal self-defense, despite the amendment’s opening language - “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ” - which pretty clearly says that gun ownership was specifically preserved by the founding fathers in the interest of the common defense against a tyrannical government (remember, this was the issue on their minds back then). Gun rights advocates cheered. Gun control advocates cried foul.

But even though the 5-4 majority ruling makes an intellectual end run around the language of the Second Amendment to get to their ruling, they very clearly state that society (government, convened to collectively protect us from what we can’t protect ourselves from as individuals) has the right to, and legitimate interest in controlling gun ownership, in several specific ways.

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

That language refers to many of the gun control ideas being discussed now. Prohibitions on carrying ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ certainly might apply to assault rifles. Ammunition clips that hold 100 bullets…30…even 10, are hardly ‘usual’, certainly not for self-defense, or hunting.

“..conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” might include requiring that everybody who wants to own a gun has to get a permit, and have a background check, conditions and qualifications that already pertain to purchases through gun stores, but not through private gun shows.

“…laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” That certainly seems to challenge the NRA’s idea that more guns in schools is a good idea.

And perhaps most striking, the majority ruling in Heller specifically leaves open the question of whether the public has a right to carry “concealed weapons”, a bedrock claim of gun rights advocates.

Despite these critical qualifications, gun rights advocates say they are protected by the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, yet selectively ignore the many ways the court allows for some forms of gun control. And despite the way the court enshrines gun ownership as a personal right, gun control advocates criticize the ruling, yet selectively fail to acknowledge or try to take political advantage of the ways it gives them the legal ammunition to accomplish much of what they want. Why is that?

First, of course, because few of us have read the ruling. We take our news in bits and bites from the media, and rarely dig any further. (I hadn’t read the ruling until just the other day.) In fact, many of us don’t really read or watch or listen to the news at all. We get our information from advocates, or friends, or social connections, sources who generally share and thus only reinforce our ideologies and basic values.

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns | Big Think
The Heller decision was a slap in the face to constitutionalists and gun owners in general. What Heller did was to take a giant dump on Liberties, Rights and the Second Amendment, destroying centuries of established precedent along the way. Maybe you should know the facts:

Nothing … is unchangeable but the inherent … rights of man.” – Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824


Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.” – Thomas Jefferson, Legal Argument, 1770

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Another court ruling went further in their ruling:

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

Let us define this word unalienable a bit more closely and then talk about it:

Unalienable -Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. (Blacks Law Dictionary online)


You have Rights that preceded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Those Rights are natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, and God given (regardless of whether you acknowledge a God or not)

Those unalienable Rights are not transferable

Now, let me give you another court ruling:

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)


So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_..._United_States

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:


"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)


Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence
.
- United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

The United States Supreme Court cannot, constitutionally, interfere with the Right to keep and bear Arms. Do they have the power? Yes, but they lack the authority. In Heller, the Court over-stepped its jurisdiction.

We All Have Inherent Rights Even If Govs. Don't Recognize It | The Freedom Articles

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (200

Even in Heller, the Court says "like most rights." That's an admission that some rights are unlimited. Which ones? Why? Free speech is free speech until its taxed, prohibited, limited, and or denied. Ditto for your Right to keep and bear Arms.

Scalia had his say. I consulted with some other people:

"1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
." Chief Justice Joseph Story United States Supreme Court "Commentaries on the Constitution"

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Those unchangeable, inherent, natural, God given, unalienable absolute Rights are, by our Constitution. above the reach of the law. Government does not grant those Rights and, by the earliest precedents, are powerless to prohibit your Right to keep and bear Arms.
Thanks from caconservative and Sabcat
discollector is offline  
Old November 7th, 2017, 07:39 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
The Heller decision was a slap in the face to constitutionalists and gun owners in general. What Heller did was to take a giant dump on Liberties, Rights and the Second Amendment, destroying centuries of established precedent along the way. Maybe you should know the facts:

Nothing … is unchangeable but the inherent … rights of man.” – Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824


Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.” – Thomas Jefferson, Legal Argument, 1770

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Another court ruling went further in their ruling:

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

Let us define this word unalienable a bit more closely and then talk about it:

Unalienable -Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. (Blacks Law Dictionary online)


You have Rights that preceded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Those Rights are natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, and God given (regardless of whether you acknowledge a God or not)

Those unalienable Rights are not transferable

Now, let me give you another court ruling:

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)


So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_..._United_States

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:


"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)


Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence
.
- United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

The United States Supreme Court cannot, constitutionally, interfere with the Right to keep and bear Arms. Do they have the power? Yes, but they lack the authority. In Heller, the Court over-stepped its jurisdiction.

We All Have Inherent Rights Even If Govs. Don't Recognize It | The Freedom Articles

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (200

Even in Heller, the Court says "like most rights." That's an admission that some rights are unlimited. Which ones? Why? Free speech is free speech until its taxed, prohibited, limited, and or denied. Ditto for your Right to keep and bear Arms.

Scalia had his say. I consulted with some other people:

"1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
." Chief Justice Joseph Story United States Supreme Court "Commentaries on the Constitution"

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Those unchangeable, inherent, natural, God given, unalienable absolute Rights are, by our Constitution. above the reach of the law. Government does not grant those Rights and, by the earliest precedents, are powerless to prohibit your Right to keep and bear Arms.
Obviously the right isn't so absolute if felons and the mentally ill are denied their right as it was granted by the 1689 EBoR. Even you advocate to deny the mentally ill their rights as you want them institutionalized.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old November 7th, 2017, 08:01 PM   #20
Have you seen my Iguana
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 22,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by justoneman View Post
So what you are saying is that laws are not stopping illegal weapons from going over the border?

I find that very funny. Are you advocating for more border security or are you saying that laws are not enough to stop a criminal from using a weapon in a crime?
Ahh...expecting critical thinking from a collectivist. Should we have a talk about santa Claus?
Sabcat is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Tags
directly, gun, mass, ownership, proportional, shootings



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mass Shootings and mental illness Sensible Current Events 27 November 2nd, 2017 12:18 PM
Why do some mass shootings make the news and some don't? Lyzza Current Events 1 October 7th, 2015 06:51 AM
The Under-Reported Truth Behind Most Mass Shootings LongWinded Gun Control 14 September 3rd, 2015 11:33 AM
How to Stop Mass Shootings Jimmyb Current Events 8 January 17th, 2013 04:12 AM
Two mass shootings in one day... fxashun Gun Control 4 March 12th, 2009 03:10 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



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