Discussion:
"[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
(too old to reply)
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-03-04 15:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment
is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of
text, history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and
crazed far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate
themselves to that fact.
True indeed.
So you're done.
Ah...no. Not with you snipping and clipping and hiding from the
serious questions and statements Ive asked you about those "limits"
you keep bring up.
Im curious though..was there some reason you snipped out this portion
" The only protected arms are those suitable for
military/militia duty. Machine guns, pistols, combat shotguns, high
power military rifles, grenades, bayonets, sniper rifles, missiles,
cannon, swords, axes, napalm and the like.
We can even add military aircraft along with bombs, gatling guns,
CBUs, Thermobaric weaponry and so forth. I think we can make the
case for small KT nuclear weapons as well...but we will have to have a
quorum about those, Id think.
Hunting arms are not protected.
Not exactly what you were hoping for was it?"
The 2nd just says "arms" so all arms including arms for hunting are
covered... the fact they pointed out that a Militia was necessary to a
free State is only making the point of why they think guns serve a
political purpose as well as a hunting and self defense role.

Mao said it differently and in a more insidious way, saying that power
comes from the barrel of a gun, if true then a democracy would want all
citizens to have the RIGHT to own a gun and those old, White, men that
wrote the Constitution's 2nd amendment recognized it and planned ahead
for it with the 2nd amendment and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

The same idea implemented 2 different ways and Mao and the Marxists and
Liberals way got 40 million Chinese peasants starved to death in Mao's
GREAT LEAP FORWARD. That pretty much tells me which philosophy I'd want
to follow to help the poor and the working class people. Obviously the
Democrats and Liberals are NOT for the working class and NOT only want
them to have ZERO POLITICAL POWER from the barrel of a gun but they
don't want a poor person to be able to hunt to feed their family or
protect the family from criminal and government thugs.
--
That's Karma

Remember when Obama said "that's NOT who we are" well *this is* who
Democrats are.....
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-03-04 15:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Repeat after me:  the limits aren't specified in the amendment - they
are inherent in the right that is enumerated by the amendment.
Sorry, to assert the limit does not make the case that there is a limit.
All rights have limits. You've already agreed with that. The founders
all agreed with it, too.
The ONLY Limits to our RIGHTS are the delegated powers in the
Constitution. And those NOT denied to the States. But the 1% in the
Federal government has denied the States the power regulate by calling
it discrimination. So they could consolidate political power for
themselves.

Because the ONLY powers the United States has are those delegated to it
in the Constitution.

I see the RIGHT to keep and bear arms being delegated to the PEOPLE and
NOT the United States in the 2nd amendment.

Amendment 10 verifies that if the power is NOT delegated to the United
States then it's outside the jurisdiction of the United States and falls
within the jurisdiction of the States or the people, and amendment 2
clearly delegates that power to the people in the form of a RIGHT of the
people.

Neither the State nor the United States are given jurisdiction by the
Constitution to regulate the keeping or bearing of arms. Such is the
price of having political power from the barrel of a gun. the poor and
ragged people get their power from the 2nd amendment while the wealthy
get their power from their wealth and political office. The 2nd
amendment is a balance of power. Making the masses equal to the elite
and notice that the Liberal elite are the ones that preach and promote
and buy support for banning guns.

The one percent don't want the people to have guns. The wealthy and
politically connected like Pelosi and Hillary don't want the common
people to have any political power. Hillary even corrupted the
Democratic primary election and cheated Bernie Sanders from the
Democratic nomination.
--
That's Karma

