Another school shooting, another call for more gun control laws. This time, in the state with more gun control laws than any other.
It won’t — can’t — work.
The only way to end “gun violence” is to forcibly confiscate and destroy every single firearm in the country. Not just privately owned weapons; everything. Then eliminate every possible precursor to so much as a zip gun, including plumbing supplies, building construction materials, fertilizer, sugar, soda cans.
Then you’d have to end literacy, lest some clever fellow read an old book, and get some badthink ideas.
You’ll also have to close the borders and end international trade to prevent gun smuggling.
The fact is, you can’t end “gun violence” by regulating guns. Even if you waved a magic wand and made guns impossible, those inclined towards aggressive violence will continue their ways using other implements, or just fists and feet. Humans managed plenty of violence for millennia before firearms were invented less than a thousand years ago.
You have to solve all violence. And since some feral humans seem inclined towards violence just for the heck of it, we’ll never completely succeed until humans evolve into angels.
But we could minimize it by directing our attention to the motivations of violent people, and countering those; gang turf wars, mental health issues, revenge killings. Taking Jacksonville, Florida’s near-daily shootings as an example, we could stop a large amount of violence if we could teach idiots that shooting someone because he “dissed” you is a bad idea. Or that robbery and burglary are inappropriate ways to get money for school supplies.
Instead, time, money, and legislative effort goes to more victim-disarming gun control laws, “buybacks,” and “gun violence” research. Not root causes.
The only national gun control law that addresses the cause — the offender — is the Gun Control Act‘s creation of the class of prohibited persons who may not possess firearms. It doesn’t do much about them, but it created the class.
The Brady Act‘s background checks pretend to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it’s very well established that criminals don’t buy their guns from licensed dealers anyway. FFL NICS checks are designed to ignore real “crime gun” acquisition channels.
Criminals already have millions of stolen firearms which “require” no background checks. (Enhanced firearms sentencing could be regarded as gun control laws targeting criminals, but they generally enhanced punishment based on mere possession — or even “constructive possession” — rather than criminal use of the firearm.)
Every other law targets the law-abiding. Think of it as professional courtesy, providing safe workplaces for violent criminals.
The only thing that will stop gun violence is a people that are “at all times armed”. Which is precisely the intent of Amendment II. Doesn’t anyone else find it interesting how that there weren’t these problems before the right of the people to keep and bear arms had been infringed? With each and every infringement crime rates have risen – never fallen.
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
Yup, and another by Jefferson:
Can it be necessary to say that a merchant vessel is not a privateer? That though she has arms to defend herself in time of war, in the course of her regular commerce, this no more makes her a privateer, than a husbandman following his plow, in time of war, with a knife or pistol in his pocket, is. thereby, made a soldier? The occupation of a privateer is attack and plunder, that of a merchant vesstl is commerce and self-preservation.
[Thomas Jefferson, To Gouerneur Morris, iv, 41. FORD ED., vi, 385. (Pa., Aug. 1793.). (Jeffersonian Cyclopedia).]
Excerpt:
Marque and Reprisal
The Congress shall have Power To …grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal….
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11
The Marque and Reprisal Clause plays an important supporting role in the debate over the original allocation of war powers between the President and Congress. At the time of the Founding, the sovereign authorized holders of letters of marque and reprisal to engage in hostile actions against enemies of the state. The common understanding of “Reprisal” is a seizure of property (or sometimes persons) of a foreign state for redressing an injury committed by that state. Because the word marque is the French equivalent of reprisal, many scholars believe that the constitutional term “Marque and Reprisal” is best understood as a single phrase.
The only serious debate over the meaning of the Marque and Reprisal Clause is whether it extends only to authorizing private parties (known as “privateers”) to engage in reprisals for private, commercial gain, or whether it also gives Congress the power to authorize reprisals by the armed forces of the United States for public purposes.
I wish I could arm my kayak sailing vessel to defend herself. I see it now. Coast Guard hails me to conduct a surprise inspection. Coast Guard, “What is that!.” Me, “A cannon. So that my vessel may defend herself as Mr. Jefferson said she should.” Coast Guard, “You are under arrest.”
I suspect the weight of a cannon would cause your kayak to have a tragic boating accident. But I can tell you that private motor and sailing yachts are frequently armed, though usually with small arms.
NO such thing as GUN VIOLENCE. There is only CRIMINAL VIOLENCE.
I personally will NOT ARGUE with anyone who starts the conversation this way.
Wait, what just happened? Thixo just made a comment that makes sense. The end of the world is surely nigh.
…or there are two people contributing under the username “Thixo”, just as what happened with “Vlad” and that “Pg(2)” guy.
Who cares?
“Who cares?”
You did, jack-wad. You responded.
If you didn’t care, you would have kept your yap shut… 😉
Wrong, BONEHEAD. Don’t like it? Then that is just too friggin’ bad.
Yep. And we need criminal control, not gun control. Don’t help propagate lefty terminology.
Nah. Homicide rates do not correlate nearly that cleanly to gun control. Homicide rates were highest decades ago. And the idea that gun violence would end if everyone was armed is absolutely ridiculous. Criminals are stupid.
WRONG, and the crime statistics prove it beyond all shadow of doubt. All one has to do is examine Chicago to get a real good picture.
Do you mean how the violent crime fell precipitously in those years since we have licensed concealed carry in Illinois legalized and the Chicago’s hadgun ban stricken? Well, I’m afraid I have some bad news for you…
Law Enforcement Today:
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/chicago-strictest-laws-violent-crime-rates/
Chicago: We have some of the strictest gun laws. Also Chicago: So many people are being shot.
Posted by LET Staff | Aug 4, 2019
CHICAGO, Ill. – It’s no secret that this past weekend was one of the deadliest our country has seen in a while, with multiple gunmen opening fire in public settings, claiming the lives of innocent Americans.
But while everyone is paying attention to these mass shootings and the increasing debate over how to properly deal with them, Chicago’s crime rate is continuing to skyrocket when it comes to firearms.
So far in 2019, more than 1,500 people have been reported shot in the Illinois city.
Today is no different. On Sunday, Chicago authorities reported that seven people had been shot in two separate incidents. The Chicago Sun Times reported that just before 1:30 a.m. on Sunday, a suspect inside a black Chevy Camaro opened fire near a playground in the west side of the city. . . .
. . . Since everyone is calling for strict gun legislation following the vicious public attacks this weekend, let’s take a closer look at a city that has arguably some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
They’re not doing so hot.
As of July 28, the Chicago Tribune noted that 1,517 people had been shot. Add up those recent numbers from the past few days and the numbers continue to climb. . . .
OF COURSE it can’t be! FIRST the left must comprehend that one would need to end violence and that goes all the way back to Cain and Genesis. They should also be reminded that eliminating weapons won’t help at all, like when the mayor of London considered the idea of outlawing knives; I guess he never heard of sharp sticks and they don’t have to sharp until just prior to use.
This is all traced back to a Godless society program that was pushed by the socialists. The NAZI’s promoted much the same thing claiming that the government and Nazism was their religion . When a society believes that there is no punishment for what you do and that committing suicide before the police arrest you will prevent yourself from paying a penalty for what you do, then you have mass killings with the criminal committing suicide when the police show up. An amoral society produces the crime and violence that we now see. ” As in the days of Noah…….”
Good point. Democrats are becoming more bold in their anti-Christian and anti-family agenda. They hate everyone that doesn’t vote for them.
With my magic dust I can honestly make it so no gun every comes out of a cabinet, drawer, closet, under the bed, night stand or anywhere and shoots anybody ever again……Without a human behind the trigger!
It’s not about Gunz,it’s about Control ! For the lefts grand plan to come to fruition,they have to remove as many firearms from the civilian population as possible,by any and all means necessary,the rest is just so much Bravo Sierra.
No, it is not about “Control”. It is about fear and blind stupidity by people who see a terrible thing they do not comprehend and seize upon an imaginary solution is to get rid of it. One that in their fear, their Hoplophobic terror, just sounds so easy and simple and “Common Sense” to them.
I think you’re right. It is very much that. It’s also a lazy way for a politician to rile up the mob, instead of coming up with thoughtful solutions.
To be clear, I think that’s part of it. They also don’t trust anyone except the government (themselves) to be armed.
Why would you think “angels” have no violent tendancies? Or for that matter, why would you exclude the several billion people who have other beliefs which do not include angels or other Christian symbols?
In fact whether you hold Christian or other beliefs, the fact is that the universe – our reality – was born as a result of violence and could not continue to exist without it. And that includes the USA and every life form on this or any other planet.
You’re calling out the use of a metaphor (to show that humans are prone to violence, and for that to change, the species needs a complete change of character), because *I* don’t “know” that “angels” are actually nonviolent? But you “know” that the universe “was born as a result of violence”?
violence: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy
So you’ve positively established that the Cyclic Big Bang theory is true.
Big bang , let there be light, ancient aliens, turtles all the way down, whatever. Makes no difference. Do you accept what you perceive around you as reality? Then I have something for you to ponder:
“In the absence of Reality, Probability rules.” This quote is based on the accepted scale of mathematical Probability, which runs from “0” (impossibility) to 1 (an “event”), an event being a realization of a Probability. Take your time to understand it. Or not, your choice.
“This quote is based on the accepted scale of mathematical Probability, which runs from “0” (impossibility) to 1 (an “event”), an event being a realization of a Probability. Take your time to understand it.”
