RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government

RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomImus -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 12:27:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne who is "they" and by what authority do they require to know anyone's PRIVATE business The "they" I was referring to is those persons who would target me to attempt to steal my firearm if that information was published. Do they have any right to that information? I don't believe so but if it would make the pacifists feel better to print it I have no objections. Maybe it would get the guns out of the hands of those 1400 felons in Florida and make Florida's licensing system that is already 99.9982 % effective in screening out felons even better.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 12:38:31 PM)
there is a good way to do that. assign one government agent to every person to guard and insure they have no gun. The supreme court in essence said we the people means we the states. Now I can understand that if you want to APPLY all those OLD assed definitions I post that everyone rejects. I said many times that the only way this can make any sense is if the OLD definitions used under the king are adhered too. remember feudalism also was a contract that the king [as state] abused, just like the in america where the State [as king] is abusing right now .

popeye1250 -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 12:43:16 PM)
Didn't the founders say something to the effect that "Rights are bestowed on us by "GOD" and not "men?"

Moonhead -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 12:43:40 PM)
Aren't you forgetting that magna charta thing you're fixated with? That stopped a lot of abuses.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 12:44:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Didn't the founders say something to the effect that "Rights are bestowed on us by "GOD" and not "men?" yeh but the guv does not recognize GOD in any court even though that is the orign of the "LAW". rights have been converted to privileges and further converted [devolved] to "interests".

Moonhead -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 12:46:22 PM)
Just like the right of a monarch to do as he fookin' pleases under feudalism, in fact.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 12:50:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Just like the right of a monarch to do as he fookin' pleases under feudalism, in fact. no not at all that is a misnomer the monarch has always has his courtiers and precisely like to today they change the "meanings" of the words, OR change the words and retain the same meanings, and they own the courts for show trials. It fools anyone who is not educated in law and grammar. Remember the monarchy claimed they got rid of feudalism when THE CHANGED THE NAME from "subinfeadination" to "substitution" by grant that carries the heriditaments. In other words they changed the fucking name while it remains functionally the same, and claimed it was different. Hence nothing changed but the names. Sovereignty has nothing what so ever to do with either the monarchy or feudalism. That does not mean it was not one of several methods used to control people.

Moonhead -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 12:58:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Just like the right of a monarch to do as he fookin' pleases under feudalism, in fact. no not at all that is a misnomer the monarch has always has his courtiers and precisely like to today they change the "meanings" of the words, OR change the words and retain the same meanings, and they own the courts for show trials. It fools anyone who is not educated in law and grammar. Remember the monarchy claimed they got rid of feudalism when THE CHANGED THE NAME from "subinfeadination" to "substitution" by grant that carries the heriditaments. In other words they changed the fucking name while it remains functionally the same, and claimed it was different. Hence nothing changed but the names. Sovereignty has nothing what so ever to do with either the monarchy or feudalism. That does not mean it was not one of several methods used to control people. I'm game. Find some citations about a monarchy (it'd be nice if you could name a specific monarchy for an example, but I'm not holding my breath) hornswoggling their subjects with a linguistic bait and switch when they already had absolute power and could whatever the fuck they wanted with impunity in any case.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 1:02:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Didn't the founders say something to the effect that "Rights are bestowed on us by "GOD" and not "men?" which also on the other side of the coin can be applied to all those who refer to "rights" UNDER the constitution. No such thing. The 14th changed the government into a club that declared contract as the highest law and the privileges and immunities are to avoid the rigors of the strict common law and without that you are subject to the judges decisions. Judges today are the final say and ultimate RULERS of the once common law based countries colonized by england