Remember when Obama said "that's NOT who we are" well *this is* who
Democrats are.....
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-03-04 15:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The right to arms has always been limited
What limits existed in late 18th century USA?
Justice Scalia offers you some cases that you may peruse at your
    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not
    unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
    commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a
    right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
    346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the
majority
    of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that
    prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the
    Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v.
Chandler, 5
    La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
    Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G.
    Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive
    historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second
Amendment ,
    nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the
mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive
places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
I'm not particularly interested in discussing the details of
specific limits.  My point is only to demonstrate to you that the
right *is* limited, and always has been.  *Some* restrictions on the
kinds of guns you may own, and on the bearing of them, have always
existed within the limits of the right.  As such, they do not
"infringe" the right.
In you opinion, exactly what limits may the government
constitutionally place
Nope.  It's not any limits that the government "places on" the right.
It's the limits that are inherent to the right.  The Constitution did
not create the right.
As I already clearly said, I'm not interested in discussing at this
time just what the specific limits are.  My only interest right now is
in establishing that the right *has* limits, prior to any government.
Upon what portion of the Constitution do you base your position?
None, because the Constitution doesn't define the right.  It merely
acknowledges it.
The 2nd delegates the RIGHT to keep and bear arms to the PEOPLE.

That means that it's NOT delegated to the Federal government.

That right can't be infringed by the Federal government which means they
can't use the interstate commerce clause to limit or infringe on our
right to keep and bear arms.
--
That's Karma

Remember when Obama said "that's NOT who we are" well *this is* who
Democrats are.....
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-03-04 15:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment
is clearly within the scope of the amendment.  Mr. Justice Scalia in the
       There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
       history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
       to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
       just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
       e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
       do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
       to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
       read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
       speak for any purpose.
       [...]
       Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
       *not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
       commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
       not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
       manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
       [emphasis added]
You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of
text, history and interpretation, it is not.  That is simply a fact, and
crazed far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate
themselves to that fact.
True indeed.   The only protected arms are those suitable for
military/militia duty.   Machine guns, pistols, combat shotguns, high
power military rifles,  grenades, bayonets, sniper rifles, missiles,
cannon, swords, axes, napalm and the like.
We can even add military aircraft along with bombs, gatling guns,
CBUs, Thermobaric weaponry and so forth.   I think we can make the
case for small KT nuclear weapons as well...but we will have to have a
quorum about those, Id think.
Hunting arms are not protected.
There is no principled difference between hunting firearms
and firearms suitable for militia duty.
And hunting with an AR-15 is better suited for the gun than being in a
military battle, since a Mil-Spec M-16 is a much better weapon and the
person with an AR-15 is at a huge disadvantage.

But while hunting with no one shooting back at you, an AR-15 works well,
it's compact and light and OK accuracy and distance for deer and other
smaller animals. And you can have enough ammunition in the gun to take
several shots in succession so that you increase the chances of bringing
down the animal rather than it running off to die somewhere else.

Or you can bring down multiple animals in a survival situation where you
need to feed a group of people. All in all the AR-15 is better suited
to assault deer and other animals than as a military assault rifle.

I'd tend to say *the AR-15 is a SURVIVAL RIFLE* and NOT an assault
RIFLE. While the M-16 is what the military seems to use to fit the
assault rifle description.
--
That's Karma


*Rumination*
1159 - The constitution is there to stop others from violating your
rights, NOT to allow you to deny other people their rights.
Gunner Asch
2018-03-05 00:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 4 Mar 2018 10:37:37 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
I'd tend to say *the AR-15 is a SURVIVAL RIFLE* and NOT an assault
RIFLE. While the M-16 is what the military seems to use to fit the
assault rifle description.
The AR is a decent enough general purpose rifle for small game and
human targets. A utility rifle.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-03-05 15:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It doesn't put any limits on it.  The limits are inherent to the
right.
Please explain what that means.  To the rest of us, it appears
to mean that you're spewing nonsense.
And you will notice he never tells us exactly what these limits
are, why they exist and why they are inherent in the right.
I've stated that I'm not particularly interested at this time in
the details of the limits.
You've said that before.  But "the details of the limits" are
central to an examination of whether "the limits" are inherent
in the right, and even to whether "the limits" even actually
exist at all.  So that's all fine, go ahead and ignore those
nasty details, and we will go ahead and call bullshit on your claim.
No, that's false.  The limits - whatever they may be, but you know
they exist - are necessarily inherent in the right.  The right is not
defined in the second amendment;
The ONLY limits are when a RIGHT conflicts with others RIGHTS or the
Powers delegated to the United States.