Ding, ding, ding. Ok. I got it. There is a probability I don’t exist. Kinda makes me re-think that whole life is a journey, not a destination thing.
Or maybe I really am a figment of my imagination.
Probably.
Dude, back off on the medical marijuana dosage, or at least remember to turn off the computer before you fire up.
If you want something to ponder, try this: the actual column under which you’re commenting.
Notice that line really JUMPED up in 2002 ish?
well that is when Pete Wilson the last republican was gone and a dumb dem who cold not do his job took over….until Arny SwatzNstupid the FAKE republican took over and ruined the state will full blow LIB DemO-RAT laws and added even more Dem madness to the state until its failing like it is right now!
never vote DNC! You cant say or spell Democrat…without the RAT showing!
Not quite, OBOB. Der Governator slipped his way into office as a result of our historical recall of Gray Davis back in 2003. Pete Wilson (and other Republicans such as Deukmajian) were already gone. When Davis was elected, the state was still purple with enough red in it to be shocked by a Democrat’s actions. Shocked enough to oust him. But we (I say the collective “we”, because I myself voted for Republican Tom McClintock) fell for the Schwarzneggar’s lies as he ran under the Republican banner, then quickly turned Democrat due to his then-marriage ties to the Kennedy family. Basically, he “pulled a Behar” long before Joy Behar thought of it.
Then, as if Der Governator didn’t screw us over enough, Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown was elected and ran not as a Democrat or even a liberal, but as a “Progressive” to push us further left. Now we’ve gone full Leftard with Newsom, and the fact that for the first time in our state’s history every single state-level office is occupied by a Democrat, and the Legislature has a super majority. The only silver lining to this madness is that the Democrats have had the reins for a full twenty years now, so they own our problems and can’t argue their way out of it.
And yet, even so, Newsom’s promises of “bread and circuses”, combined with our farcical and arguably unlawful election procedures, the unwashed masses here have voted for the #1 worst snake oil salesman the entire nation has seen in a Governor’s office in memory.
LOL funny I wrote the same thing…just did not need 3 paragraphs to do it!
Not really. You got your history wrong and jumped from Wilson to Schwarzneggar, completely omitting Davis who was the entire reason we ended up with Schwarzneggar.
I thought it funny that in that election, Larry Flynt got more votes than Gary Coleman.
“The only national gun control law that addresses the cause — the offender — is the Gun Control Act‘s creation of the class of prohibited persons who may not possess firearms. It doesn’t do much about them, but it created the class.”
….and in the process, infringed upon the rights of millions of “offenders” who have never committed a violent act.
The idea of a “prohibited person” is ridiculous in a free society. The idea that some bad guy is not any sort of threat so long as he doesn’t get his hands on a gun is pure insanity. If a person cannot be trusted with a gun, why are they trusted to walk around in society?
Exactly. When his sentence ends and he is released back into society are we being assured that the felon has been thoroughly rehabilitated and is no longer a danger to society. If so, then why is he not to be trusted and thus a prohibited person regarding firearms. Is he rehabilitated or not?
The whole intent of Amendment II was to PREVENT disarming people as punishment for a crime. Because that’s what the state of Massachusetts had done to the people that had participated in Shay’s Rebellion and it almost caused another Revolution. Thomas Jefferson mentions it here:
The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.
—Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith*, Nov. 13, 1787. (*William S. Smith, U.S. Representative, Diplomat and First U.S. Marshal of New York.)
And if a person is disarmed via “red-flagging” because he is determined to be a threat is he less dangerous now that he is supposedly disarmed even though now angry and free to go about and seek vengeance on his accusers?
This ‘red-flagging’ treason is totally unconstitutional.
I can’t form an opinion on this issue until the Bonespurian Candidate weighs in. MAGA for 1000 years!
If you can’t think for yourself then you should not be commenting, voting or owning a firearm
If you can’t think for yourself then you should not be commenting, voting or owning a firearm.
The first problem is that “Solving Gun Violence” starts you out on an idiotic quest. You can not change or alter a thing that does not exist. Guns are not violent, only people and animals are violent. If the goal was “Reducing Human Violence Using Guns As Much As Possible”, well now that thought process opens many opportunities.
This bunch has had great success treating inner city youth on youth and gang violence as a behavioral problem, as a disease process of violence and revenge stuck in a cycle. It works, we need a lot more of CureViolence.Org:
https://cvg.org/
The lessons from Columbine and other school violence that came out int he US Secret Service Safe Schools Initiative. This all works and needs funding to be spread around the country to every school district:
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/07/13/us-secret-service-releases-operational-guide-preventing-targeted-school-violence
40 years ago we had a robust mental health system in the USA. Liberals and Conservatives both found fault with it, and they weren’t wrong. Instead of fixing it they gutted it. Today it is very hard to get help for somebody. Major example was Mrs. Lanza who tried and was repeatedly turned away and finally died at the hand of her crazed son. Hell of a lot could be done to restore the system we once had, while paying close attention to fixing the abuses that made it an easy target for both sides.
Next is training children to be safe. Start them young with the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program:
https://eddieeagle.nra.org/
Next is to take the mystery out of firearms and normalize them by restoring school target shooting clubs. Every child and teen should have training in safety, learn the operation of different firearm types with a focus on making them safe. For those with further interest, join the target shooting club. Begin with rimfire, move up to centerfire for the old teens.
Quote: “40 years ago we had a robust mental health system in the USA. Liberals and Conservatives both found fault with it, and they weren’t wrong. Instead of fixing it they gutted it.”
I remember when they outlawed the existing mental health system. It was just shut down and all the “inmates” were just turned out on the streets with no support, no supervision, no nothing. Many (if not most) ended up on the streets as homeless, beggars and criminals.
When it was first announced I recognized it was really dumb.
I knew something about a few inmates, some of them were judged criminally insane but laws prevented them from being in prisons. There were deaths as a result of releasing that population.
Today very little has changed. One guy I knew for 40 years was “disturbed” (ok, insane) and being treated with drugs. He was “kinda ok” when he was taking his drugs but sometimes he didn’t. When off he was a danger to himself and everyone else. About three years ago he was committed by a judge because of some of his actions and his responses to the judge. The requirements were 24/7 supervision. He was in a hospital until the payments stopped and he was turned out on the street again. He died under suspicious circumstances about a year later.
Someone taking care of a “problem”? Who knows.
People are part of the animal kingdom and as such we are going to act like animals. Some will try to establish a dominance and will not stop until some one younger and/or stronger will over power them. Fortunately, most people are content to just exist and maintain a sedate/civilized life style. Unfortunately, the minority that doesn’t believe that they need not follow the rules of a civilized society, will alway continue to live an unlawful life style. Until we can eliminate or control this element, we will always have violence in our society. To take away guns from law abiding citizens would not curb violence. it would probably promote it because the outlaws would know that law abiding citizens would be defenseless. Guns are not the problem. Make drug dealing a capital crime. Drug use is a violent and costly crime. Americans die every day from over doses and drug related crimes. Eliminate crime(criminals), reinstate/instill a civil morality and we will curb violence, but we can never completely eliminate it, because remember that after all, we are still animals!
You, sir might consider yourself an animal but I’m a man created in the image of God. And I consider you to be as well.
Animal, vegetable or mineral—–take your pick!
A quick reading of the bible shows god to be a violent character on the scale of a mass murderer. Some image.
Dig a little deeper UPINARMS. God sent His son Jesus to die an excruciating death on the cross for you in order to pay the penalty for your sin. You might consider that the God who destroyed the entire human population except for Noah and his family might have something to say about how you should think about Him and His ways. It’s only your eternity that’s at stake. Remember, He loves you enough to kill His own son that you might live forever with Him in heaven.
” …God who destroyed the entire human population except for Noah and his family …He loves you enough to kill His own son… ”
Well, that’s some pretty sick shit right there, and it doesn’t even scratch the surface of what else he’s guilty of.
As long as you have 2 men an some property, you’re going to have a battle. It’s human nature. (That property has been know to be woman, historically, at times.) It can be land, water, trees, fuel, drugs, alcohol. It’s human nature and we have to work around that in a civil manner. But, sometimes was is necessary. (See: 1776, 1812, 1860, 1938-45 etc.)
Whether guns, drugs, alcohol, or whatever, prohibition of your favorite disapproved material in this manner never has and never will solve problems.
“Death penalty for parking violations!”
~Steve Martin
“Death penalty for parking violations!”
~Steve Martin
Well?
It’s a start.
HINT: it ain’t democrats “solving” gun crime. The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked-who can know it? The only way to solve all this is being born again by the BLOOD of JESUS CHRIST. When a human has that he won’t murder his neighbor. Or steal. Or cheat.
Absolutely the solution is the Anointed, (the actual meaning of the word christ), Yehôshûa, (the actual name of ‘Jesus’ – [a Latin name]). And Yehôshûa had stated the following:
When a strong man armed, keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace.–Yehôshûa, Luke 11:21
Then said he unto them, “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.–Yehôshûa, whom is the Anointed – The Lord, Luke 22:36
And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.–Yehôshûa, Luke 12:39
don’t illegal aliens hold up signs saying that no person is illegal?
does it work the same with guns? even “undocumented” ones?
According to our Constitution is definitely does. Our right to keep and bear arms was expressly removed from all government interference. And here is why:
No, surely, No! they meant to drive us into what they termed rebellion, that they might be furnished with a pretext to disarm and then strip us of the rights and privileges of Englishmen and Citizens.–George Washington, March 1, 1778 letter to Bryan Fairfax, Valley forge.
