If "Our Creator" endowed us with rights...

Then they shouldnt have signed the contract as stated ffs!

if thats the case then you dont even have contract law 101 knowledge bro, and you are trying to discuss the constitution? Seriously?

The contract is unequivocal, no amount of willreadmore attempted mind reading can change that fact.

 

You base ALL of your commentary on your interpretation of Paul's letters. He was only ONE of 39 authors.

If you ask for a biblical explanation of unalienable Rights, you better believe I'll quote you the Bible. And yes, I've read the Bible. I went back to college after one career and obtained a degree in theology with a major in Christian Education. Soooo... Google all you like, but you're still wrong.

That's twice you've been bested by posters. Got any NEW material?

 

Then they shouldnt have signed the contract as stated ffs!

if thats the case then you dont even have contract law 101 knowledge bro, and you are trying to discuss the constitution? Seriously?

The contract is unequivocal, no amount of willreadmore attempted mind reading can change that fact

That was so on point that it had to be said again in bold. If WillReadmore is going to keep posting the same stuff every day, we only need a limited amount of responses. We've proven that Rights were deemed absolute and WillReadmore still has a problem with it. Amazing. I really think he gets paid to do this every day.

 

No, I quote from all over the Bible. I mostly quote from the new testament, as that is the version of the Abrahamic faiths that hews closest in the most popular family of faiths in the USA.

Matthew records some incredibly powerful statements concerning man's duties, for example.

And, Paul's letters are an interesting insight to the struggles of new churches spread throughout the ME, along with Paul's ideas on how those struggles should be met.

You have made no progress at all.

Claiming graduation certificates is not how one goes about making an argument.

And, your degrees are certainly not evidence of me being wrong - or of you being right.

Having a degree doesn't excuse one from having to do the work.

 

You have done NO work on this thread. You've done NO research; offered NO verifiable links; all you've done is offered up ad hominems while projecting your weaknesses onto others. You try to change the subject and you just made a cowardly attack upon me. I've done more research and actual work in this area by accident than you've done on purpose. I believe, as Kokomojojo has implied, your MO is that of jtrig.

The progress I've made was NOT about the topic at hand. You're right. It is your job to see that nobody is allowed to make a legitimate point. That is why you attack with that repetitive and bogus repeat of deflections, ad hominems (albeit very subtle so as to stay within the parameters of the rules) and nonsensical arguments that couldn't fool a fifth grader. I only point out the fact that I have the experience you don't. ALL you offer are criticisms, but what you're forfeiting is your cover. You're here 24 / 7 / 365 as if this is your life. It's just your job and the quicker the average poster figures out what is motivating you to obscure the facts with your fantasy posts, the better Kokomojojo's case against what you're doing became. BTW, I don't "claim" graduation certificates. Every school I've graduated from can be documented and that shows, at the very least, I have the education you don't. THAT is why I can bring material to the table. ALL you bring is your personal opinions that are in conflict with known history, law, and the writings of the founders and framers. So, have you got any new material?

Edit:

WillReadmore wrote in response to one post:

"I don't see any evidence that our founders actually thought our rights were absolute.
That's just not a feasable position to take."

RESPONSE: Will's inability to spell half the words he uses correctly are witness to the fact that we're not dealing with someone who is a serious scholar on the subject. So we will have to forgive him for that. If he did not see the evidence of our Rights being absolute, it's because he never studied American history.

In layman's terms, the word unalienable and absolute are synonyms:
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/unalienable

I've already posted the same court cases on this thread to show that our Rights have been declared unalienable AND absolute. Maybe some new glasses might help.

 

I've come to the conclusion that some critics don't have any cogent argument to make so they are now throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks. All we can do is summarize what is factual:

1) The first governing document of the New World was unequivocal in its language:

'In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith" (excerpt from the Mayflower Compact of 1620)

2) The colonists sought religious Liberty and, after much thoughtful debate, ratified the Declaration of Independence. That document states (in part):

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

3) The colonists separated from King George, fought a war and won the Right to set up a government that embodied those presuppositional ideals for which they were willing to die for

4) The word unalienable had a very specific meaning that was defined by the earliest courts AND codified in the Bill of Rights

Those are the facts. No amount of fluff and bluff, filibustering or attempts to rewrite history can change the bottom line. If it takes force to compel people to respect your unalienable Rights, then BFD.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" (Declaration of Independence) Sooo... our laws are built upon those principles of unalienable Rights and since you have Rights, there also comes the duty, obligation and the Right to protect those Rights. If I do not consent to tyranny; if I do not choose to be governed by those who would endanger my Life, Liberty and / or hinder my unalienable Right to pursue Happiness, then I'm not obligated to consent to a damn thing. As long as I don't infringe upon the Rights of another, the government has guaranteed us (under the Constitution) a Republican form of Government (Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States) and if it takes a force of arms to protect those unalienable Rights, then we are authorized by the laws of God, the laws of Nature, and the Constitution (as originally written and intended.)