Amendment II
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* .

I think The RIGHT is *of the people* and *shall NOT be infringed* is how
it's defined (they are qualifiers). Just as the RIGHT to life liberty
and property is defined as....

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation."

They seem pretty "matter of fact" with those RIGHTS are you saying the
government can take your life/liberty and property without due process?
Or all they have to do is make a law n any own or city that they want to
kill gays or Jews and it's OK?

Because attacking our RIGHTS and ignoring them is how the government
can accomplish true evil.

That's how Hitler and Stalin did it, they killed the gays and mentally
ill using Liberals idea that RIGHTS are malleable.
--
That's Karma

Remember when Obama said "that's NOT who we are" well *this is* who
Democrats are.....
Mike Colangelo
2018-03-05 18:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
It doesn't put any limits on it.  The limits are inherent to the
right.
Please explain what that means.  To the rest of us, it appears
to mean that you're spewing nonsense.
And you will notice he never tells us exactly what these limits
are, why they exist and why they are inherent in the right.
I've stated that I'm not particularly interested at this time in
the details of the limits.
You've said that before.  But "the details of the limits" are
central to an examination of whether "the limits" are inherent
in the right, and even to whether "the limits" even actually
exist at all.  So that's all fine, go ahead and ignore those
nasty details, and we will go ahead and call bullshit on your claim.
No, that's false.  The limits - whatever they may be, but you know
they exist - are necessarily inherent in the right.  The right is not
defined in the second amendment;
The ONLY limits are when a RIGHT conflicts with others RIGHTS or the
Powers delegated to the United States.
No. That's stupid, as usual.

Rights can never conflict. If a conflict appears to you to exist, you
have misunderstood one or both of the rights...and their inherent limits.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-03-05 19:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
It doesn't put any limits on it.  The limits are inherent to the
right.
Please explain what that means.  To the rest of us, it appears
to mean that you're spewing nonsense.
And you will notice he never tells us exactly what these limits
are, why they exist and why they are inherent in the right.
I've stated that I'm not particularly interested at this time in
the details of the limits.
You've said that before.  But "the details of the limits" are
central to an examination of whether "the limits" are inherent
in the right, and even to whether "the limits" even actually
exist at all.  So that's all fine, go ahead and ignore those
nasty details, and we will go ahead and call bullshit on your claim.
No, that's false.  The limits - whatever they may be, but you know
they exist - are necessarily inherent in the right.  The right is not
defined in the second amendment;
The ONLY limits are when a RIGHT conflicts with others RIGHTS or the
Powers delegated to the United States.
No.  That's stupid, as usual.
Rights can never conflict.  If a conflict appears to you to exist, you
have misunderstood one or both of the rights...and their inherent limits.
My right to shoot could conflict with someones right to life..... it's
called manslaughter. I have no right to kill them but I have a right
to shoot a gun. If I'm careless exercising my right it's a conflict.

Atheists claim that religions are violating their rights all the time,
so when a Religious right conflicts with another religion like the
Atheists religion we have the two both having a RIGHT (right to exercise
their religion) that is being violated mutually. That's when you see a
lawsuit to decide a way for both parties to coexist with their RIGHTS
truncated due to the conflict.
--
That's Karma

Remember when Obama said "that's NOT who we are" well *this is* who
Democrats are.....
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-03-06 19:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Tell us WHAT the limitation is.
No.  That's not important here.  All that matters is that the
limitations exist, *and* they are inherent in the right.  They
aren't
spelled out in the second amendment, because they don't need to be.
When the second amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms",
it is
taking that right to be *already* defined, including its limits.
The right is limited, and those limits include restrictions on what
kind
of arms are covered.  I don't need to elaborate on what those
limits
are. Legislatures and courts will do that.
Oddly enough....you seem to be missing that pesky "shall not be
infringed" part.
I'm not missing it at all.  On the contrary, you seem to think it
means
the right is unlimited, and you are wrong about that.
The Right is delegated to the people
Bullshit.
Amendment II
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.
There it is, being delegated to *THE PEOPLE* in the CONSTITUTION. I'm
NOT sure how you can miss that when it's been there about 250 years.
The problem isn't with "the people".  It is indeed a right of
the people.  The problem is your use of the word "delegated".
The Constitution does not delegate any rights to the people.
Government does not delegate rights to the people.  The rights
of people predate and exist independently of any act of government.
I get what you're saying but look at it from a different point of
view..... The people delegate the powers in the Constitution... to the
United State or the States or to the people themselves in the
constitution. We call those the enumerated powers.