How many gun laws will they propose due to this incident? More AWB, mag bans, ammo bans, bans of bans on bans? It’s all they have to offer. Why not offer security at schools? We know people target schools. It’s not a secret. How about make it so schools are not giant open targets?
To be excruciatingly redundant and repetitive……we the people have no way to know how many people had in mind to commit a crime, but didn’t because they feared the consequences of the law. Not murder, not robbery, not embezzlement, not assault, not nothun.
Continuing to decry the utility of gun laws in the face of criminal disregard for the law justifies the idea that all laws should be repealed because we know of not one instance where the law deterred the illegal action. The “has never stopped a crime” theme just doesn’t make sense, and obviously doesn’t influence anyone’s thinking who is convinced laws suppress crime just by existing.
What in the hell is wrong with you people? The Constitution – the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND – explicitly declares that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. NONE of the previous unconstitutional ‘gun control laws’ have worked. Not a damned one. And yet you think that somehow another UNCONSTITUTIONAL law is going to solve the problem?
How about RETURNING TO WHAT ACTUALLY WORKED? —
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.
Any person that advances the violation of our Constitution is a DOMESTIC ENEMY and deserves to be treated accordingly.
“How about RETURNING TO WHAT ACTUALLY WORKED?”
Because that would require the sovereign States to be superior to the central government? Because that would mean only the central government would be constrained by the Constitution (with few exceptions)? Because we only want to be originalists when it suits our agenda?
Hardly, as your idiotic claim doesn’t even make the slightest bit of sense. Are you a child?
“Hardly, as your idiotic claim doesn’t even make the slightest bit of sense. Are you a child?”
Are you of the opinion that the Constitution was designed to replace and supplant every state constitution at the time of ratification of the US constitution? That every state was compelled to incorporate every provision? To be ruled by the central government? That the thirteen sovereign States joined together to eliminate entirely their independent sovereignty?
The States preceded the union. The Constitution is the Charter (of operations) the States constructed for the operation and control of the federal agent to be granted limited powers over the States (subject to modification of the Charter by the States…not the federal agent).
To go back to “when it worked”, we must return to the concept of a subservient federal government, subservient to the agreement of the States as to which powers would be granted (or removed) by the States.
In those early days, the States could have included constitutional provisions that stated the national legislature had no power to regulate immigration into the nation, and any attempt by the national legislature to do so would be inherently a violation of the constitution. The national legislature could not then legitimately pass laws regulating immigration. The national legislature could only propose an amendment to the states, asking for the power to regulate immigration. Without that delegated power, the States would regulate immigration as each saw fit.
That’s how it was back “when it worked”.
Perhaps you’d be able to think if you removed your head from your backside?
“Perhaps you’d be able to think if you removed your head from your backside?”
The breadth and depth of intellect you put on display has been truly impressive; properly capped off by your brilliant rebuke above. We are all grateful, I’m sure.
You are brain dead, aren’t you?
U.S.C. Article VI:
2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Meaning precisely what?
The States agreed that they would abide by the laws of the national government insofar as those laws were in accordance with the State powers delegeted/granted to the national government. The ninth and tenth amendments were specifically to inform the central government that the complete list of powers (rights) retained by the individual and several states were not detailed in the constitution, and where the powers (rights) were not specifically delegated, the States retained all those powers to themselves.
To give a modern example, Roe v. Wade. Remove the SC ruling for a moment, and the original condition was that the central government had no power to legislate in that arena. The States retained an unnamed/undelegated right to legislate concerning abortion. The result would have been a hodge podge array of differing individual rights under state laws; the very essence of “federalism”.
The central legislature could have passed (and the president sign) laws regulating abortion (because legislation requires fewer States to agree than with a constitutional amendment). Doing so would set up a classic situation of appeal to the SC, or a constitutional amendment to overturn the legislation.
The States did not agree to abide by whatever law came out of Congress, regardless of infringement of retained powers/rights of the States. The States retained the power to prevent certain laws through both their Congressional representatives, and through State governments challenging national legislation. A result could be that the entire Congressional delegation from a State could vote an unconstitutional law, and the State government retained the right to make a challenge in court, and the right to amend the constitution as a means to overturn the laws their own citizens (representatives in Congress) had supported.
Only politicians’ bodyguards should have firearms.
People of the gun who frequent this and similar websites understand the statistics.
HERE’S THE PROBLEM and LISTEN UP: It’s the stupid people who DON’T pay attention and listen to the lame stream media. THAT’S who we have to educate. It’s up to each and every one of us to lay it all out, the statistics, the facts, how many people are actually killed with guns, how many are suicide, how many are actually killed by long guns, how many tobacco kills. Take EVERY OPPORTUNITY to educate the ignorant.
I have two friends who both own modern AR style rifles. One own the Saint and the other owns a Ruger 556. Neither of them had a clue how many deaths from guns and suicides etc. They both have the perception that gun crime is off the scale and a real epidemic. That’s what the media does and we have to counter it.
We each need to stay on this and educate as many as we can. Make the effort.
Also MLee, those who need education will NOT seek out we the POTG. We the POTG must seek them out and take advantage of opportunities to teach and demonstrate character becoming of a good citizen and a responsible gun owner. The time spent taking someone to the range is well spent, besides we are going to the shooting range and isn’t that where we the POTG like to go?
“We’ll never completely succeed until humans evolve into angels.”
That has also been shown not to work either, just ask Lucifer.
Has anyone noticed that all the school shootings are committed by school kids? Our schools check ID’s of all adults/parents, but I’ve never heard of an adult/parent storming a school with a “weapon of war”. Just close the schools. Chicago spends $10,314 per student (instructional ) NOT including operational spending. Hire a tutor for 3-4 kids. The operational spending would drop. Sell the buildings. Who knows, the kids may learn something and be safer.
Yes we have noticed that kids keep getting loaded guns that should have been locked up but were not by irresponsible adults who should have gone to jail and would have gone to jail if there were mandatory safe storage laws. Send a few of these idiots to jail and the rest will get the message very fast. Lock up your guns or we will lock you up. If we do not do this then just get ready to eventually turn in all your guns for the smelter because a panicked and fed up public will demand it.
“Lock up your guns or we will lock you up.”
That’s it? Just lock up all the guns, all the time? Just in case?
Again, you identified people as the problem, not the guns. But there should be more punishing the law abiding because of a minuscule number of of irresponsible people?
There are too many supposedly “secure” gun safes on the market today, which, due to a design flaw and/or manufacturer’s desire to sell an inferior product, because, to remedy the problem would mean additional cash outlay for redesigning the product, and possibly an increase in material cost.
These inferior products can be defeated quite easily, as have been proven on the internet by videos posted, by a quite common method; which I will not disclose, due to the fact that there are scum which would love to have this knowledge, if they don’t already.
WRONG. There has NEVER been any solution in “locking” things up. The actual solution is FEAR of immediate retribution. Which is the whole intent and purpose of We The People being “at all times armed”. And that, against all enemies; foreign or domestic.
Or one could work on instilling moral values in their children, and raising them in a loving family.
Exactly.
WRONG. The solution is to TRAIN our youth, as THEY USED TO BE BEFORE LIE-BERAL INTERFERENCE.
So you want to punish people who had nothing to do with the crime.
Funny how you people always want to excuse the murderer, while blaming people not even accused of hurting anyone.
“if we could teach idiots that shooting someone because he ‘dissed’ you is a bad idea”
Unfortunately, by definition it’s impossible to reach idiots anything.
The *problem* is human nature.
Fortunately there is a solution to that – eventually. It’s called “becoming post-human.” It should be feasible sometime by end of this century – hopefully – if the species hasn’t destroyed itself by then.
The article appeals only to the ignorant.
Better vetting with the Brady Bill in regards to making more accurate data available of people with mental illnesses and criminal records and that would be enhanced if there were Universal Background Checks on all firearms purchases. No method or methods are 100 per cent effective but the present system is pure insanity and allows anyone to purchase a firearm even if he just got out of prison or a mental institution simply by buying a used gun with no paper work. That is a fact no one can dispute. More crime and more sensational mass murders only results in calls to punish law abiding gun owners by banning guns and since 90 per cent of Americans (which include gun owners) realize that Universal Background Checks would actually help gun owners not work against them in anyway. If you are not a crook or a nut case then why would you be afraid of vetting all gun purchases, after all the Brady Bill has not confiscated one gun in the decades since it was passed and it could be extended to include second hand gun sales. Doing nothing only guarantees a fed up public will be convinced to ban more and more guns.
Read through your comment, twice. As I understand it, demanding people prove their innocence before exercising their natural, civil, human, and not to mention constitutionally protected right to arm themselves will fix the great majority of the problem?
Oh, question….how many crimes have been committed by a felon who bought a gun privately from a law abiding gun owner?
You’re like so many others – focusing on the inanimate object as the root of all evil. Are you going to apply the Brady bill to kitchen knives, etc? Or more to the point – crossbows and other devices designed to kill at a distance? Sigh.
And how many criminals buy their guns in a store?
How many criminals do you think would switch to buying guns in a store if “prohibited person” restrictions were lifted? Substitute knives. Knitting needles? Rocks? Fists? Fist control will prevent fist violence! All criminals must now wear Socker Boppers!
https://youtu.be/JqRfI5jqz1U
Dag nab it… what about feet?
