Pelosi encourages illegals to buy guns.

Nov 2018
3,831
1,878
Inner Space
#71
It is sad that we have a foundational principle and tolerate having political prisoners. If I needed a firearm to protect my family, my own life, and / or property, then I would exercise my God given Rights. Hopefully you would too. Otherwise, there is no point in worrying about the Rule of Law.
You are just storing up ammo, guns, food, water, and white women for than time when the revolution to take back the government begins?
 
Mar 2018
758
148
Grayson
#72
But it's perfectly legal for someone to buy a gun and give it to someone as a gift. If you'd be in favor of ICE being notified of an attempted purchase of a firearm, I'd be in favor of making it a felony for anyone to have a firearm without have a background check performed.
It is legal??? I thought that was a straw man purchase. Personally, I won't do it.
 
Mar 2018
758
148
Grayson
#74
You are just storing up ammo, guns, food, water, and white women for than time when the revolution to take back the government begins?
LMFAO. Nobody does that any more unless it's maybe the Mormons. The white people have acquiesced to the NEW WORLD ORDER and even their president is a freaking globalist that plays his cult following.

Biff, there will be no taking back the government. After Trump, there probably won't even be another president. The left will demand a new constitution. Whites have thrown in the towel, turned their back on our foundational principles, and have become an embarrassment to their forefathers.
 
Nov 2018
3,831
1,878
Inner Space
#76
What has that got to do with what I asked?
Your misconceptions about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the role of government and your rights as a citizen in post 67 and 68 all seem to add up to the predictable survivalist, Right Wing wacko, anti-government, quasi-libertarian, xenophobic, pro-gun fantasies so common these days among white men of a certain age and education.
 
Mar 2018
758
148
Grayson
#77
Your misconceptions about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the role of government and your rights as a citizen in post 67 and 68 all seem to add up to the predictable survivalist, Right Wing wacko, anti-government, quasi-libertarian, xenophobic, pro-gun fantasies so common these days among white men of a certain age and education.
My misconceptions? Do tell. I don't think I have many misconceptions about the Declaration of Independence. I have well over 200 books on the subject and read most of them. I am a direct descendant of Arthur Middleton, the eldest signer of the Declaration of Independence and chief architect of what we know as the American Revolution aka War of Independence.

Seems to me you're trying to put people into nifty categories and then judge people based upon your personal biases. Isn't that what you're accusing men of a certain age and education of doing? BTW, I don't know if I fit your age group, but I do have degrees in both law and theology. I just earned a degree last year - and done that in my 60s!
 
Mar 2018
758
148
Grayson
#78
Some people, like yourself, like to promote a falsehood at any cost and with little interest in learning the truth.
Biff, buddy, it seems to me that you think you have a monopoly on this concept of truth. Don't you think it would help your credibility to provide facts to promote your views as opposed to telling everyone here that disagrees with you that they are promoting falsehoods?
 
Nov 2018
3,831
1,878
Inner Space
#79
"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. "

The Second Amendment is an extension of your Right to Life. And our major founding principle is that all men derive their unalienable Rights from their Creator. Our Creator sure isn't government. Government does not give the Right and government is prohibited by the Constitution from prohibiting people from keeping and bearing firearms.


My misconceptions? Do tell. I don't think I have many misconceptions about the Declaration of Independence. I have well over 200 books on the subject and read most of them. I am a direct descendant of Arthur Middleton, the eldest signer of the Declaration of Independence and chief architect of what we know as the American Revolution aka War of Independence.

Seems to me you're trying to put people into nifty categories and then judge people based upon your personal biases. Isn't that what you're accusing men of a certain age and education of doing? BTW, I don't know if I fit your age group, but I do have degrees in both law and theology. I just earned a degree last year - and done that in my 60s!
Perhaps you time and treasure was wasted on your attempts at education.
I am surprised that anyone with any education in law would claim or imply:
1. that the Declaration of Independence has any force of law
2. that the Second Amendment is an extension of some non-existent other right ("Right to life")
3. that the Constitution does not allow the government to prohibit people from keeping or bearing arms

You need to re-read Heller, in particular the latter part of the Opinion of the Court where Scalia argues that the Second is not unlimited and the analysis he offers does not prohibit the government from any number of laws or regulations to restrict the ownership of firearms.
 