All RIGHTS originally belonged to we the people (I know that), we give
those right up to the Government by delegating them in the constitution.
We no longer have a RIGHT to punish people, the government was
delegated that right as a power, we don't have a right to make laws on
our property, we delegated that right to the government in Article 1.
We can make demands on our property but we can't punish anyone by force
for violating them... we delegated that RIGHT to the government as a
power and the government does the law making and punishing.

All government powers started as RIGHTS of the people. We "give RIGHTS"
or delegate powers (depending on your concept) by giving up RIGHTS
because without the constitution the United States Government has ZERO
power doesn't it? It's a document in which we surrender freedoms in
trade for certain guarantees. And that's where the phrase "trading
freedom for security will get you neither." came from, we trade freedom
for security but the question is how much dog shit do you want in your
bowl of ice cream. Give away too much freedom and it leaves a bad
taste in your mouth.

*All power comes from the people and we do that by relinquishing* *our*
*rights and allow them to be delegated powers* .

They're delegated in the constitution, that means when a RIGHT is being
attributed as being the right of the people, the Constitution has
delegated that RIGHT as being a power delegated to the people. It
belongs to the people in the constitution as well as outside the
constitution, the RIGHT was not created or delegated by the United
States government it was the people denying that RIGHT the ability to be
a delegated power to the United States.

By delegating the RIGHT as belonging to the people, we prevent the
United States government from stealing it by claiming it's a part of
some other delegated power that the United States might have been
delegated by us.

That brings up amendment 9 that prevents the government from using their
delegated powers to deny our rights that aren't delegated to the United
States, a recurring theme I see in the Constitution.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others *retained by the people* .

Meaning RIGHTS/POWERS that have NOT been delegated to the United
States.... Government can't use a conflict of rights to abolish the
rights. Such as national security to allow for the RIGHT to keep and
bear arms being repealed by the United States Government.

And amendment 10 says clearly that powers can be delegated to the
people. And that when they are they are NOT also delegated to the United
States or the States, that makes them delegated powers but they are
still just the same RIGHT that we started with as well as having been
delegated in the constitution to protect that RIGHT from government
claiming jurisdiction.

Amendment 4 says The *RIGHT of the people* to be secure.... another
RIGHT we had before there was a United States government and it's a
delegated power/right belonging to "the people" as per amendment 10.

Amendment X
The *powers not delegated to the United States* by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, *are reserved* to the States
respectively, or *to the people* .

A POWER/RIGHT delegated to the people.... is free from any government
interference since it's NOT within the United States Government
jurisdiction in the constitution.

Jurisdictions being Federal, States and the people, as delegated or
prescribed by amendment 10.
--
That's Karma


*Rumination*
70 - If you haven't found the lies in what a Liberal told you, then you
didn't dig deep enough.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-03-07 18:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Tell us WHAT the limitation is.
No.  That's not important here.  All that matters is that the
limitations exist, *and* they are inherent in the right.  They
aren't
spelled out in the second amendment, because they don't need to
be.
When the second amendment says "the right to keep and bear
arms",
it is
taking that right to be *already* defined, including its limits.
The right is limited, and those limits include restrictions on
what
kind
of arms are covered.  I don't need to elaborate on what those
limits
are. Legislatures and courts will do that.
Oddly enough....you seem to be missing that pesky "shall not be
infringed" part.
I'm not missing it at all.  On the contrary, you seem to think it
means
the right is unlimited, and you are wrong about that.
The Right is delegated to the people
Bullshit.
Amendment II
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.
There it is, being delegated to *THE PEOPLE* in the CONSTITUTION. I'm
NOT sure how you can miss that when it's been there about 250 years.
But now you've seen it.
Sorry, that doesn’t say anything about delegation
Correct.  He's an idiot.
It looks like an enumerated power, and it's delegated to the people.
Amendment IV
*The right of the people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Is amendment 4 a right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches?
Is it being delegated as a power, since the United States wasn't
delegated that power and the States weren't delegated that power it
looks like the people were delegated that power in the form of an
enumerated RIGHT.
Powers can't delegate rights.
Powers and RIGHTS are the same thing.... One is enumerated the other isn't.