“…. but the present system is pure insanity and allows anyone to purchase a firearm even if he just got out of prison or a mental institution simply by buying a used gun with no paper work. That is a fact no one can dispute.”
Your “fact” is false. Federal law bans those who have been convicted of certain crimes from ever purchasing or possessing firearms. Included in those crimes are all felonies and misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. It also illegal for someone to sell to a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” per Title 18 section 922(g) of the United States Code.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-someone-possess-gun-after-criminal-conviction.html
“Federal law bans those who have been convicted of certain crimes from ever purchasing or possessing firearms.”
True. @moreadventures…may be writing about the “gun show loophole”, and/or the ability of a prohibited person to buy a gun from a private citizen in a face-to-face transaction. Of course, that begs the question of whether universal BGCs would be any more effective than the current system. Not sure @moreadventures….recognizes that complication.
Just what part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand? Our governments were expressly denied the Constitutional authority to interfere with that specific right in ANY way, shape or form. And the ACTUAL fact of the matter is that we didn’t really start having problems UNTIL unconstitutional gun control.
“Our governments were expressly denied the Constitutional authority to interfere with that specific right in ANY way, shape or form.”
Yet….here we are. The “Shall Not Be Infringed” theory has not proved effective in any court.
Which only proves that the court is combined in a conspiracy with the congress. It is more than clear what the words “shall not be infringed” mean, and precisely what was intended. Tell me, what do you think THIS U.S. Supreme Court meant? —
The United States vs William J. Cruikshank and others–Judge Woods, [later associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1880–87)], charged the jury as follows:
. . . The right to bear arms is also a right protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Every citizen of the United States has the right to bear arms, provided it is done for a lawful purpose and in a lawful manner. A man who carries his arms openly, and for his own protection, or for any other lawful purpose, has as clear a right to do so as to carry his own watch or wear his own hat.
–Circuit Court of the United States Fifth Circuit and District of Louisiana, The United States vs. William J Cruikshank et al. [United States v. Cruikshank, 25 F. Cas. 707 (1 Woods, 308) (C.C.D. La. 1874) (No. 14,897), aff’d, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).]
Then Mr. Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Bradley opines here:
The people of the states do not ask congress to protect the right, but demand that it shall not interfere with it. Has anything since occurred to give congress legislative power over the subject matter? . . . Grant that this prohibition now prevents the states from interfering with the right . . . Power to enforce the amendment is all that is given to congress. If the amendment is not violated, it has no power over the subject. . . . . in their right to bear arms.–U.S. Supreme Court Justice Bradley. AFFIRMED, (United States v. Cruikshank), 92 U.S. 542 (1876).
And this is what U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite had to state when affirming the above:
It is the duty of a State to see that its citizens are protected in the right to peacefully assemble for peaceful and lawful purposes. The Constitution forbids the government from abridging this right. The right of bearing arms for lawful purposes must be seen to by the States, the Constitution simply providing that Congress shall not infringe its rights. The sovereignty to protect lives and property lies exclusively in the States. . . .
The fourteenth amendment prohibits States from depriving any person of certain rights, but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. The only obligation of the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. The amendment guarantees that, and no more. The power of the United States is limited to enforcement of the guarantee.
The first section of the fourteenth amendment reads:
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 its laws.
It will certainly not be claimed that the United States have the power to perform mere police duty within the States.
[The New Orleans Bulletin. New Orleans, Wednesday, March 29, 1876. Volume III–No. 631. Page 4]
Please, reconcile THAT with the current court’s [unconstitutional] stance.
“Please, reconcile THAT with the current court’s [unconstitutional] stance.”
Easy…..”compelling government interest” and “level of scrutiny”.
Keep in mind that understanding something, and explaining that something is not equivalent to endorsing something.
WRONG TRAITOR: Constitution – the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
“Constitution – the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.”
The statement implies that somehow the “law of the land” must be interpreted in order to determine if actions under the law are within the law. Is it up to every individual to interpret the “law of the land” as it suits them, or is/should there be some mechanism to interpret the “law of the land” in a manner that provides some level of standard/certainty that the people can rely on. If the latter case, what is that mechanism? If “the mechanism” states the “law of the land” means A, but someone is convinced it means B, where do we go from there?
BTW, “traitor” is a legal declaration that can only be determined through the judicial system. To date, I have been not even been legally charged with treason.
And please explain what this U.S. Supreme Court Justice meant:
The second amendment provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
…We shall pursue this subject no further, in its bearing on the political rights of the states composing the union–in recalling your attention to these rights, which are the subject of this controversy, we declare to you as the law of the case, that they are inherent and unalienable–so recognised by all our fundamental laws.
The constitution of the state or union is not the source of these rights, or the others to which we have referred you, they existed in their plenitude before any constitutions, which do not create but protect and secure them against any violation by the legislatures or courts, in making, expounding or administering laws.
The nature of this case, its history, and the course of the argument, call on us to declare explicitly what is the effect of a constitutional protection or guarantee of any right, or the injunction of any duty. The twenty sixth section of the bill of rights in the constitution of Pennsylvania, is in these words; “to guard against transgressions of the high powers we have delegated we declare [we the people of Pennsylvania], that every thing in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall for ever remain inviolate.” A higher power declares this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme laws of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding” Const U.S., art. 6, clause 2.
An amendment of the constitution is of still higher authority, for it has the effect of controlling and repealing the express provisions of the constitution authorizing a power to be exercised, by a declaration that it shall not be construed to give such power. 3 Dall 382.
We have stated to you the various provisions of the constitution of the United States and its amendments, as well as that of this state; you see their authority and obligation to be supreme over any laws or regulations which are repugnant to them, or which violate, infringe or impair any right thereby secured; the conclusions which result are too obvious to be more than stated.
–Hon. Henry Baldwin, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Charge to the Jury, [Pennsylvania April Term 1833, Johnson v. Tompkins (13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others.]
“And please explain what this U.S. Supreme Court Justice meant:”
Prior to 1868 (14th Amendment, “amendment of the constitution is of still higher authority,”) the States were sovereign and superior to the central government. After 1868, the central government was anointed superior to the states (change in capitalization intentional).
“Compelling government” subordinates all rights (individual rights and state powers) to the central government (including the federal courts).
In the multiple contests over the right of the people to be armed, all the decisions you cite have been modified, altered, or overturned. Heller and McDonald, contemporary SC decisions are flaunted willy nilly. How has “shall not be infringed” protected us in this century?
WRONG TRAITOR:
U.S. Constitution, Article VI
2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
You are nothing more than a complete idiot.
“You are nothing more than a complete idiot.”
Quite often, I engage in lengthy conversations regarding the Constitution, then and now. When someone confuses the founding of the nation with the current condition I generally point them to an erudite and superb source for understanding the creation, development and current status of the Constitution. I will spare you such effort.
Nothing that you would contend would have any substance, depth, or weight on the subject. As it is quite clear from your previous comments that you haven’t the faintest idea of what you are talking about. The Federalist Papers give a complete commentary on our Constitution. So there is absolutely NOTHING that >you< can add that will alter any of the FACTS.
“The Federalist Papers give a complete commentary on our Constitution.”
Yes they do.
The Federalist Papers are not law; then or now.
No, but they ARE the explanation of the contract, you insipid treasonous dolt. As such they have bearing, substance, depth and weight. And prove beyond all shadow of doubt that what is going on presently is NOT what was intended. Which means that it is not only We The People’s right, but duty to resist all unconstitutional ‘laws’, ‘decisions’ or ‘dictates’ to the contrary. We The People are under no obligation whatsoever to obey unconstitutional laws.
“We The People are under no obligation whatsoever to obey unconstitutional laws.”
And yet, we do. Why? Because the inconvenience that would result to us is not worth the entertainment value of refusing to do so.
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
–Miranda vs. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491, (1966).
If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.
–Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court. 394 U.S. 147 (1969).
You sure are an ignorant little traitor-troll, aren’t you?
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
–Miranda vs. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491, (1966).
If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.
–Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court. 394 U.S. 147 (1969).”
Yet, here we stand, don’t we? Infringed upon at the will of legislators.
And ignored by MILLIONS as well as unenforced by the very same government that passed the unconstitutional laws to begin with.
“And ignored by MILLIONS as well as unenforced by the very same government that passed the unconstitutional laws to begin with.”
I’ve skipped a line here….exactly what is ignored and unenforced?
You’ve skipped the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
Why are you upholding and defending tyranny and usurpation?
And then we have this U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice’s opinion:
Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.
For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [Page 60 U. S. 417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. . . . and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
–Mr. Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 426, 15 L. ed. 691, 709.
“–Mr. Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 426, 15 L. ed. 691, 709.”
Case decided prior to 1868.
While Chief Justice Marshall is often cited as the source of “compelling government interest” theory of jurisprudence, the application of the theory seems to have bloomed and flourished around the mid-20th century.
If “Shall not be infringed” was controlling authority, there would have been no need for Heller and McDonald decisions.
WRONG TRAITOR. It provides conclusive evidence that the current court is not performing their Constitutionally charged duty. And instead is violating the solemn oaths that they have taken. In other words the court is committing treason against We The People.
“…the current court is not performing their Constitutionally charged duty.”
I may agree with you. I may even agree that the situation has obtained for quite some time. But neither is the issue at hand.