Anything else is speculation.

 

Name another

 

Liberty

 

Pursuit of happiness.

Both are only achieved through might or legal means. They are not Natural. Do animals have Liberty? Many are hunted.

Natural rights don't need legal rulings.

 

They are clearly not absolute as we have NO idetified rights that have no exceptions.

We have large numbers of gun restrictions. We have large numbers of laws on speech. We have numerous laws on property where one may, through fully legal action, lose ones property (though usually compensated at some level). We have laws that pertain to those who operate public accommodations, restricting their "pursuit of happiness" by requiring them to sever customers equally regardles of skin color. We have laws on employment that restrict you the quality of environment and issues of compensation. We have laws on to what purpose you may put your property - even when such laws can conflict with the owner's religion.

You can't just gloss over that by telling me how stupid I am.

And, I don't see any sanity in the idea that someone has all sorts of rights, but will be severely punished if that person chose to exercise them.

My view is that those in NK have pretty well lost their rights. They are humans. There standing as humans is equal to that of any others. But, they don't have those rights.

 

You continue to champion tyranny and infringement of rights, that would earn you a label of traitor to the constitution, in the eyes of the founders and anyone who knows what this country was intended to stand for.

Then its not a right, its privilege.

Direct tyrannical violation of the constitution.

Direct tyrannical violation of the constitution.

Direct tyrannical violation of the constitution.

Direct tyrannical violation of the constitution, some cases not.

Direct tyrannical violation of the constitution.

legal

some legal most a direct tyrannical violation of the constitution.

Direct tyrannical violation of the constitution.

Thank you for agreeing that our rights have been totally unlawfully converted to privileges and you are none the wiser because the **** you post proves you have no knowledge what so ever about contract law much less con law.

I asked a couple questions a few pages back and you told me to **** off because you have no clue about the basis of law, and here you are posting walls of gish designed to undermine and pervert our laws with the kleptocratic of cancer you champion.

You simply spout bullshit in every post using the logic of tyranny 'thats the way it is, it sounds logical to you, therefore thats the way its SUPPOSED TO BE'.

They reason again is because you refuse to accept our law and in its place champion tryanny.

"its the way we do it so thats the right way to do it, and thats just dandy", methodology.

 

What a line of bullshit! That principle was flushed the second the so called founders died. The sad reality is all we get is the consent of the kings court which is NOT 'The People". This gubmint like most gubmints glorify wonderful ideologies in one hand while the other hand shits all over us.

 

Human beings are hunted though they have done nothing illegal. Do you have a point?

 

There are many laws on the books; however, the United States Supreme Court will verify that you are not obligated to obey them:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: 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 it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." http://foundationfortruthinlaw.org/Files/11-IRS-Documents/16-Am-Jur-2d,-Sec-177-late-2d,-Sec-256.pdf

I wonder how many laws you've broken in the course of your life because you felt that deep down inside it did not hurt anyone else or infringe on their Rights so I'm going to do it and the Hell with the government.

You need a lesson in the differences between POWER and AUTHORITY.

 

It is the fault of those who failed to rebel against unconstitutional laws and hold the government's feet to the fire. That, my good man is the truth and it does not take a majority to make the change.

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Samuel Adams

If your activism is limited to arguing with idiots on a discussion board that you know are jtrig, then you did not reach your fellow man that needs to hear the message that Liberty can be achieved.

 

I totally deny your charge against me.

And, I fully recognize that there surely are unconstitutional laws on the books and that (if there is justice) breaking those laws would not result in penalties beyond the various costs of defending one's actions - which may still be huge.

We also choose not to have an enforcement capability that could possibly enforce all our laws. For example, we've decided that tax law should receive far less attention than it has in the past. Examining the complex tax avoidance behavior of the wealthy upsets too many large donors - a problem not addressed by our constitution.

 

you should consider leaving the UK and immigrate to califormia, apply for a state scrotumus maximus job, after reading your posts they would hire you in a ny second!


Laws That Are 'Impossible' to Follow Can Still Be Constitutional, Says California Court
Just because you cannot comply doesn't mean the law cannot exist.

Just because a law is impossible to follow is not enough of a reason for a court to throw it out. So California's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

On the face the ruling sounds utterly absurd, (and it is) but there's a deeper explanation big time major league bullshit that makes it a little less silly and much more deeply concerning about the deference granted to lawmakers.

Some context: California passed a law a decade ago that demanded gun manufacturers implement microstamping technology that would imprint identifying information on bullets as they were shot from semi-automatic weapons. Gun manufacturers say the technology hasn't advanced enough to comply with the law. Smith & Wesson announced in 2014 that they would be pulling some guns from the market in California rather than complying with the law (a cynic might theorize that this is the law's actual intent).
Check out this quick video
Ad By Sponsor
See More

The National Shooting Sports Foundation sued to block the law. California's Civil Code contains a section that simply reads, "The law never requires impossibilities." So the question the state's Supreme Court was addressing was whether the courts can invalidate this law because it is impossible for people to comply with it.