Real0ne -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 1:05:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Just like the right of a monarch to do as he fookin' pleases under feudalism, in fact. no not at all that is a misnomer the monarch has always has his courtiers and precisely like to today they change the "meanings" of the words, OR change the words and retain the same meanings, and they own the courts for show trials. It fools anyone who is not educated in law and grammar. Remember the monarchy claimed they got rid of feudalism when THE CHANGED THE NAME from "subinfeadination" to "substitution" by grant that carries the heriditaments. In other words they changed the fucking name while it remains functionally the same, and claimed it was different. Hence nothing changed but the names. Sovereignty has nothing what so ever to do with either the monarchy or feudalism. That does not mean it was not one of several methods used to control people. I'm game. Find some citations about a monarchy (it'd be nice if you could name a specific monarchy for an example, but I'm not holding my breath) hornswoggling their subjects with a linguistic bait and switch when they already had absolute power and could whatever the fuck they wanted with impunity in any case. yeh well you are right in that is difficult because power does depend on which king was in power at the time. While I have the information 8 terrabytes its not easy to simply pull one citation it out on a whim any more. It overloads my grep.

Moonhead -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 1:09:37 PM)
So you've got nothing, and can't back up your claim. Thought so.

mnottertail -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 1:09:50 PM)
One can cite the jabberwocky in terms of constitution and law, and it would be as valid as any I have seen from you.

Moonhead -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 1:11:06 PM)
He's probably working on the "what I tell you three times is true" principle. (Or is that the Snark?)

Termyn8or -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 1:19:04 PM)
"There is no right to own property in the Constitution. " Not so fast. What does the word "their" mean in the fourth ? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable......... " Their papers and effects would be in their houses which would most likely be built on their land. How else would this be construed, reasonably ? T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 1:28:06 PM)
"Didn't the founders say something to the effect that "Rights are bestowed on us by "GOD" and not "men?"" Nope. They were careful to use the word "Creator". T^T

Real0ne -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 1:34:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead So you've got nothing, and can't back up your claim. Thought so. sure I can if you want to pay for a finders fee for the research time to go through all those fucking files. I gave you the information and I post information I have handy beyond that I charge. There is another way, you can always take me to court that is the only way I am obligated to prove anything but when I do than you have many additional fees. So if you are too cheap to pay then you have to wait till I run across it.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 1:35:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "Didn't the founders say something to the effect that "Rights are bestowed on us by "GOD" and not "men?"" Nope. They were careful to use the word "Creator". T^T I stand corrected, good point.

imperatrixx -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 1:36:36 PM)
-FR- This is the Second Amendment of the US Constitution: "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." It actually specifies regulation. And it gives the reason for the right to bear arms as the need for a militia. Now, at the time, they needed that to fight against Native Americans in the West, as well as potential threats by British, Spanish, and French armies against our land...and even to fight slave rebellions. Now...we own the whole country. The "militia" idea makes me think of civilians going to the Mexican border to shoot and patrol. I think that Americans should have the right to keep guns (definitely hunting rifles and shotguns, handguns should be legal but regulated...personally I'd ban most gangsta rappers from owning guns just from their irresponsible gun lyrics) but I don't think that should be based in the Second Amendment because that ties gun ownership to civilian militias and I am not too keen on civilian militias taking the law into their own hands. I wonder if "a well regulated militia" could be compared to something like the National Guard. If so...then wouldn't the modern interpretation be something like "if you want a gun, join the National Guard"?

Real0ne -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 1:37:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead He's probably working on the "what I tell you three times is true" principle. (Or is that the Snark?) nah lots of people take that approach when proven wrong by their supremeee creamie court god

Moonhead -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 1:37:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead So you've got nothing, and can't back up your claim. Thought so. sure I can if you want to pay for a finders fee for the research time to go through all those fucking files. I gave you the information and I post information I have handy beyond that I charge. There is another way, you can always take me to court that is the only way I am obligated to prove anything but when I do than you have many additional fees. So if you are too cheap to pay then you have to wait till I run across it. You're the one who claims that you have a case for your line of bullshit: substantiate it, or withdraw it. (I bet the dog ate your homework every night when you were at school...)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625