The courts determine what the “law of the land” is/means. The states and Congress can overturn the courts, but generally choose not to do so (if you agree with the courts, you don’t want to overrule, and if you don’t agree, you don’t want to overrule either…provides great campaign fodder).
If the national legislature and the states refuse to overturn the courts, then the “law of the land” is what the courts say it is. There is nowhere else to go. Well….it is possible to exchange the legislators, and elect a group that can and will overturn the courts. Until that happens, we must deal with what is. Explaining how “what is” works isn’t agreement.
No, the court is charged with no such duty. The Federalist Papers provide a complete commentary of We The People’s Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret whether or not any law enacted by congress is in compliance with the authority that has been delegated. Or, that it doesn’t violate any of the express prohibitions found in the Supreme Law.
“The courts determine what the “law of the land” is/means.” (@Sam I Am)
“No, the court is charged with no such duty.” (@E. David Quammen)
The SC arrogated to itself the role of final arbiter of what is/is not constitutional. Thus, the determination of what is/is not constitutional comes via the courts. The national legislature and the states are satisfied with that arrangement (else we would see more push-back on the courts in the form of legislation restricting the jurisdiction of the courts).
When theory and reality collide, reality rules. To conform reality to theory, there are three avenues: lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Wrong, cowardly traitor-troll:
Every citizen is, from the nature of our social organization, a part of the public defense; and he is also, in the last resort, in common with his fellow-citizens, the safeguard of the liberties of all against the government itself. Thus it is that amendments to the Constitution of the United States have provided that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It seems indispensable to the accomplishment of the objects referred to that every citizen should be armed…–John C. Edwards, Secretary of State, 11/15/1833. ‘Military Affairs’, Application of Missouri for the establishment of a depot of arms near the northwestern boundry of that state.
“Every citizen is, from the nature of our social organization, a part of the public defense; and he is also, in the last resort, in common with his fellow-citizens, the safeguard of the liberties of all against the government itself. ”
Your point being?
The only “point” here is the one perched on top of that empty little skull of yours.
If we have this inherent, this unalienable, this indefeasible title to those rights, if they are not given up, are they not retained? If Congress should make a law beyond the powers and the spirit of the Constitution, should we not say to Congress, “You have no authority to make this law. There are limits beyond which you cannot go. You cannot exceed the power prescribed by the Constitution. You are amenable to us for your conduct. This act is unconstitutional. We will disregard it, and punish you for the attempt.
–William Maclaine, July 29, 1788. The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (North Carolina), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Elliot’s Debates, Volume 4.
Do you actually enjoy being ignorant?
“Unconstitutional laws” reign supreme, regardless of all the rhetoric and historical citations to the contrary. If it were not so, we would no need of forums such as this. One stands in peril of legal sanctions for violating “unconstitutional laws”, right? And it will remain so until the law changes. That is the inescapable truth.
Ignored and unenforced. All they are good for is wasting time and paper.
Ignored and unenforced. All they are good for is wasting time and paper.
It is easy to misunderstand how government works. Many laws and regulations exist not as a means of controlling something, but as additional “charges” that can be brought when it is to the advantage of government to do so. Publishing laws and regulations removes the even the moral justification of “I didn’t kow….” The retort is that the law/regulation was published, so you were obligated to know.
However, let us return to a concrete example: demand to purchase a hand gun from an FFL without undergoing a background check. If you cannot complete the purchase, you are “bound” by an “unconstitutional law”. (a private purchase between individuals resident of the same state is not yet a violation of federal law, so you can’t use that dodge).
Yes, there are myriad laws that are not routinely enforced, but when government decides to do so, you can be “bound” by them (a price can be exacted).
One must ask themselves why you are upholding and defending treason against We The People and our Constitution? What’s in it for you?
And just what do you think THIS U.S. Supreme Court Justice meant? —
United States Circuit Court,
District Of Missouri,
Special July Term, 1861.
Present:
Hon. John Catron,
An Associate Justice of Supreme Court of United States.
Hon. Rob’t W. Wells,District Judge of United States for Western District of Missouri.
Hon. Samuel Treat, District Judge of United States for Eastern District of Missouri.
Charge To The Grand Jury
By The Court, July 10, 1861.
St. Louis:
Printed At The Democrat Book And Job Office
1861.
TO THE GRAND JURY….
…A brief reference to some of the offences of which you have cognizance, and a succinct statement of the law concerning them, may aid your investigations, and serve for your guidance:
The Constitution and laws of the United States “are the supreme law of the land,” anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding.” Their supremacy is thus declared in express terms: “Whatever conflicts therewith has no operative or obligatory force. Allegiance to the United States, and loyalty to the United States Constitution and laws, are the paramount duty of every citizen. Within their legitimate sphere, they command the obedience of all, and no State Constitution or statute can absolve any one therefrom….
…Inasmuch as the Constitution provides a peaceable and regular mode whereby it or the U. S. laws may be amended, there can be no other rightful mode of effecting that end known either to the Constitution or law. As it is both the right and duty of every citizen to become fully informed upon all governmental affairs, so as to discharge his many political obligations intelligently at the ballot-box, and in other legitimate ways; and the freedom of the press and of speech are guaranteed to him for that as well as other essential purposes; and as the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances, and to keep and bear arms, cannot be lawfully abridged or infringed, it is evident that an assemblage for the mere purpose of procuring peaceable redress of supposed grievances cannot be treasonable; nor can a free and full discussion of the acts of public men or public measures, whether such discussion be in private conversations, public meetings or the press; nor can a military gathering when assembled for no purpose or design of interfering, by force or intimidation, with the lawful functions of the government or of its constituted authorities, or of preventing the execution of any law, or of extorting its alteration or repeal, or of overthrowing the lawful supremacy of the United States in any State of Territory….
Please, by all means show me where the court has never ruled about “shall not be infringed” again?
Case decided prior to 1868.
If such decisions were controlling, there would have been no need for Heller and McDonald (repetita dictum).
Each 2A infringement granted by SC decision after 1868 cited precedent, history, tradition for support.
WRONG TRAITOR:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers: No. 28, For the Independent Journal.
It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. . . .
. . . If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.
This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. . . .
–Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788.
I have no disagreement with the quotations. To what purpose do you report them? Do you seek merely to convince others to declare the government is out of control? To what purpose? We know it is out of control, and has been for a long time. We are also aware that “the people” are quite comfortable with government as it is, well, at least the majority of those voting (which is not the same as those eligible/registered to vote).
But, let me try this on you….
“Compelling government interest” subordinates all individual rights to the government.
Do you see agreement that the condition is just/acceptable? Or do you see someone pointing out egregious error?
And you of course are LYING. As the “compelling state interest” would violate every single right reserved by We The People. And make completely useless a written Constitution.
The national government is one of enumerated powers, and a power enumerated and delegated by the Constitution to Congress is comprehensive and complete, without other limitations than those found in the Constitution itself….
…The Constitution is a written instrument, and, as such, its meaning does not alter. Its language, as a grant of power to the national government, is general and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces all new conditions within the scope of the powers conferred.
In interpreting the Constitution, recourse must be had to the common law and also to the position of the framers of the instrument and what they must have understood to be the meaning and scope of the grants of power contained therein must be considered….
‘It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.’–Mr. Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 426, 15 L. ed. 691, 709.
–Mr. Justice Brewer deliver[ing] the opinion of the court, U.S. Supreme Court,
[South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)]
And THAT is a FACT, whether you accept it or not.
“And you of course are LYING. As the “compelling state interest” would violate every single right reserved by We The People. And make completely useless a written Constitution.”
Perhaps English is not your first language? “LYING” has a specific meaning that is not applicable to anything discussed so far.
The “balancing tests” created by the courts are not identified in the Constitution. The tests are considered judicial process/procedures, elements completely within the authority of the established courts to determine how they are run. (actually, there is a nice body of theory and case law ratifying the balancing tests as legitimate). The national legislature has seen fit not to remove such procedure from the jurisdiction of the courts.
As to all this appealing to the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, common law…let us presume you are correct in detail. To borrow from Andrew Jackson, “Mr. E. David Quammen has made his ruling; now let him enforce it.”
“Ah, there’s the rub”.
The armor and the attitude of defence afford the best security against those collisions which the ambition, or interest, or some other passion of nations not more justifiable, is liable to produce. In many countries it is considered unsafe to put arms into the hands of the people, and to instruct them in the elements of military knowledge. That fear can have no place here, when it is recollected that the people are the sovereign power. Our Government was instituted, and is supported, by the ballot-box, not by the musket.
— President Andrew Jackson, Dec. 7, 1835 message to U.S. House and Senate.
[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873. TUESDAY, December 8, 1835.]
I cannot bring myself to depict the humiliation to which this Government and people might be sooner or later reduced, if the means for defending their rights are to be made dependent upon those who may have the most powerful of motives to impair them.
— President Martin Van Buren, Dec. 2, 1839 message to U.S. House and Senate.
[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Dec. 24, 1839.]
Go you to hell, traitor-troll.
Already agreed with you that everything you quote is true.
Now, again, so what?
If you can return us to the principles of the founders, why have you not?
(there is a thing called “being dead right”)
I’m not the one advocating that We The People are bound to obey unconstitutional laws – you are.
” I’m not the one advocating that We The People are bound to obey unconstitutional laws – you are.”
If we are accountable in court for actions resulting in violation of “unconstitutional laws”, then we are, indeed, bound by them. Try violating one and see what happens. Try violating an “unconstitutional law”, then refusing to be punished because “unconstitutional laws are no laws at all”.