Not only did the California Supreme Court rule that it cannot invalidate the law, but it ruled so unanimously. To be clear: The court does not suggest that people can face punishment for being unable to comply with impossible laws. Instead, the court says, "impossibility can occasionally excuse noncompliance with a statute, but in such circumstances, the excusal constitutes an interpretation of the statute in accordance with the Legislature's intent, not an invalidation of the law." Essentially, it's not unconstitutional to pass impossible laws, but the courts can exempt people from the consequences of those laws without overturning the laws themselves.

Strip away the absurdity, and it's essentially a very technical ruling. The court acknowledges its role in making sure that people are not punished for being unable to comply with a law because it's impossible—that would be an unconstitutional violation of a person's rights. It just can't use that basis for invalidating the law itself.


Its the world you are diligently workign to build, you would fit in well!

Do you know what that is? The legal name for what that court did?

 

Do you believe that you or the gun manufacturer has been injured?

If at some time a gun manufacturer demonstrates that they can follow that law, they will have an advantage on all other manufacturers!

Maybe rather than suing the government they should think about winning in their product category!

 

Again you fail to answer a very simple legal question.

Thanks though, your post spells it out perfectly clear.

Yes people of the US, will wants us all to bend over and take it like men.

I have to admit I didnt expect an open admission to legal subterfuge.

Everyone bend over uncle sam has a red white and blue waiting just for you!

​

Carlin explains in a language any legal ignoramus can understand:
​

Transcript
But there’s a reason. There’s a reason. There’s a reason for this, there’s a reason education SUCKS, and it’s the same reason it will never, ever, EVER be fixed.

It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it, be happy with what you’ve got.

Because the owners, the owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the real owners now, the BIG owners! The Wealthy… the REAL owners! The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions.

Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice! You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls.

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don’t want:

They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. Thats against their interests.

Thats right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting ****ed by a system that threw them overboard 30 ****ing years ago. They don’t want that!

You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this ****ing place! It's a big club, and you ain’t in it! You, and I, are not in the big club.

By the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care! Good honest hard-working people; white collar, blue collar it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich **** suckers who don’t give a **** about you….they don’t give a **** about you… they don’t give a **** about you.

They don’t care about you at all… at all… AT ALL. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Thats what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick thats being jammed up their *******s everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth.

It's called the American Dream,because you have to be asleep to believe it.

btw what do they pay you to post that ****?​

 

Life is the only Natural right we all have. And most every human will fight to keep said right.

 

ruby ridge, waco, floyd

you live at the whim of da gubmint

 

In those cases, might made right.

 

You know what I trust WillReadmore? I trust that individuals will read what you've written and what I've written. Then, if they're really interested, they will research the facts, access the links, and do their due diligence. Than they can decide what the truth is. You lack that confidence. So you come here EVERY DAY to filibuster, to make baseless allegations, and do your damn level best to put as much space between the long posts I do that are the result of diligent research and your asinine posts that show you've don't NOTHING in preparation for the conversation you've done NOTHING to refute the factual portions thereof. It's because you fear that if you left this thread alone for a few days, somebody might read a few of the posts and actually get a moment that you feel compelled to sling skeet at me every day.

Here's the thing: You and I know you aren't working this angle for free. NOBODY puts that much time into criticizing any opinion, NEVER offering a counter point save of denials and harangues to deflect from the topic unless they are being paid OR.... they have censors here. Smart people can read between the lines.

Freedom comes at a price. It's bestowed upon you at birth, then it becomes your Right, your Duty, and your Obligation to insure it. You cannot go out and kill a man without a just cause; however, if that same man pulled a gun on you and you ended up killing him, then you would go free because you have a Right to Life and someone else tried to infringe upon that Right (thereby forfeiting his Rights.) No matter how hard you try to make this subject, it's just not rocket science.

 

If you have a point, I really wish you'd get to it.

Put another way, do you feel that you have a Right to your own property? Do you have locks on your doors at home? Deadbolts? Maybe a camera? Alarm system? Safe? Safety deposit box at the bank? If it takes some form of force to maintain your Right to that property, do you have a Right to it at all? If not, and you're committed to this idiocy, maybe you won't mind if I come over and take whatever I want from your home? If might is right and it's that cut and dried, and that means something special you couldn't stop me.

" When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace..." Luke 11: 21

 

I said it several times already.
Life, is the only natural right.

Yes, the gov't granted rights we have in USA I agree with. Property, speech, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, etc.

Without me having a gun, or the gov't putting you in jail for your theft, there wouldn't be much other recourse. I could come and take it back though. Without the legal rights of property, that would be my only recourse is to take it back.