*powers not delegated to the United States* by the Constitution, the
constitution delegates the powers, and amendment 10 delegated the RIGHT
of the people to keep and bear arms, as a "power" belonging to the
people, simply by the fact it wasn't delegated to the United States and
by the fact it says the RIGHT of the people which denies that power to
the States.
Powers can only delegate protections for rights.
We have a right and a power can delegate that right to be "of the people".
enumerating a right, ,doesn't create it. Failing to enumerate a right
doesn't mean a right doesn't exist.
Exactly, I agree 100% NOT all rights are enumerated and the right to own
a tank isn't enumerated "the right to keep and bear arms" is enumerated
and it was enumerated as being a RIGHT of the people, this makes it a
delegated power of the people (because it was delegated as a right of
the people in the Constitution) as per the 10th Amendment requirement.

Amendment X
The *powers not delegated to the United States* by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, *are reserved* to the States
respectively, or *to the people* .

LET ME CLEAN THAT UP A BIT...

Amendment X
The *powers not delegated to the United States* by the Constitution...
*are reserved* [...] *to the people*

And the power to regulate the RIGHT to keep and bear arms was clearly
enumerated to the people and NOT to the United States in the 2nd
amendment. It is the right of the people and as such that power is not
delegated to the United States. That means it is by default delegated
to the states or the people and the states are rules out by it being a
RIGHT of the people. It can only be delegated to the PEOPLE. Which it is.



The right to keep and bear arms is a *RIGHT* until delegated as a power
in the Constitution.... at which point it became a power delegating that
"specific" part of our RIGHT to "keep and bear arms" to the people. It
was delegated NOT to the States or the United States, but it's
specifically to the people. UN-named rights also belong to the people
but they get stolen by the government easily, this one can't be stolen
it's on paper in the Constitution as a power delegated to the people,
they have to get you to accept their lies or they have to try to coerce
you into giving it up. The Government can't just put a line through it
and take it.

We still have a "right" to keep and bear things which aren't "arms".
But we also have a delegated power in the constitution to keep and bear
arms, and while they ban other things (marijuana) that don't have that
protection of being a power delegated to the people, the government
can't claim the 2nd amendment power because it's already
claimed/delegated in the constitution by Amendment 10 for the people.

It's the 10th Amendment that makes it a power delegated to the people.
Automatically. It's just because it's enumerated that it's obvious.

"For The People"
--
That's Karma


*Rumination*
160 - Why is it called Gun Control and abortion RIGHTS, when in reality
it's GUN RIGHTS and abortion control.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-03-08 18:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Tell us WHAT the limitation is.
No.  That's not important here.  All that matters is that the
limitations exist, *and* they are inherent in the right.  They
aren't
spelled out in the second amendment, because they don't need to be.
When the second amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms",
it is
taking that right to be *already* defined, including its limits.
The right is limited, and those limits include restrictions on what
kind
of arms are covered.  I don't need to elaborate on what those
limits
are. Legislatures and courts will do that.
Oddly enough....you seem to be missing that pesky "shall not be
infringed" part.
I'm not missing it at all.  On the contrary, you seem to think it
means
the right is unlimited, and you are wrong about that.
The Right is delegated to the people
Bullshit.
Amendment II
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.
There it is, being delegated to *THE PEOPLE* in the CONSTITUTION. I'm
NOT sure how you can miss that when it's been there about 250 years.
The problem isn't with "the people".  It is indeed a right of
the people.  The problem is your use of the word "delegated".
The Constitution does not delegate any rights to the people.
Government does not delegate rights to the people.  The rights
of people predate and exist independently of any act of government.
I get what you're saying but look at it from a different point of
view..... The people delegate the powers in the Constitution... to the
United State or the States or to the people themselves in the
constitution. We call those the enumerated powers.


