28th Amendment - Prohibition of Firearms

how can a right that pre-exists government be based on the "right" of a state government. States don't have rights, they have powers, You are wrong yet again

 

You are still confusing two different concepts; natural rights for Individuals and "natural rights for States".

 

the bill of rights had nothing to do with the stupid claim that there are natural rights for states. states are man created institutions not endowed by the maker with natural rights States have powers

so you are WRONG

 

Of course you are right, as usual.

 

its amazing people who have admitted they never studied law arguing stuff that is patently idiotic. The second amendment was intended by the founders to prevent the government from limiting a right the founders all thought that free men had-a right that the founders all believed existed prior to the creation of the government.

 

States have rights in relation to the general government. Traditional police power of a State could be claimed to be "natural".

- - - Updated - - -

just lousy, female intuition, dear?

 

more nonsense. and Chris is right.

 

Total nonsense. I have no idea what he is even talking about. His posts make no sense whatsoever. Lol.

 

it isn't nonsense; you are merely clueless and Causeless.

- - - Updated - - -

coming from the clueless and the Cause, it means you Only have fallacy to work with, dears.

 

The natural right is to self-defense and protection of one's property. The device of that protection is not a natural right.

 

The natural right of self defense relates to the defense against acts of aggression against the person and not against property.

We should also note that our "laws of property" in the United States are not based upon the "natural right of property" and instead are based upon "statutory title" so we can't even claim that a violation of the "right of title" is a violation of the "natural right of property" in the United States.

 

The issue for debate on this thread is a Constitutional amendment superceding the 2nd amendment...is it not?

There is no provision in the US Constitution that grants the 2nd amendment special power against change....is there?

The 2nd amendment states that Congress shall not abridge the right...not that the right can not be abridged by the amendment process....correct?

- - - Updated - - -

Where is this codified into US Statute? Show me the big book of natural rights.

 

Castle doctrine
A Castle Doctrine is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place – e.g., a vehicle or workplace, as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force to defend himself or herself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used. The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.

This doctrine has been in existence for eons.

 

Yes, it is. Why do you believe defense of self and property with Arms, is not a natural right?

 

contrarian nonsense it appears. not only would the second amendment have to be repealed, there would have to be another amendment giving congress power to violate a natural right. good luck with that

- - - Updated - - -

Denied, but what is clear is that the law of the land protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms

 

Would those traditional police powers include the power of the “Royal” governor Zig Zag Zell to appoint judges over the people of his State, with the people only having “retention elections,” or the power of the people to vote for judges that would try them in court?

Which one is traditional?

“1) Appointment: The state's governor or legislature will choose their judges.
2) Merit Selection: Judges are chosen by a legislative committee based on each potential judge's past performance. Some states hold "retention elections" to determine if the judge should continue to serve.
3) Partisan Elections: Judges selected through partisan elections are voted in by the electorate, and often run as part of a political party's slate of candidates.
4) Non-Partisan Elections: Potential judges that run for a judicial position in states with non-partisan elections put their names on the ballot, but do not list their party affiliates. Terms for judges in non-partisan elections can range between 6 and 10 years.” http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/how-are-judges-selected.html

“When the government of the United States was first established, judges in most states were appointed by chief executives and/or legislatures, to serve lifetime terms. As populist ideals began to emerge in the Jacksonian era, many states turned over the duty of selecting judges to the “will of the people,” and began limiting the terms judges would serve. In the late nineteenth century, there was a backlash against the growing power of political party leaders, and several states moved to nonpartisan elections for judges.” https://www.americanbar.org/content...s/judicial_selection_roadmap.authcheckdam.pdf

That says “in most states” but not all, can you name one that did not appoint judges when the United States was first established?

The simple fact is, there is nothing natural about traditional police powers. It was quite a revolutionary concept, first in the history of the planet, for the people to elect judges instead of those judges being appointed by Royal Governor or Party loyalists...

And let’s not get into the Tenth Amendment being violated recently or the 147 years of abuse of homosexuals by the Supreme Court, because the Civil War was fought to free homosexuals from heterosexual bondage.

 

They never do but he repeats them adnauseum.

 

The several, United States have a clearly defined legal relationship that includes powers and rights, with the general government of the Union.

 

https://battalions2.wordpress.com/2006/06/21/good-old-liberal-debate-tactics/

Good list there.

 

If I remove the part between commas it makes no sense at all. The several States have a clearly defined legal relationship that includes powers and rights with the general government of the Union. Even reworded it does not make any sense with regard to the question of traditional police powers and whether any of them are natural.

 

I don't believe that the people have ever been able to vote on ratification of the constitution. But I am not a constitutional historian. Please correct me if I am wrong

 

I remember as a kid helping my mom hand out literature urging a vote in favor of 18 year olds being able to vote. I believe citizens of Ohio voted yes and thus Ohio voted to ratify that amendment

 

That is way too in depth to describe his posts. They are basically a mish mash of the same words, used in different order, making no logical sense whatsoever. That's it.

- - - Updated - - -

Was that the best idea you think? Look how dumb a LOT of our adults are; now imagine them when they were 18.

 

even without the commas, you are clearly, clueless and Causeless.

States have a right to arbitrage powers with the general government.

- - - Updated - - -

thank y'all, for ceding the point and the argument you couldn't come up with, even with your "gang".

 

It is probably a stubborn desire to be right regardless of evidence to the contrary.

The idea that there is some “natural” traditional police power of a State is extremely loyalist or stubborn, which ignores history. History simply does not support stubborn.

Combining historical events, even the made up, something the stubborn cannot do, can sometimes give meaning to why the police powers change.

https://emerdelac.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/robinhooddeer.jpg

If the Sheriff of Nottingham arrests you for killing “Royal” Governor Zig Zag Zell’s deer in a State Park, if the judge is elected the outcome of police powers could be significantly different than if the judge is appointed by the “Royal” Governor or Party loyalists.

The stubborn sees that and instead of finding meaning they see fantasy, which simply cannot compute in the stubborn mind. I don’t know how many times a “liberal” has rejected a scenario simply because it has not happened yet.

They could support such an amendment, taking away our Arms, rejecting all scenarios working toward despotism, because potential scenarios have not happened to us yet. Our rights in their view are protected by laws, not guns, because they do not compute they are protected by Arms that don’t have to be used until the extreme “Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,” like the Declaration of Independence also says, “mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable.”

Like Washington said in his farewell address, “Let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed,” and all they see is the immigration laws they want and gay laws they want, they see the “good,” not the future potential abuses, because they have not happened yet.

“Equal protections of the laws can’t exist without social AND economic justice; redistribute the ill-gotten gains of inheritance, thirty acres and an air-conditioned tractor for every comrade!” When it happens, for the common good, because “we all must sacrifice for the common good,” and “more of us must give so that we all benefit,” they will call it good, regardless of the method of usurpation. Without an armed people, the changes may be swifter than imaginable now.

You could have an elected judge say to a carjacker, “your mistake was turning right instead of left when you got off the Interstate.” Which is a true story. Because one district is strict and another slaps their wrist, that discriminates against the black carjacker, so the judges must be appointed. With appointment comes the old problem, now the judges are either all strict or all wrist slappers, depending upon party, regardless of the will of the different districts.

Certainly he uses rule 12, “clueless and Causeless.”