Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.Arizona Constitution and most others have this same clause in it. SO if you don't agree with a statute then DO NOT CONSENT AND WAIVE THE BENEFIT.Statutes are not law they are legislative enactments given the force of law by the consent of the governed. Not LAW!!!
Mudook v. Penn. : 319 US 105 (1943) and Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.: 373 US 262 (1962) The Govt. cannot take a right charge a fee and issue a license for it in the first case and if they do use the second case which say if the state does this you can ignore the license and fee and continue the act with impunity.United States v. Bishop 412 US 346 (1973):Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent1.they must prove you are the party,you had method and opportunity&acted willful
@ToryII That is your opinion but it doesn't count. The court's and the legislature's opinions do. If you don't like it, vote others in and change the laws. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke. If you disobey the law as Hamblen did then you will also go to jail like he did. Join the NRA right now (as I have) and work to change those laws as we have in my state. Civic participation, it works, try it and quit whining!
@tkcarr Fool. Stop defending a process that's been corrupted by Nazis. Chicago's draconian gun laws (combined with its assault rifle ban) combined with The Cook County longgun ban are unconstitutional and unAmerican. All guns with the exception of a few models of handguns are banned, along with bullets and other types of weapons. This Hitlerein system occurs even after the SCOTUS has recently ruled the 2nd amendment is a basic fundamental right.
@ToryII Nazis? I hope you are not serious. Are you infatuated with Hitler? The time for words an debate are over? What are you proposing Toryll? Rebellion? Don't do it! You will end up like Tim McVeigh; dead.
@tkcarr "The court's and the legislature's opinions do." here's your critical ignorant mistake: the legislature is void when it is against the constitution which is the supreme law that cannot be subverted. Therefore the courts should not decide upon a law that is in fact VOID. So you're right when you say that the courts must decide, but you are wrong when you state the courts need to base their decisions on a VOID law which is contrary to the constitution.
@fresniak Here is your fatal mistake. WHO declares laws void? You? No, the courts do or the people can vote out those who supported the law and then change it thru the legislative process. We do not allow the Great fresniak to declare laws void and unconstitutional. We don't allow you to determine what cases the courts will hear. Pick up that civics book and read about it.
@tkcarr Nowhere it is written that the constitution has to be interpreted by the courts. That is your invention. The constitution is for the people by the people and the people must be vigilant to preserve it, if the government and courts fail to do so. If the government creates laws which are unconstitutional it's duty of the people to resist them and if it gets tyrannical, it's their duty to overthrow the government. This is what the founding fathers said and wrote.
@fresniak Now you are back talking like an anarchist. Let's go back to basic civics. The Legislature passes laws that are binding UNLESS the Supreme Court RULES the law(s) to be unconstitutional. This is called judicial review and it was established in Marbury vs Madision about 200 years ago. The people "resist" laws they don't like by voting and taking laws to court they feel are unconstitutional. Other types of lawless resistance is TREASON. Have you had civics yet in school?
@tkcarr Why do you need a court to understand what even a 6 years old boy can understand? The constitution is VERY EXPLICIT and written in a very clear and simple language, understandable by everybody. The courts just choose to ignore it, they are the traitors of this country, together with the government that makes unconstitutional laws.
@ToryII This is crazy talk and I suspect someday I will read about you in the paper and not in a good way. I promise you that the "people" who think like you are in short supply and will not be supported by the rest of us. When you can find a better system than ours, let me know. Better yet, just go there and leave us law abiding citizens alone. People who talk like you do are what help get Gun Control laws passed to protect others from lawless gun owners like you.
@tkcarr Our govt is ignoring the law, not me. You have it backwards. The only purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prohibit (by law) the govt from regulating weapons. The 2nd amendment speaks to the govt (not to me). It tells govt it can't regulate weapons. Why did the Framers include a 2nd amendment ? So that the people could arm themselves and form ARMED militias to protect themselves from invasion OR from rogue govt.
The idea of allowing govt to regulate guns is like alllowing Hitler to babysit Jewish kids. We have guns to kill police or soldiers if the govt goes rogue (becomes tyrannical or oppressive.) Why would we allow the govt to regulate the tool we'll use to protect ourselves from the govt ? It's like giving the jailbird the key to the prison. It's like asking the burglar when we should leave town on vacation.
@ToryII We are not protected from tyranny by the gun in your closet but by our democratic system. Read Section One Article Eight. The Congress may call out the militia to suppress INSURRECTION. They tried to do what you propose in 1861. It didn't turn out too well for the South. You have no constitutional right to rebel against the government. The constitution has no suicide clause.
@fresniak Our government today is not the same as King George's in 1776. We had no voice or vote. It is sad that rather than try to change policy through the wonderful system of our country you want to destroy it because you are too lazy or inept to try and make a difference. I am a traitor? You are a traitor and a a criminal if you act as you are talking. If so, then you will go to jail and I hope soon.
