Shocking, another mass murder, they've become as American as apple pie

[Abatis]

Odd. You just stated:

“federal government can't act because no power was ever granted to the government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.”

Yet, here you are, stating the opposite. It appears they do have an”interest”. Restrictions abound, pally, on rights.

Rights not mentioned = inherent rights? Pffft. Take that to court, pally
“

I'm sorry I did not specifically point out that the federal government has enacted unconstitutional law, I was just speaking of what the law is in the context of evince's posts. God knows I didn't want to complicate things with her saying the law was actually invalid.

Many, many challenges to unconstitutional laws are making their way through the courts. It takes time to pump out the bilges and get the government properly righted on its keel.

[Русский агент]

I'm sorry I did not specifically point out that the federal government has enacted unconstitutional law, I was just speaking of what the law is in the context of evince's posts. God knows I didn't want to complicate things with her saying the law was actually invalid.

Many, many challenges to unconstitutional laws are making their way through the courts. It takes time to pump out the bilges and get the government properly righted on its keel.

Good points.

[SmarterthanYou]

the main problem with most libs and cons is that they feel they have to rely upon supreme court decisions as to what the constitution allows and doesn't allow. It shows an inability to think for themselves and that the constitution and the 'law' is just way too difficult and complex for the common person to understand, so courts, lawyers, and judges are absolutely necessary to tell us what they all mean. Until there comes an issue that they've been led to believe they must support, like abortion or guns, then they come off like con law experts and that those judges don't know shit.

[Micawber]

domer 76 is correct that the idea of natural law comes from people, not a superstitious cloud guy that doesn't exist. Abatis is a moron. He is only armed with a tiny speck of misinformation, but in the hands of a doofus, the ignorance is magnified. If natural law does not depend upon a deity, then it comes from an abstract idea of men, therefore it does not matter whether the right to keep and bear arms
is of constitutional origin or not. It is still a human abstraction made into social contract, not a sacrament. It can be erased by a 2/3 majority just as it was written, and having done so, can be enforced by violence, as was done with cavemen, Hammurabi , Napoleon or the Dumpstocity himself.
Violence is not itself a law or a right. THINK!

[canceled.2021.2]

Yeah, your Rights came from some superior being that endowed them upon. Sure is a capricious and random being that skipped so many societies with those rights.

Your rights, pally boy, as enumerated in the BofR, was originally nothing more than a political tool, fool.

So who gave you the right to free speech? Got a name?

[Abatis]

the main problem with most libs and cons is that they feel they have to rely upon supreme court decisions as to what the constitution allows and doesn't allow. It shows an inability to think for themselves and that the constitution and the 'law' is just way too difficult and complex for the common person to understand, so courts, lawyers, and judges are absolutely necessary to tell us what they all mean. Until there comes an issue that they've been led to believe they must support, like abortion or guns, then they come off like con law experts and that those judges don't know shit.

Believing a court decision is wrong is one thing, misrepresenting an entire branch of precedent like anti-gunners do with the 2nd Amendment is quite another, e.g., Micawber:

The right to keep and bear arms has only been adjudicated to be a personal right by scotus recently. That means for 200 years it was not adjudicated to be a personal right at all.

Yeah, right . . .

I don't fault anyone for having an informed opinion about the law or the Constitution (that's what makes for good debate) but to deny what is in plain English just to maintain / advance / protect a political agenda is bullshit and should be called-out and rebutted and destroyed whenever it is seen.

[canceled.2021.2]

ARE CHILDERN ALLOWED TO BUY GUNS??????



no

that is a gun restriction idiot

They should be especially if they are getting an abortion

They should be taught how to use a gun while they are getting sex ed

The guns should be kept next to the condoms

[domer76]

domer fucktard believes that you only have permissions that can be denied by the government at will.

I take that as a “no”.

lol

[domer76]

So who gave you the right to free speech? Got a name?

It’s referred to as the First Amendment. Certainly, your Creator has nothing to do with it.

[SmarterthanYou]

Believing a court decision is wrong is one thing, misrepresenting an entire branch of precedent like anti-gunners do with the 2nd Amendment is quite another, e.g., Micawber:

Yeah, right . . .

I don't fault anyone for having an informed opinion about the law or the Constitution (that's what makes for good debate) but to deny what is in plain English just to maintain / advance / protect a political agenda is bullshit and should be called-out and rebutted and destroyed whenever it is seen.

Micawber has me on ignore because I completely trashed and debunked his idea of what the constitution is and does.

[SmarterthanYou]

I take that as a “no”.

lol

the funny part of all this is you've skirted around and completely avoided answering any questions about the constitution, rights, and specific items about them, instead relying on your only talking point which is all rights are alienable...........

so at least you have that going for you

[SmarterthanYou]

It’s referred to as the First Amendment. Certainly, your Creator has nothing to do with it.

and to actually prove my point about you not knowing what the constitution does or doesn't do, you give a clear example of your idiocy.

[Abatis]

domer 76 is correct that the idea of natural law comes from people, not a superstitious cloud guy that doesn't exist.

Where does any philosophy come from?

The debate between Bodin / Filmer and Locke / Sidney was whether the king had a "divine right" to rule or humans had a inherent right to choose their own government. The founders / framers chose Locke and Sidney's "natural rights" theory and Jefferson embraced that and it became the basis for telling the king to fuck off and killing a shit-ton of redcoats. The Constitution that followed bound the US government to treat the rights of the citizen as inherent and pre-existing the Constitution thus not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution.

Abatis is a moron.

Saying it is one thing, proving it is quite another.

He is only armed with a tiny speck of misinformation, but in the hands of a doofus, the ignorance is magnified.

Micawber getting all Tasmanian Devilish. Ooooohh, stand back!

If natural law does not depend upon a deity, then it comes from an abstract idea of men, therefore it does not matter whether the right to keep and bear arms is of constitutional origin or not. It is still a human abstraction made into social contract, not a sacrament.

Why is philosophy enforced by social contract such a hard concept for you to understand?

It can be erased by a 2/3 majority just as it was written, and having done so, can be enforced by violence, as was done with cavemen, Hammurabi , Napoleon or the Dumpstocity himself.

There are quite a few problems with your assessment; some make for good debate. I guess we'll never know.

Violence is not itself a law or a right. THINK!

Having the right to consent to be governed means "We the People" also retain the right to rescind our consent to be governed.

That's the "violence" the 2nd Amendment secures.

I guess you are going to chicken out on a one on one, supported, insult-free, debate . . .

I'm never surprised by guys like you.

[Stretch]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.3571504

Nothing will change, rhetoric will escalate, as will shootings, but there are so many mass shootings in America that we have become desensitized to it, if massacring children in an elementary school doesn't produce any change nothing will, we are the gun killing capital of the world

All this time I thought you were a lib.
Libs love pointing out that we all have "the right" to do anything we want that's OK'd by the Constitution, and that men and women fought and died to protect our liberties even if some disagree.

[Abatis]

A simple question to the evince's, domer76's and Micawber's of the board:

If the concept of inherent and unenumerated rights is mystical bullshit believed only by gun crazy fools and right-wing idiots, how and why is the recognition and protection of the right to privacy and the derivative rights to abortion etc., based upon it?