Wow, the ability to defend one's family or self is the equivalent of some trans-gendered freak that needs to drop a load in the women's restroom....hoiw did society survive and thrive when so many gender-confused freaks were caught with the call of nature and faced with using a public bathroom...thank you, Barrypuppet and thank you sooo much, libruls...you have saved a social cataclysm that was in the making. As far as carrying weapon from state to state? There are laws that permit it if you are in transit and transporting goods and/or money. I'm all for people getting their freak on in the privacy of their own abode and with consenting adults....just don't insist that I embrace and support it in public because it's not gonna happen. One other thing, I don't need the "permission" of a benevolent corporate entity that is "da gubermint" to allow me the "privilege" of defending me and mine in the way that I see fit. My God given rights are not bestowed, they came with the deal when I was born...get it now???
And I reject your self proclaimed utterance of being some kind of expert. - - - Updated - - - Yes I know I am right ... that poster is a hypocrite. BTW I have not said the poster was wrong, just that they are hypocrites for citing Supreme Court rulings only when it supports them and ignoring Supreme Court rulings when it doesn't.
That's not his point. He's saying that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of both the right to bear arms WITHOUT being part of or for the purposes of a militia(which is what the 2nd amendment says) and the right for women to have an abortion. Yes, the 2nd amendment is part of the Constitution while abortion is not, but interpretation of what that law means legally for us was still done by the SCOTUS. Had they ruled differently on either of those issues, it's hard to say whether they would exist as we know them today. SCOTUS could have ruled that you must be part of an organized militia in order to keep and bear arms. That is a more literal interpretation of the wording. But that's not quite what the founders envisioned. So, if you're a person who can support the SC's ruling when it comes to guns, but not for abortion, then it shows not only a double standard, but that you don't really place any importance on SCOTUS rulings in the first place. It can't be important when it's favorable to an issue you care about but unimportant when it is not. Now, I don't know what your abortion stance is either way, so I'm speaking in general here and not trying to put words or stances in your mouth. Just explaining what Fugazi is telling you and why your responses were not addressing his point.
Actually, on gun rights, the founders of the nation considered the ability to bear arms (including military arms) as not only a right but a duty of all men. They wrote directly on the subject explaining their views. Roe is the result of an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of the 4th Amendment. The supreme court is supposed to base its determination on the Constitution, not on a string of interpretations each of which takes a step away from the original meaning. That's why the nation is so far off course - 200 years of interpretations, each one drifting slightly away from the Constitution until the total drift has put the nation so far away from the Constitution that supreme court justices argue that the Constitution is a "living" document subject to interpretation based on the current fads. And 2 justices claim that foreign law should be considered in their rulings, and one of those even recommended to other nations that they not consider the US Constitution when forming their own govt. Really, do you think the court that gave us obamacare and Kelo and upheld the Patriot Act and obergefell actually follows or even cares about the Constitution?
Great now all you have to do is prove that "God" exists or at least did exist, because if you cannot then there is no way there is such a thing as "God given rights" while you are at it perhaps you can quote the relevant part of the constitution where God is invoked.
What the founders wrote in their opinion pieces has no relevance to what the constitution says and means, the Federalist papers you mention have no standing in a court of law ... so regardless of whether the founders felt it was the duty of every man to be ready and armed, the decision on the individual right to bare arms was one based on interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, just as the right to abortion was based on interpretation. ... but typically you like most pro-lifers you only cite Supreme Court decisions when it suits your personal bias.
The qualifications of the member BryanVA are evident in his posts, as well as his explanation of how cases were decided, the methodology of the decision, and the citation of other cases that serve to back up the explanation being made. No individual without a degree in understanding the law is capable of presenting such evidence coherently. And if they can, if has yet to be observed. Did you now? Your previous posts would suggest otherwise, where you have spoken about Miller addressing the right of states to form militias.
As I said if you believe everything you see in a forum that someone has proclaimed about themselves then I am the Prince of Wales and you can call me sir. My previous posts speak for themselves and TBH irrelevant to what started all this ... which was that both the right to bare arms and the right to abortion were decisions made by SCOTUS based on interpretation of the relevant amendments .. do you disagree with that and if so why?
The member BryanVA has demonstrated multiple times that he is indeed what he claims to be. Any time he has been required to call upon his understanding of a supreme court case, and his explanation of how the interpretation was reached. It you are indeed royalty, then demonstrate such just as he has. Bear arms. Not bare arms. Indeed you are being disagreed with. The supreme court has demonstrated on numerous occasions that they are subject to political bias in making their determinations of when the constitution does and does not apply, such as when it ruled that illegal actions by police officers are justified and permissible when evidence of wrongdoing is discovered as a result.