All RIGHTS originally belonged to we the people (I know that), we give
those right up to the Government by delegating them in the constitution.
We no longer have a RIGHT to punish people, the government was
delegated that right as a power, we don't have a right to make laws on
our property, we delegated that right to the government in Article 1.
We can make demands on our property but we can't punish anyone by force
for violating them... we delegated that RIGHT to the government as a
power and the government does the law making and punishing.

All government powers started as RIGHTS of the people. We "give RIGHTS"
or delegate powers (depending on your concept) by giving up RIGHTS
because without the constitution the United States Government has ZERO
power doesn't it? It's a document in which we surrender freedoms in
trade for certain guarantees. And that's where the phrase "trading
freedom for security will get you neither." came from, we trade freedom
for security but the question is how much dog shit do you want in your
bowl of ice cream. Give away too much freedom and it leaves a bad
taste in your mouth.

*All power comes from the people and we do that by relinquishing* *our*
*rights and allow them to be delegated powers* .

They're delegated in the constitution, that means when a RIGHT is being
attributed as being the right of the people, the Constitution has
delegated that RIGHT as being a power delegated to the people. It
belongs to the people in the constitution as well as outside the
constitution, the RIGHT was not created or delegated by the United
States government it was the people denying that RIGHT the ability to be
a delegated power to the United States.

By delegating the RIGHT as belonging to the people, we prevent the
United States government from stealing it by claiming it's a part of
some other delegated power that the United States might have been
delegated by us.

That brings up amendment 9 that prevents the government from using their
delegated powers to deny our rights that aren't delegated to the United
States, a recurring theme I see in the Constitution.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others *retained by the people* .

Meaning RIGHTS/POWERS that have NOT been delegated to the United
States.... Government can't use a conflict of rights to abolish the
rights. Such as national security to allow for the RIGHT to keep and
bear arms being repealed by the United States Government.

And amendment 10 says clearly that powers can be delegated to the
people. And that when they are they are NOT also delegated to the United
States or the States, that makes them delegated powers but they are
still just the same RIGHT that we started with as well as having been
delegated in the constitution to protect that RIGHT from government
claiming jurisdiction.

Amendment 4 says The *RIGHT of the people* to be secure.... another
RIGHT we had before there was a United States government and it's a
delegated power/right belonging to "the people" as per amendment 10.

Amendment X
The *powers not delegated to the United States* by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, *are reserved* to the States
respectively, or *to the people* .

A POWER/RIGHT delegated to the people.... is free from any government
interference since it's NOT within the United States Government
jurisdiction in the constitution.

Jurisdictions being Federal, States and the people, as delegated or
prescribed by amendment 10.
--
That's Karma