Decide upon an “unconstitutional law” you find particularly egregious, than publicly violate that law. Follow up by reporting yourself to relevant authority. And tell us about your experience in jail, or having to pay serious fines for your non-violation.
They are already being ignored with impunity as well as being refused to be enforced.
One of the original main reasons for trial by jury was to free people being unjustly accused, as well as to challenge unconstitutional laws. But that has pretty much been done away with by our corrupt legal system.
Why are you upholding and defending a corrupt system?
Why are you upholding and defending unconstitutional laws?
“Why are you upholding and defending unconstitutional laws?”
Can you explain how you get “upholding” from mere explanations?
Yes, you are in fact trying to make plausible that which is nothing more than barefaced usurpation and tyranny.
“Yes, you are in fact trying to make plausible that which is nothing more than barefaced usurpation and tyranny.”
Nope. Just explaining reality. Understanding it, one can accept and endure, or one can try to effect change. To claim that explaining reality is the same as endorsing it is simply amazing.
No, as I’ve read some of your other comments. You haven’t the faintest conception of our intended system of government, nor of the principles that this nation were founded upon. Mr. Madison describes you and your kind in perfect detail here:
Let it be remembered finally, that it has ever been the pride and boast of America, that the rights for which she contended, were the rights of human nature. By the blessing of the author of these rights, on the means exerted for their defence, they have prevailed against all opposition, and form at this time the basis of thirteen independent states. No instance has heretofore occurred, nor can any instance be expected hereafter to occur, in which the unadulterated forms of Republican government can pretend to so fair an opportunity of justifying themselves by their fruits. In this view the citizens of the United States are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society. If justice, good faith, honor, gratitude and all the other virtues qualities which ennoble the character of a nation, and fulfil the ends of government, be the fruits of our establishments, the cause of liberty will acquire a dignity and lustre which it has never yet enjoyed; and an example will be set which cannot fail to but have the most favourable influence on the rights of mankind. If on the other side, our governments should be unfortunately blotted with the reverse of these cardinal and essential qualities virtues, the great cause which we have engaged to vindicate will be dishonored and betrayed; the last and fairest experiment in favour of the rights of human nature will be turned against them, and their patrons and friends exposed to be insulted and silenced by the sycophants votaries of tyranny and usurpation.
–James Madison, April 6, 1783. Address To The States, By The United States In Congress Assembled.
“No, as I’ve read some of your other comments. You haven’t the faintest conception of our intended system of government, nor of the principles that this nation were founded upon. ”
Now, you are just talking stupid. You know virtually nothing about me, and suffer the arrogance of ignorance. Self-absorbed, you condemn anyone who does not spout platitudes and absolutes in accordance with your view of the body politic. An adult would take the time to “get the lay of the land” by observation, rather than hurling invective without understanding.
You pop up with a one-dimensional mind, a cardboard cut-out of a patriot, useless to the cause of liberty and individual rights. Sounding brass and a clanging cymbal; much ado about nothing. Like a child, you are better seen than heard, trying to impress with your ability to cut-and-paste quotations.
You have returned respect and serious debate with insults; you welcome is ended.
Hardly, cowardly traitor. As I’ve done over FIFTEEN YEARS OF >>>TRUE<<< LEGAL RESEARCH that is untainted by the democratic-communist legal system we see currently. Which is the very same system that you have been quoting in your incessant drooling. You have shown that you obviously have no idea what our INTENDED Constitutional Republican form of government actually is.
You are nothing more than a poisoned lie-beral that has been indoctrinated into the swirling mass of corruption known as the current perverted American legal system. And all you quote are the lies invented by that corrupted system. Proving that you are nothing more than a lie-beral drone.
Care to open you ignorant yap again? Because I’ve got a WHOLE LOT MORE that will keep your ignorant mouth shut PERMANENTLY.
Where are your citations upholding the SC cases you identified, since 1900?
But, putting that aside, if those cases you reported are controlling, why are there any infringements at all? If those cases you reported are controlling, how is it Sullivan, NFA, GCA stand to this day?
The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed…
–John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
[Cohens v. Virginia (1821).]
The Federalist is regarded as the highest contemporary authority on the construction of the Constitution….
–Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, WEDNESDAY, March 4, 1868.]
“The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. ”
Indeed. Have read them in the original syntax/spelling, and in a modernized version exchanging archaic language for more readable text. But how does any of it answer the question of how the cases you cited failed to control the law, and why Heller was necessary?
Do you understand what the word “paramount” means? —
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers: No. 28, For the Independent Journal.
ALL of our governments were expressly Constitutionally forbidden from interfering with that PARAMOUNT right. Which of course makes ALL ‘laws’; local, state or federal, that interfere with that specific right NULL and VOID. Those ‘laws’; past, present and future, are nothing more than a waste of time and paper. As EVERY single last one of them were enacted outside of the authority that not only was never delegated, but was expressly withheld.
Ah, finally. Advocating taking up arms against the sitting government. All this sturm and drang to get to the heart of it?
Rebellion remains an option. But if you would strike the King, you must surely kill him.
Just what do you think this U.S. District Court Judge meant? —
Under the constitutional guarantee of the “right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defence of himself and the government,” an evil has arisen to which I invite your especial attention–while that constitutional guarantee must be observed; the abuse of that right is liable to prosecution and punishment. If, for instance, the “arms” are used for the purpose of making an assault, with the intent to inflict upon the person of another a bodily injury, within the distance which such arms will carry, or to put him in fear, or to compel him by fear or threats to obey an unlawful order or command, where no considerable provocation appears, or where the circumstances of the assault show an abandoned and malignant heart, then, in any such case, the offender is liable to indictment and punishment. The privilege is given him alone for protection; not for infringement upon the rights of others.
–Judge [William Thompson] Howell, U.S. District Court, Charge to the Grand Jury of the First Judicial District, at Tucson, May Term, A.D. 1864.
[Arizona Miner, Prescott, Arizona, Wednesday June 22, 1864. Volume I. Number 7. Pg. 1]
Let’s take a look at the ORIGINAL decision that started all of this TREASON by the U.S. Supreme Court, shall we? —
United States District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon
26 F.Supp. 1002 (1939)
UNITED STATES
v.
MILLER et al.
No. 3926.
District Court, W. D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division.
January 3, 1939.
C.R. Barry, U.S. Dist. Atty., and Duke Frederick, Asst. U.S. Dist. Atty., both of Fort Smith, Ark.
Paul Gutensohn, of Fort Smith, Ark, for defendants.
HEARTSILL RAGON, District Judge.
The defendants in this case are charged with unlawfully and feloniously transporting in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore, Oklahoma, to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas, a double barrel twelve gauge shot gun having a barrel less than eighteen inches in length, and at the time of so transporting said fire arm in interstate commerce they *1003 did not have in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said fire arm as required by Section 1132c, Title 26 U.S. C.A., the regulations issued under the authority of said Act of Congress known as the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S. C.A. § 1132 et seq.
The defendants in due time filed a demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the facts stated in the indictment to constitute a crime and further challenging the sections under which said indictment was returned as being in contravention of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A.
The indictment is based upon the Act of June 26, 1934, C. 757, Section 11, 48 Stat. 1239, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1132j. The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, “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.”
The demurrer is accordingly sustained.
Gee, sure looks like you LOSE, doesn’t it?
“Let’s take a look at the ORIGINAL decision that started all of this TREASON by the U.S. Supreme Court,….
– – Entirely different subject, (treason).
” January 3, 1939.
C.R. Barry, U.S. Dist. Atty., and Duke Frederick, Asst. U.S. Dist. Atty., both of Fort Smith, Ark.
Paul Gutensohn, of Fort Smith, Ark, for defendants.
HEARTSILL RAGON, District Judge.”
– — – Ah yes, “the Miller Decision”. Did you read the US Supreme Court decision on the appeal of the Arkansas District Court?
All in all, no case has been submitted to judicial review asserting that the Second Amendment prohibits any and all restrictions on gun ownership and possession by the people of the United States (i.e. “Shall not be infringed”).
No court has been presented with the position that the Second Amendment is absolute, and that no regulation whatsoever is permissible due to the phrasing “Shall Not Be Infringed”. If the District Court in the case had intended the ruling to make 2A absolute, the ruling would have stated such.
Reality is the federal courts refuse to make 2A absolute based on the text. In addition, at the time of the ruling, lower federal courts could not make rulings nationwide (such concept is newly asserted because Donald Trump is president).
And you of course are LYING, as I just have shown numerous cases which proclaim just that.
“And you of course are LYING, as I just have shown numerous cases which proclaim just that.”
Lying about what, specifically?
All but one of the cases you reported were decided prior to 1868. The ruling in the 1939 case* was overruled by the SC. NFA, Sullivan Act, GCA are all legislation under the constitution, therefore “the law of the land”….until Heller (and that fell woefully short of declaring 2A absolute, while absolutely avoiding the opportunity to overturn NFA, Sullivan Act and GCA).
*Here the SC developed an interesting concept of “suitable for military use”, jurisprudence that survived Heller).