Mar 2018
758
148
Grayson
#80
Perhaps you time and treasure was wasted on your attempts at education.
I am surprised that anyone with any education in law would claim or imply:
1. that the Declaration of Independence has any force of law
2. that the Second Amendment is an extension of some non-existent other right ("Right to life")
3. that the Constitution does not allow the government to prohibit people from keeping or bearing arms

You need to re-read Heller, in particular the latter part of the Opinion of the Court where Scalia argues that the Second is not unlimited and the analysis he offers does not prohibit the government from any number of laws or regulations to restrict the ownership of firearms.
I think that was an underhanded insult, so I'll bet any amount of money that once the counter to your opinion is provided, you will be jumping up and down, yelling "I knew it" when this lesson can be found NOWHERE without my name attached to it. That is because it is not the teaching of anyone except yours truly. So, here we go:

1) While the Declaration of Independence is not a statute nor a legal case, it is law. It appears at the head of United States Code which is the official laws of the United States. It has been used at least a hundred times in cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. Of this document the United States Supreme ruled:

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Put simply I'm safe to interpret the Constitution consistent with the wording of the Declaration of Independence. If interpreted differently, there is probably going to be a major issue with constitutional consistency.

Let's quote Thomas Jefferson on this point:

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823


George Washington said:
"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Farewell Address


Let us talk reason here:

The authority of the United States Supreme Court is listed in the United States Constitution. Article III Section 1 gives the United States Supreme Court judicial power. NO other authority is listed; however, we have seen the United States Supreme Court appoint itself as the supreme branch of government; they have bestowed upon Congress powers that Congress did not have; they have interpreted and then reinterpreted their own decisions.

I'm keeping with the words of the founders AND the separation of powers, it is just plain common horse sense that if one branch of the government, consisting of UNELECTED officials can declare a law to mean one thing today and the polar opposite tomorrow, they have effectively legislated from the bench and have done the very thing the founders warned against. THAT is why the Republic is about to come to an end. I'll give you an example:

In 1973 the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of abortion. Trump is confident that his Court will overturn that decision. AFTER Trump the liberals will take over and then rely on a future court to overturn Trump. With judicial legislation, why are you paying for a House of Representatives and a United States Senate. Washington's admonition could not be more prophetic than it is in our day.

So, IN MY OPINION, I look at the FIRST United States Supreme Court interpretations and follow them. When he High Court tries to legislate from the bench, I judiciously ignore them. If you want to change the Constitution, amend it. Otherwise the Republic collapses.

2) Consistent with what I just told you, the FIRST time a state supreme court interpreted the Second Amendment, they ruled:

"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." Nunn v. Georgia. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

A few years later the supreme court of Texas ruled:

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

Shortly thereafter the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

You see, I'm not cherry picking. The states interpreted the Constitution to mean ONE THING. I'm only quoting the FIRST decisions. The United States Supreme Court, even violating their own ruling, admitted the fact. The Right to keep and bear Arms is NOT dependent upon the Constitution. It predates the Constitution as it is an extension of the Right to Life... the life you say is not protected by law. I think the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified; however, the courts hold it up as law, so you'd better refer to it. It guarantees a right to life (sic.)

3) That you would invoke the ridiculous Heller decision is quite funny. It proves my entire point. Their ruling was:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. "

What??? What??? That flies in the face of what the founders said; it contradicts the FIRST state supreme court cases; it is 180 degrees opposite of what the United States Supreme Court ruled in its FIRST ruling on the subject. Can anybody out there see which direction the country is heading when we ignore the admonitions of the founders? The United States Supreme Court has usurped powers it clearly did not have. How much longer does it go on before they are the only law making body in our former Republic?

If you'd like an in depth education on this, I can provide it. But, wait, you're spouting liberal horse dung. I won't accuse you of anything, but if you come back challenging my education because you disagree, then all this discussion boils down to you is you thinking you're superior because a majority of Americans have not thought this through and will agree with you out of ignorance. Do the courts have the power? Obviously they do. But do they have the real authority? NO. And it is the job of the citizenry to educate themselves and set it right.
 

Similar Discussions