And you think a person cannot demonstrate an argument without having the qualifications in the subject matter do you .... sorry I have seen nothing from this person you are in awe of that any person with the time and resources could not do. Yes I know it is bear farms ... auto correct can be a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) sometimes, and I have no disagreement with you that the Supreme Court can be subject to political bias .. perhaps that was the case when they decided Heller.
Before I answer that, are you saying that our right to exists comes from a benevolent corporate "gubermint" that passes acts, statutes, codes and ordinances from on high and bestows upon us privileges? I just want to get you on record as stating as such....because if that is your contention, that makes you a communist piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) that believes the state and the collective decide what is best for all and be damned individual rights....no?
that merely shows your ignorance. You aren't even an American Resident so your opinion matters not concerning our rights or our constitution. I laugh at subjects telling free citizens why our rights are bad. I am not citing the Supreme Court for anything. The Supreme court has become corrupted with politics and that first became evident with the Supreme court reversing over a hundred years of precedent to kiss FDR's fascist ass.
Wrong. The Federalist Papers were written by several of the creators of the Constitution, and were written specifically to explain the Constitution and to support its ratification. The Papers are often used to explain original intent. And the 2nd Amendment was not originally intended to even address gun rights, it was written to ensure state militias were exempt from the Constitutional ban on a standing army. The amendment was shifted to address gun rights as a result of the process known as "incorporation" in which the courts have tried to apply the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the states. Original intent was that the federal govt had absolutely no power to regulate firearms. "Incorporation" is primary proof of how far the courts have drifted from the Constitution and original intent. The Bill of Rights was written as an example of some of the natural rights people have, but many of the Founders rejected the Bill of Rights because they thought in the future people would assume that the Bill was a list of all the rights, and any right not listed did not exist. The Constitution grants the federal govt very specific limited powers, all other powers not specifically listed are for the people and states. They were correct, the Bill of Rights should never have been written. "Incorporation" means all natural rights must somehow be listed in the Bill of Rights, a nearly impossible task. Gun rights, being a pre-eminent right, was shoved into the 2nd Amendment. But in reality, gun rights are a natural right, and is ingrained in the American culture. And although this is not an abortion thread - the issue with abortion is the status of the baby as either a person or not, an issue you fail to address in every OP. That status determines how the Constitution applies to the mother and the baby, and that status is unresolved. You should learn the US Constitution and US history before posting about it.
So your argument is that amendments in the Bill of Rights, specifically set up to prevent federal government "regulation" and to recognize natural rights, should be regulated by the entity it forbids regulating?
Wondered how long it would before you turned tail and trotted out the you're not American line as if it has any relevance in a debating forum .. and please, please do point out ANYWHERE I say your rights are bad, or is that just another delusion of yours, and also perhaps you can point out where I say YOU are citing the Supreme Court, is Battle3 one of your accounts?
Amazing how you can write such a spiel of words without actually addressing the point made. The Federalist Papers have no legal standing, and were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. The text of the Constitution had already been accepted by The Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, but by the text of the Constitution itself it could not go into effect until at least 9 states had ratified it .. the Federalist Papers were written to try and make this happen in at least the State of New York, in the end they were not required as the necessary 9 states ratified the Constitution (June 21, 178 before the Federalist papers were fully published. The point you are failing to address is whether the Federalist Papers have any legal standing in a court, and the answer to that is no they do not .. furthermore, they do not show "the intent of the founders" as they were written but only three of the seven accepted founding fathers ie they are opinion pieces showing the intent of the people who wrote them and not the intent of them all. There is no such thing as natural rights, natural means "Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind:". Rights are founded on ethical value judgements, which may be empirical or rational, in order to discover whether Natural Rights have been conferred by Nature, one must ask if there is anything that can be deduced from the workings of Nature that indicates a morality? Nature certainly works in accordance with the laws of natural science but scientific laws cannot be equated with rights. Nature must have morality to be able to confer rights, and in order to have morality one must have sentience, nature is a only quasiliving organism which, although containing sentient life within it, is not truly sentient itself. Saying gun rights are " ingrained in the American culture." as a defence to the right to bear arms is nothing more than an appeal to tradition fallacy. - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/44/Appeal-to-Tradition I have addressed that numerous times, you just run away from debating it, the status of the fetus is irrelevant, whether it is a person or not does not give it the right to violate the rights of another person without consent. In fact the pro-life mantra of the fetus being a person from conception makes the legal argument for abortion at any time, for any reason and the state paying for it much, much stronger .. you have yet to even post a single thing that disputes that in any thread you have commented on. You have absolutely no idea what my qualifications are concerning my knowledge of your Constitution, and your history is again nothing more than an appeal to tradition every time you state history as an argument.
Why don't you ask one - - - Updated - - - And of course you would know all about scribbling on bathroom walls as you are such an expert at it
She never does answer that question does she? Why does a foreign national engage in this debate. Of course there are other issues.