1868 has NOTHING whatsoever to do with ANYTHING. The Constitution, Article II of Amendment, RESTRICTIVE clause expressly declares that: the right of the people to keep and bear arms sh\all not be infringed”. Which of course means that ANY ‘law’ that interferes with that specific right has NO Constitutional sanction – regardless of what the ‘court’ declares. For the Constitution is STILL the “supreme law of the land”. And as long as that SUPREME instrument exists as written and adopted by We The People, then THAT is what controls every ‘law’ enacted in pursuance thereof. And if any ‘law’ is not in compliance with that SUPREME instrument, then it is NULL and VOID from the time of its enactment.
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. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
[16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256]
“1868 has NOTHING whatsoever to do with ANYTHING.”
It has everything to do with the current relationship between the federal government, and the 57 states.
“It has everything to do with the current relationship between the federal government, and the 57 states.”
Your own idiocy sinks your arguments.
“Your own idiocy sinks your arguments.”
Your inability to grasp subtle ridicule reinforces your statements?
No, just reinforces how ignorant that you really are.
@ Sam I Am
“Or maybe I really am a figment of my imagination.
Probably.”
Think so? Maybe a figment of the Universe’s imagination, along with everything and everyone else. Raises an interesting question about Genesis, don’t you think? 😉
“A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me”
A sense of obligation.” (S. Crane)
“Raises an interesting question about Genesis, don’t you think?”
“In the beginning….” always fascinates me. When was it, and was it a micro/nano/pico moment, of some sort of drawn-out thing? All that humans know about time is that it passes. But where does it actually go?
It drags us relentlessly, kicking and screaming into the future, of course!
“It drags us relentlessly, kicking and screaming into the future, of course!”
Wouldn’t that be “pushing”? If you drag something/someone somewhere, not sure that is “passing”.
On the other hand, if time passes, when is now? How long is the interval between past and future? And whose future?
So far as I know, we are at the threshold of “future”, meaning no one has gone before us. How can we go (or be pushed/dragged) into a future that has not yet happened for anyone? People yet born might be able to travel into their future (which is our “now”), and return, but we are marooned between our past and the thing called “future”.
When confused, I always turn to this:
“Radar – I’ll get right on it (that call to your broker) first thing tomorrow.
Burns – I don’t want it first thing in the morning. I want it first thing now.
Radar – Uh, well, I can’t get reach them now, sir.
I’ll be calling them yesterday.
Burns – That’s ridiculous!
Radar – Oh, no, sir. They’re 16 hours behind us.
Our today is their yesterday.
Burns – It’s 5:00 in the afternoon!
Radar – That’s here, sir. Back there, it’s 1:00 yesterday morning.
Burns – When would it be “now” there if it was our today here?
Radar – You see, we don’t have the same “now,” sir.
By the time their “now” becomes our “now,” this’ll be then.”
That’s the same reason (in the other direction) I talk to Australians in order to obtain winning lottery numbers in our Time Zone. Willing to share if it works out.
“That’s the same reason I talk to Australians in order to obtain winning lottery numbers in our Time Zone. Willing to share if it works out.”
At one time, my immediate supervisor was transferred to Japan. After a few months, he called to catch up. Somewhere in the conversation, I asked him the date. He replied, “The sixth.” My response was, “It is the fifth here.” He asked the significance, and I asked him, “Did you know there are people walking around over here that are dead over there”? Former supervisor hesitated, then said, “There is a reason I accepted this assignment.”
“How long is the interval between past and future? And whose future?”
According to my charts, “now” and “‘mine and/or yours’ and possibly ‘ours'”.
Working on the Venn diagram.
“According to my charts, “now”…”
That is nomenclature. What is the dimension/measurement of the interval between past and future?
Time – or more accurately, spacetime is not dependent on our feeble attempts to measure it. We don’t even know what “it” is, let alone have the mathematics or language to describe “it”. With few exceptions, we don’t even try, but ascribe what we cannot comprehend to a never ending stream of deities, and/or unprovable hypothesis.
” We don’t even know what “it” is, let alone have the mathematics or language to describe “it”. ”
If we don’t have knowledge of a thing, and no means to measure “it”, doesn’t this all become a matter of “what ‘is’ is”?
Pushing the limits of our intellect a bit farther; is the Universe/Spacetime/Reality digital or analog? Or both at once? Or something else? Don’t confuse the measurement with the thing being described/measured.
“Pushing the limits of our intellect a bit farther; is the Universe/Spacetime/Reality digital or analog?”
Oh crap. Don’t start with that digital/analog stuff. I just got new tubes in my TV and it still “flips”.
Japan has no gun crime, and they eat dolphins. Maybe we could try that.
“Japan has no gun crime, and they eat dolphins. Maybe we could try that.”
Really? It is bad enough we have people in this country who would kill and eat Bambi (or Bambi’s mother). Now you want to kill and eat Flipper too? What’s next? Kill and eat a little mouse who drives a steamboat?
I have met that mouse, he is frighteningly large in person. I swear that behind that disarming smile lurk incisors that could decapitate a bull!
“I swear that behind that disarming smile lurk incisors that could decapitate a bull!”
Now, that’s a mouse !
What a Rat!
And Japan has a declining population that will eventually go extinct if they don’t change their errant ways. Perhaps you should know what you are talking about before commenting?
Oh boy, I just waved the magic wand and all the guns in the world just became zero turn lawn mowers, I waved it once again and all the violent people of the world turned into lawn care specialists.
Wow, I just put all the correction officers, and institutions, police and jailers, suppliers, delivery people, producers, products, steel makers (for bars and rebar) concrete makers, construction workers to build walls, fencing people (including razor wire) arms makers, and salesmen that sell the above, out of work.
Apparently my wand waving made a bigger mess of the world than before. But it’s too late. The unintended consequences that were ignored are up on the world.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Many unforeseen issues arise when Lawmakers/Judges/Supreme Court Justices/Juries “crystal ball” in their jobs. This is when they pass laws and render president setting verdicts with the HOPES of effecting some sort of change in society. The “unintended” consequences caused by the “crystal ballers” are ALWAYS worse then if the law/decision was reached by application of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in their origionalist form/interpertation.
Look no further then CA to see the path to hell being laid by “Crystal Balling” judges, juries, and moronic lawmakers like Poleosi and Shiff.
“gun violence” could be significant curbed- but not stopped- proportional to the efforts to disarm everyone. Criminals get guns, in large part, from legal gun owners. Note that I don’t support this, however- I believe in an individual freedom to self-defense.
We could also curb traffic fatalities by, as much as possible, eliminating cars. I don’t see advocacy groups for that, though…
It is possible.
http://www.huffpost.com/entry/miracle-program-reduces-gun-violence_n_56649f58e4b072e9d1c68813
Is it any surprise Democratic politicians pretend this never happened?
That program needs to be continued.
The White House back in 2012 claimed there was no political will to enact programs like this.
That is complete bullshit. A gangbanger murdering a bunch of kids in school got the public clamoring for any solution. Operation Ceasefire would have been an easy sell in the wake of the Sandy Hook murders.
Agreed. But it just goes to show they don’t want a real solution. They just want to steal all of our rights away.
No, they most certainly did not. Nor is there any evidence whatsoever to support that which you incorrectly claim.
It is “We The People” NOT we, the color of your choice, people! There is NO color in “We The People”.
“We” is all inclusive and can vary over time.
Precisely and is reinforced by the Civil Rights amendments after the Civil War.
And you do realize that the Latino’s were here long before the whites, RIGHT? And then of course we have the native American’s which the founders frequently provided arms to. And not one of them is white. So your theory has no depth, weight, substance or truth to it in even the slightest degree.
Ah yes- after signing the Philadelphia constitution, they went to a taqueria and ate Carne Asada! Did know the constitution was written in both English and Spanish? Some of our founding fathers worshipped Santa Muerte!
And let us never forget George Washington, who gave his slaves muskets! They carried them AIWB with one in the chamber with no safety because of they might have to sheepdog against a MOHAMMADEAN at any moment.
And let’s us not forget our third president- Sitting Bull Eagle Longhouse Pocahontas.
***
Looks like you got triggered by the truth bro. Care to provide counter examples to prove me wrong?
Ignorant drool is apparently all you have.
Wow. That was harsh.
Naturalization Act of 1790? Which limited immigration to “Free white persons”. Passed by the same people that came up with the 2A.
GTFO. The founding fathers intended a white country. You can do mental gymnastics to think otherwise, but go look it up. The act literally excluded Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians. So much LOL.
Now we have Jews and other minorities taking away our gun rights.
I know far more about it than you ever will, moron. As I’ve studied every last bit of congressional records posted on the Library of Congress, dolt. Florida, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arizona and California were all Spanish territories. It is estimated that during the colonial period, (1492–1832), a total of 1.86 million Spaniards settled in the Americas and a further 3.5 million immigrated during the post-colonial era (1850–1950); the estimate is 250,000 in the 16th century, and most during the 18th century as immigration was encouraged by the new Bourbon Dynasty.
Oh lol E David says he’s really smart. Proves it by saying white people (Spanish) settled the American Southwest. I agree!
You must be so smart E David! I bet you are really wealthy and have a pretty wife! I bet you have a successful career!
E David is the smartest person on the planet!
Solving violence in general is a fool’s errand.
I’m not going to bother arguing against your historical ‘fact’; rather, I have no idea what point you’re trying to make. Are you suggesting that the Constitution does not apply to anyone but white men?
Yes.
Tried to follow you, but…..
Jumping from founders, to slavery, to bump stocks seemed to lack compelling connections. It would be good if you would review your comment and revise to more closely reflect your entire line of thinking.