*Rumination*
70 - If you haven't found the lies in what a Liberal told you, then you
didn't dig deep enough.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-03-08 18:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 02:28:45 -0500, "Scout"
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 22:13:15 -0500, "Scout"
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
The right to arms has always been limited
What limits existed in late 18th century USA?
Justice Scalia offers you some cases that you may peruse at your
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not
unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a
right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5
Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott333. For example, the
majority
of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that
prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the
Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v.
Chandler, 5
La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see
generally
2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G.
Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive
historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second
Amendment ,
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the
mentally
ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive
places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions
and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
I'm not particularly interested in discussing the details of
specific limits. My point is only to demonstrate to you that the
right *is* limited, and always has been. *Some* restrictions on the
kinds of guns you may own, and on the bearing of them, have always
existed within the limits of the right. As such, they do not
"infringe" the right.
In you opinion, exactly what limits may the government
constitutionally place
Nope. It's not any limits that the government "places on" the right.
It's the limits that are inherent to the right. The Constitution did
not create the right.
As I already clearly said, I'm not interested in discussing at this
time just what the specific limits are. My only interest right now is
in establishing that the right *has* limits, prior to any government.
Upon what portion of the Constitution do you base your position?
None, because the Constitution doesn't define the right. It merely
acknowledges it.
The 2nd delegates the RIGHT to keep and bear arms to the PEOPLE.
NO IT DOES NOT.
No one DELEGATED me my rights. No document DELEGATED me my rights. They
are
inherent in my being and nothing can remove those rights, or grant me the
rights that I already possess.
It is a Natural Right...given by the God(s)
Or inherent within the human condition, or whatever. I have my rights, I
know it, and I don't care what others think my rights may or may not be.
Well said. The Preamble covers it quite nicely.
I answered this in another post and I didn't suggest the government
delegated any RIGHTS. In fact you have it wrong. WE THE PEOPLE delegate
the powers in the constitution to the United States by allowing our
rights to be delegated.... we delegate that power to keep and bear arms
to us "the people" and it was our RIGHT so either way the United States
Government has no jurisdiction over the RIGHT TO KEEP AN BEAR ARMS.
Because it was delegate by the people in the Constitution "to the
people" making it impossible for the United States to claim they have
it as a power delegated to them in some half assed way like they did
with the Federal Reserve and Income tax. Written into and outside of
the Constitution it's always a RIGHT of the people. That locks it down
pretty damn tight. It's lasted 250 years because of that.
--
That's Karma


*Rumination*
34 - If more Government, solves all the problems, prison must be a
Socialists Utopia.... and a Club Med vacation for Democrats.
Just Wondering
2018-03-08 23:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
... we delegate that power to keep and bear arms
to us "the people"
Does that mean I have a right to keep and bear arms because
Jefferson, Hamilton et al. DELEGATED the right to me?
I demur. I hold this truth "to be self-evident that all
men [and women] ... are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights", this being one of those
rights.
Gunner Asch
2018-03-09 00:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 02:28:45 -0500, "Scout"
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 22:13:15 -0500, "Scout"
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
The right to arms has always been limited
What limits existed in late 18th century USA?
Justice Scalia offers you some cases that you may peruse at your
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not
unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a
right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5
Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott333. For example, the
majority
of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that
prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the
Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v.
Chandler, 5
La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see
generally
2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G.
Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive
historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second
Amendment ,
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the
mentally
ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive
places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions
and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
I'm not particularly interested in discussing the details of
specific limits. My point is only to demonstrate to you that the
right *is* limited, and always has been. *Some* restrictions on the
kinds of guns you may own, and on the bearing of them, have always
existed within the limits of the right. As such, they do not
"infringe" the right.
In you opinion, exactly what limits may the government
constitutionally place
Nope. It's not any limits that the government "places on" the right.
It's the limits that are inherent to the right. The Constitution did
not create the right.
As I already clearly said, I'm not interested in discussing at this
time just what the specific limits are. My only interest right now is
in establishing that the right *has* limits, prior to any government.
Upon what portion of the Constitution do you base your position?
None, because the Constitution doesn't define the right. It merely
acknowledges it.
The 2nd delegates the RIGHT to keep and bear arms to the PEOPLE.
NO IT DOES NOT.
No one DELEGATED me my rights. No document DELEGATED me my rights. They
are
inherent in my being and nothing can remove those rights, or grant me the
rights that I already possess.
It is a Natural Right...given by the God(s)
Or inherent within the human condition, or whatever. I have my rights, I
know it, and I don't care what others think my rights may or may not be.
Well said. The Preamble covers it quite nicely.
I answered this in another post and I didn't suggest the government
delegated any RIGHTS. In fact you have it wrong. WE THE PEOPLE delegate
the powers in the constitution to the United States by allowing our
rights to be delegated
No. No rights are ever "delegated", you brain-damaged fuckwit.
Aldrichtom
2018-03-09 01:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights", this being one of those
rights.
You can rest assure that those religious folks who want to shoot your ass
do.

Loading...