2nd amendment in trouble

[Ura-Ki]

Wow, so all that and you still cannot answer the basic questions put forth by the members here, I wonder, are you really just a fanatic on the edge, or are you so out of touch with reality that instead of explaining what it is you are pushing, you tear into every post that asks you to explain what it is you are asking us to step up and do!

And for the record, I have been fighting for your rights a hell of a lot harder and a hell of a lot longer then you might think, I have spent my fortunes and blood in that great cause, and I fully understand where my freedoms begin and where others think they end! When the time comes, will you be the one standing in front waving your little charter at the tangos demanding they follow it, or are you going to pick up a Rifle and get to work? Because that's pretty much where we are nowadays! So, go ahead and pander your meaningless parchment, bless your heart!

 

[CRBMoA]

STRONGLY WORDED parchment!

For the last time before I break out the IGNORANT button, for the love of all that is good and just, THEN WHAT?

Are you seriously suggesting that Beto is gonna let us keep our AR's because of this charter?

It is an honest question that has yet to be answered.

 

[Gunner3456]

The day is coming very soon when we all will have to decide whether to take a knee or take a stand.

Unknown

 

[Skier]

When we allowed the legislature to illegally ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it reduced your unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms down to the category of "certain privileges and immunities." In reality, the courts may dance around the subject, but you have NO Rights in the de facto government.

I'm not sure I follow. What is the concern about the 14th Amendment? When I read it, I don't see the word "certain" where you had it. Not trying to argue, rather just trying to understand the concern better.

 

[The Resister]

Wow, so all that and you still cannot answer the basic questions put forth by the members here, I wonder, are you really just a fanatic on the edge, or are you so out of touch with reality that instead of explaining what it is you are pushing, you tear into every post that asks you to explain what it is you are asking us to step up and do!

And for the record, I have been fighting for your rights a hell of a lot harder and a hell of a lot longer then you might think, I have spent my fortunes and blood in that great cause, and I fully understand where my freedoms begin and where others think they end! When the time comes, will you be the one standing in front waving your little charter at the tangos demanding they follow it, or are you going to pick up a Rifle and get to work? Because that's pretty much where we are nowadays! So, go ahead and pander your meaningless parchment, bless your heart!

Your inability to read is not my problem. I can explain it to; I cannot understand it for you. If we're having a penis measuring contest over who done what, I've spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money fighting court cases and promoting candidates / legislation. I've sat in courtrooms as the defendant with a possible 25 year sentence staring me in the face if I lost the case. I've gone on tv, radio, and given newspaper interviews in the thousands.

The fight does not end with The Charter. That is but a beginning. You claim you fight for Rights. What is the fruit of your labors? Even the much touted Heller decision set back the clock on gun Rights to a level never before contemplated in U.S. history. Sigmund Freud you aren't. If I'm a fanatic, it would make you a poseur. You see, if you disagree with someone fighting the same fight as you and IF The Charter (IF) it were as worthless as you claim, then you would merely ignore it. You and I realize that isn't the case. You realize that in addition to signing a demand, the signatories have to be all in to defeat gun control. You claim that is fanaticism.

Cowards like to sit behind a keyboard and criticize the man in the field. As Mark Twain put it:

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

In the instant case, you wage a war against patriots. You want a divisive and contentious relationship. You want to be able to do nothing and look good in the eyes of those who sit on the sidelines, doing nothing. The mere fact that I'm capable of getting legislation on the table should tell you I do more than B.S. like you do. Flame away. You sound desperate and insecure.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Point thusly made, you STILL cannot ( Refuse) answer the most basic questions, and you STILL attack the posts asking you to 'splain this sh!t!

I'ma make it real simple for you, you got ZERO chance of convincing any one of the 60K+ members here of anything with your condescending and obtuse attitude and your superiority complex, so your message is completely lost between your arrogantly written posts and that gibberish document, you got exactly ZERO support here on anything moving forward!

 

[CRBMoA]

Yup! Buh Bye!!

 

[The Resister]

I'm not sure I follow. What is the concern about the 14th Amendment? When I read it, I don't see the word "certain" where you had it. Not trying to argue, rather just trying to understand the concern better.

The word certain does not appear. So, let's quote the law and go from there:

"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 the laws."

Agreed? That is accurate, right? So why was the 14th Amendment ratified (albeit illegally)? Let's look at a .gov site for a moment:

"The major provision of the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States," thereby granting citizenship to former slaves. Another equally important provision was the statement that "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..."

Milestone Documents

The primary source documents on this page highlight pivotal moments in the course of American history or government. They are some of the most-viewed and sought-out documents in the holdings of the National Archives.

www.ourdocuments.gov

Nowhere in the 14th Amendment will you see the word "Rights." It isn't there. Furthermore, the amendment goes on to state that ""nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

That's funny. The Declaration of Independence says that your Right to Life is an unalienable Right. The Rights to Life and Liberty are codified in the Bill of Rights. Let's move forward a bit.

The Right to keep and bear Arms was an unalienable Right; it is an extension of your Right to Life and Liberty. It was a pre-existing Right. In the Cruikshank ruling of the United States Supreme Court, the high Court held (with respect to the Second Amendment):

"Neither is it [the right to keep and bear arms] in any manner dependent upon that instrument [the Constitution] for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

Pre-existing Rights are unalienable Rights. The 14th Amendment never, not once, acknowledges Rights, but the courts mix the 14th Amendment into gun rulings. For instance in MacDonald v. Chicago, the United States Supreme Court throws in the 14th Amendment into a gun Rights case. What does the 14th Amendment (whose primary purpose was to grant citizenship to Blacks) have to do with the right to keep and bear Arms? The answer is, it matters because you have to know who the grantor of your Rights is. I'm going to explain this to you in a separate posting on the off chance that you weren't trolling me when you asked the question.