Cheers
It’s pretty simple. Basically, rather than take my guns away- stop non-white immigration, deport illegals, and re-instate Jim Crow laws to control the black crime problem.
Nb4- do you really think the Tupac culture is better for blacks today than the segregationist south- where they have strong black churches?
If you just accept “racism”, you can do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I love my Glocks. I own many guns. I need them for my family’s protection from black people. And gun violence has destroyed the black community. Therefore the solution is simple- allow whites to own guns and restrict black people from doing so. Why can’t we have this? The black community leaders are always pushing for gun control. This is a compromise that would be win-win, and in line with the spirit of our Founding Fathers!!!!
Good. I get what you are writing.
Question, where you mentioned banning gun ownership for Blacks, since there are so many guns held by Black gangs, is it really helpful to disarm lawful Black people? We know that white people almost exclusively commit crimes against white people, and Black people almost exclusively commit crimes against Black people, why make the majority of Black people unable to properly defend themselves?
Lol. That is demonstrably false. Google “13 do 50”.
Whites want to keep their guns, and black do not. Google the pew research poll. I don’t have it on hand.
Whites can keep their guns, and blacks can have what they want.
But … we can’t have this because Jews use blacks as a battering ram against whites. Modern day gun control is almost exclusively an effort to disarm whites, not lower crime. It’s mostly handguns that are used in crime- but it’s your $3000 AR that shoots sub-moa (((Bloomberg))) wants to seize.
The only way to end “gun violence” is to forcibly confiscate and destroy every single firearm in the country. Not just privately owned weapons; everything. Then eliminate every possible precursor to so much as a zip gun, including plumbing supplies, building construction materials, fertilizer, sugar, soda cans.
That wouldn’t begin to end gun violence. It would simply restrict it to “state-sponsored gun violence.”
WRONG TRAITOR:
U.S. Constitution, Article II of Amendment, “RESTRICTIVE” Clause:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
“Meaning precisely what?”
That you are ignorant.
Here is what Mr. Madison had declared in the U.S. Congress concerning our Bill of Rights:
There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who as present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of federalism, if they were satisfied in this one point: We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes, and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution. . . .
But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the general government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done . . .
But I do wish to see a door opened to consider, so far as to incorporate those provisions for the security of rights, against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents, such as would be likely to meet with the concurrence of two-thirds of both houses, and the approbation of three-fourths of the state legislatures. I will not propose a single alteration which I do not wish to see take place, as intrinsically proper in itself, or proper because it is wished for by a respectable number of my fellow citizens; and therefore I shall not propose a single alteration but is likely to meet the concurrence required by the constitution. . . .
I know some respectable characters who opposed this government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens think these securities necessary.
It has been a fortunate thing that the objection to the government has been made on the ground I stated; because it will be practicable on that ground to obviate the objection, so far as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual, and this without endangering any part of the constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the government by those who promoted its adoption.
The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by congress to the state legislatures are these: . . .
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. . . .
In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from the social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature. . . .
But whatever may be [the] form which the several states have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority.
In our government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker: It therefore must be levelled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least controul; hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper. But I confess that I do conceive, that in a government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority. . . .
It may be said, because it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several state constitutions: that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of the people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.
I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this constitution. Beside some states have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty. . . .
I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the state governments than by the government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controuled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. . . .
–James Madison, Debates on the Bill of Rights, House of Representatives, June 8th, 1789.
Perhaps if you pulled your head out you might come to reality?
The writings of the founders are illuminating, but legally irrelevant, else we wouldn’t be in this situation, would we? The legal rulings are what they are. Ignoring them does not advance the defense of the Second Amendment. Reality is reality. Reality is….there is only one absolute right under the Constitution (a right devined by the SC), and that is abortion. The next candidate for absolutism might be the 13th Amendment.
Wrong again, traitor-troll:
It is a rule of law that, in order to ascertain the import of a contract, the evident intention of the parties, at the time of forming it, is principally to be regarded. Previous to the formation of this Constitution, there existed certain principles of the law of nature and nations, consecrated by time and experience, in conformity to which the Constitution was formed.
–Mr. [James] Elliot, Debate in U.S. House of Representatives, Oct. 25, 1803.
Undoubtedly what went before the adoption of the Constitution may be resorted to for the purpose of throwing light on its provisions.
–Edward Douglass White, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
[Marshall v. Gordon , 243 U.S. 521 (1917).]
The Federalist Papers have been quoted or referenced by the U.S. Supreme Court in well over 200 of their cases. And their reliance upon the Federalist in justification of the doctrine of judicial review is quoted on their own website:
While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.–The Court and Constitutional Interpretation.
Go to hell, traitor.
“Go to hell, traitor.”
“…there is always a well-known solution to every human problem neat, plausible and wrong.”
– H.L. Mencken, Prejudices Second Series, 1921
Perhaps you should pay attention to your own quote.
No, it doesn’t “imply” any such thing. In fact it is the Constitutionally charged duty of the courts to ensure that all of the “laws” are “interpreted” to be in compliance with the SUPREME LAW. And any “law” – local, state or federal, that are enacted outside of the BOUNDS imposed upon the congress are NULL and VOID. And THAT is a FACT.
“In fact it is the Constitutionally charged duty of the courts to ensure that all of the “laws” are “interpreted” to be in compliance with the SUPREME LAW.”
First, “So what?”
Second, when the courts decide something you deem unconstitutional is in fact, constitutional. What next?
A law you would considered unconstitutional, but declared by the courts to be constitutional remains in full force and effect. You might decide and declare such laws to be null and void, but null and void laws can hammer you just as effectively as valid laws. Once the courts have declared what is constitutional to be constitutional, to whom would you appeal?
WRONG, you cowardly and ignorant traitor-troll:
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. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
[16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256]
We The People are under no obligation to obey an unconstitutional law or ruling. In FACT it is not only our right but our duty to resist tyranny; by force if necessary.
As before, a law you might consider unconstitutional, but declared constitutional by the court system, retains plenty of force and effect. Such law can still hammer you into the ground. It is one thing to declare one’s own reality, quite another to declare such for others. The system we have is the one to be dealt with, unless and until changed (for better or worse).
Here is reality: if you buy a handgun through an FFL, you will fill out the form, you will submit to a background check. All of that represents infringement on the Second Amendment. Bashing the FFL for implementing unconstitutional law will never result in you being exempted from the process.
Now that you have loudly informed those who already know about the tyranny of unconstitutional laws and actions, go out and actually influence “the system” to change its error. Come back and let us know how it went. If you are successful, we might be interested in learning and doing more.
No traitor-troll. We The People are under no obligation whatsoever to obey unconstitutional laws. And THAT is one of the main purposes for having a written Constitution to begin with. So that all are aware as to what the government “shall” have the delegated authority to do. As well as what the government “shall not” have the delegated authority to do.
Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions . . . It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions–a written Constitution–would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution.
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void.
–Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.
[Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176.]
Go to hell, you treasonous p.o.s.
” We The People are under no obligation whatsoever to obey unconstitutional laws.”
You do realize you are being tugged along, right?
And I have a policy of never letting an error go by unchallenged. As it provides an excellent means of getting the actual facts out and enlightening my fellow citizens as to the truth.
“And I have a policy of never letting an error go by unchallenged. ”
How many challenges to “unconstitutional law” have you filed? Won?
What is the “error” in pointing out the difference between theory and reality?
Why are you upholding and supporting tyranny and usurpation? What’s in it for you?
Why are you upholding and supporting tyranny and usurpation? What’s in it for you?
“Money. Lots of money.” Isn’t this a great country? Everything is on sale, everyday.
And you shall pay the price for your treason as well.
Why are you upholding and supporting nonsensical insults in the course of your “discussion”? What’s in it for you? Or is it for the audience? Surely, you both have displayed passion and endurance to continue.
BECAUSE MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY FOUGHT AND SPILLED THEIR BLOOD TO NOT ONLY WIN BUT SECURE OUR RIGHTS TO THEMSELVES AND THEIR POSTERITY, (which includes me). And anyone that works to destroy their sacrifices is a TRAITOR and worthy of a traitor’s fate, THAT’S WHY.
“BECAUSE MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY FOUGHT AND SPILLED THEIR BLOOD TO NOT ONLY WIN BUT SECURE OUR RIGHTS TO THEMSELVES AND THEIR POSTERITY, ”
OMG ! That makes you utterly unique. Sorry I didn’t realize that earlier.
Hope you get what’s rightfully coming to you soon.
“Surely, you both have displayed passion and endurance to continue.”
Been a slow coupla days in the neighborhood.
That is the same type of idiotic reasoning that allowed Hitler to suspend all civil liberties in Germany and then march his nazi party into power. And regardless of what you cowardly traitors think, that same thing is NOT going to happen here in America.
The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. TRUTH, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.–James Madison, The Federalist No. 46, Tuesday, January 29, 1788.
You and your treasonous kind can go straight to hell.
“They must be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE,”
Do let us know how that works out for you.
It’s worked out very well for me. As my research was instrumental in overturning the treasonous ‘miller’ decision. As well as in now having SIXTEEN STATES with Constitutional Carry instead of just two, as was the case at the turn of the century.
Regardless of how much drool you spew you still cannot controvert the fact that We The People are NOT bound to obey an unconstitutional law. The court has ruled to that effect repeatedly.
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.–U.S. Supreme Court, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886).
Why do you seek to betray you fellow citizens with lies, traitor?
Comments are closed.