 

[The Resister]

PART II

From WHERE do you get your Rights? The short version, relative to the Second Amendment:

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect." People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}​

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

I may be repetitive a couple of times, but it is to put the rulings into their proper context.

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

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

So, let us recap:

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

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

Those unalienable Rights are not transferable

Now, let me give you another court ruling:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. ." BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

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

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822). The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

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

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

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

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

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

Of course, ALL of the above was negated in Heller v. DC. There the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Wait. Whoa! What? Did you see all those court rulings including the United States Supreme Court rulings wherein I bolded the word absolute? The words unlimited and absolute are synonyms. To figure out HOW the United States Supreme Court screwed you, one only need to look at the 14th Amendment. They guaranteed citizens the "equal protection of the laws" meaning they could take them via due process (cough, cough). In Heller the United States Supreme Court decided that the government, not your Creator, is the entity that bestows upon you your Rights. Hey, if you're cool with it, that is your right. Just bear in mind: what the government giveth, the government can take away.

 

[The Resister]

Point thusly made, you STILL cannot ( Refuse) answer the most basic questions, and you STILL attack the posts asking you to 'splain this sh!t!

I'ma make it real simple for you, you got ZERO chance of convincing any one of the 60K+ members here of anything with your condescending and obtuse attitude and your superiority complex, so your message is completely lost between your arrogantly written posts and that gibberish document, you got exactly ZERO support here on anything moving forward!

You have about six people out of that 6 k members that weigh in on this. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. And if you think that six people chattering like monkeys speak for the whole 6k membership, then you indeed have a distorted view of reality.

 

[Ura-Ki]

11 pages of lunatic rants and nobody has any idea what it is your trying to do! No stated plan of action, no stated goals, no implementation, and no results, got it!!!

Bless your heart!

 

[Ura-Ki]

Here's how it should go, you splain what the goal is, how your going to go about achieving it, how your going to put it to work, and how your going to enforce it!

The sad part is, your putting in all this work ( outside your complete inability to actually explain with out lawyer speak and condescending comments and insults) and what, your going to March up the front steps to the white house and hand this all over to a drooling idiot who cannot even speak in a complete sentence, and expect any of it to be accepted and held up as lawful!

Grand Delusions here, nothing more!

Good Luck Guy!

 

[CRBMoA]

I took Lenny out to the field and told him to think about rabbits, but this does raise a good point, especially in these days of heightened urgency.

If one cannot articulate a concept in 30 seconds to a minute (This is the classic 'Elevator Speech'), then I would offer that one simply does not understand it themselves.

 

[Flopsweat]

Well, it's maybe a little hard to distinguish the colors here, but my best guess is Orange, Brown, Black, and Gold, which would indicate 31 Ohms with a 5% tolerance. :-D

I could have told you to expect low tolerance.

 

[The Resister]

11 pages of lunatic rants and nobody has any idea what it is your trying to do! No stated plan of action, no stated goals, no implementation, and no results, got it!!!

Bless your heart!

What stupidity! You seem to be one of only a couple of people that can't read the freaking Charter and figure it out. A demand is just that. This board is not set up to contemplate the balance of what is more than the gun issue. What don't you understand about that?

 

[Ura-Ki]

What stupidity! You seem to be one of only a couple of people that can't read the freaking Charter and figure it out. A demand is just that. This board is not set up to contemplate the balance of what is more than the gun issue. What don't you understand about that?

Read What, a jumbled raving lunatics' rants on what's wrong and who's fault it is, and ma gunz and gov. gonna pay, and blood and such!
That so called charter ain't worth the buttwipe it's written on, would prolly plug the crapper if I tried to flush it!

Keep on keepin on there buddy!

Until you actually engage the members here with thoughtful discourse in a mutually respectful manor, NOBODY is going to take you the least bit serious, that and your big dick attitude, that you can shove right up your azz sideways dry!

 

[Flopsweat]

What stupidity! You seem to be one of only a couple of people that can't read the freaking Charter and figure it out. A demand is just that. This board is not set up to contemplate the balance of what is more than the gun issue. What don't you understand about that?

It's pretty clear from your posts on this forum and elsewhere that you are just here to recruit for your highly questionable cause. I don't know if you're one of the unindicted co-conspirators or one of the suckers, but either way I'm not falling for it.

 

[billdeserthills]

Tell that to the BATFE

Why would I tell those bastards?

 

[billdeserthills]

What idiocy! What abject idiocy! Do you work for the BATFE? I do not advocate nor condone any illegal act including, but not limited to the overthrow of the government. The Declaration of Independence does not advocate the overthrow of a government. Neither does the Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man. I suppose that if you can't prevail in an honest discourse, you start making making baseless, dishonest, and cowardly allegations. You and I are done.

You sound upset, I'm sorry I triggered you--
I didn't realize that you were so delicate

 

[The Resister]

It's pretty clear from your posts on this forum and elsewhere that you are just here to recruit for your highly questionable cause. I don't know if you're one of the unindicted co-conspirators or one of the suckers, but either way I'm not falling for it.

I don't expect anything from you. I'm here to promote, protect, and defend the Second Amendment. With your divisive and antagonistic attitude, I don't know why you're here, but rest assured, you don't speak for everyone on this board.