@ToryII If our vote is no good then the Constitution is null and void and no good either. So it's back to the law of the jungle then. What a crock! You two (fresniak) are just out of touch with reality. This makes you dangerous to liberty because you don't accept facts but make them up to suit your delusions. The irony of your logic is that YOU are the danger to freedom and liberty for if governing is not based on reality it is like a child with a loaded gun. Sorry, but you two are crazy.
@tkcarr "So it's back to the law of the jungle then" No after the revolution, the constitution will be restored and all the unconstitutional laws will be erased. That's plain simple tkarr. No need of the law of the jungle.
@fresniak No need for the constitution in your world. Just the law of the gun. You need to not read those crazy miltia books out there. They are crazy. By refusing to vote and saying the vote is no good anymore as well as the courts and legislature you effectively destroy our system. The result? Anarchy where might is right. A true nightmare world like Mad Max. Your vision of such is insanity.
@tkcarr you like to accuse me of being violent and anarchist. While I have never spoken about killing anyone. I am just speaking that it's time for the US people to go by millions in front of their capitol hills and RESIST pacifically untill a new revolution will arise, because this shit cannot keep going on. OF course if the government will decide to deny the people their right to speak out. The violence may arise. But we the people do not want violence. We want just return to the constitution.
@fresniak Well then, exercise your rights! Vote, get involved. You have the way to do just what you say. However, you must do it within the system and government we have created. Nobody will stop you from protesting in DC. Many have done so before and been successful. But your comments earlier show you do not understand the rule of law and how we live by it. You keep saying the people this and the people that. Well, the "People" want some types of regulation of guns.
@tkcarr "Vote, get involved. " who said I might not being doing that? I am saying that vote todays is ineffective, because whoever you vote for will be corrupted or threatened. Ant if you control the media you can push a mass of brainwashed people to vote for the "elite's candidates" pushing the elite's agendas.
What you need in order for the vote to work is people thinking with their heads and not believing propaganda and lies.
@fresniak So if everybody who is elected is corrupted and spoiled what do you propose? I guess you being in charge would be immune to same? Yeah right. As to thinking I agree and wish you would do some instead of believing crazy conspiracies and saying all is lost unless we revolt and destroy everything.
@tkcarr "So if everybody who is elected is corrupted what do you propose?"
First I propose return to the constitution, abolish the federal reserve, these only two steps would bring the country to normality and drastically reduce corruption.
I also propose direct democracy, rather than representative gvt. In a direct democracy everyone can propose laws (given that they are constitutional) and you may allow people voting on the internet to approve them, but that's too long to explain here
@tkcarr "No need for the constitution in your world. " NO IN YOUR WORLD THERE IS NO CONSTITUTION not in mine.The government has destroyed it, Bush said the constitution is just a piece of paper, and so Obama implied in one of his talks. They are the traitors not me. The constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND
@fresniak The constitution is a piece of paper and one that needs to be interpreted against policy and law. In your world you decide what the constitution means and will not accept the decisions of those the constitution has given power to govern to unless you like it. That is treason and lawlessness.
@tkcarr The constituion is not a just a piece of paper, it is the supreme law of the land. And the constitution has not been created to be "interpreted", because it leaves no space to interpretation. Can you argue that the ocean is blue, or that in the desert there is no water? You can't because they are self evident truths, so it is the constitution a self evident Truth.
@tkcarr for your knowledge I have never read any militia book, are you used to think that people need to be brainwashed just like you? I guess you believe the story of the man from a cave that with 4 planes defeated the US defense. The gvt wants you to believe that a group of boy-scouts can defeat its entire defense and fuck around buildings with planes.
@fresniak Oh Good God Almighty! A 9/11 conspiracy believer too? You and Toryll are just plain nuts! What about Area 51? I think THEY did it. LOL You guys need to have summer end so you can go back to school. Sheesh!
@tkcarr "ou and Toryll are just plain nuts! " And you believe that a few hijackers used plastic knives to take control of 4 boeing airplanes, that despite being incompetent pilots who never flew a boeing in their life, they found their way through the sky to New York and with incredible precision and ability hit their targets, that the subsequent explosions were able to bring down 3 steel buildings (first time in history) and one of the hijackers passports was found intact in the rubble.
@fresniak I think you are a school child who has too much summer vacation. You need to go outside and play with your firends if you have any. Do you believe in area 51 and that there are aliens there?
@fresniak I think I am owning you with logic and so you cannot respond with anything but personal insults. This isn't the play ground where you call someone stupid because they are smarter than you. You need to grow up and act like an adult (assuming you are one).
@tkcarr "I think I am owning you with logic" I think you are just owning your dick with your logic. I have made a lot of perfectly logical points, that you have not been able to refute. Your only argument is that everyone who speaks against the government and wants it changed is an anarchist. This is the only point you have made along all the discussion. So dear dictator I am done with you, have fun with the coming martial law.
@fresniak You have made nothing but infantile points and don't understand government. I haven't said anyone who speaks agin the govt is anarchist I just say you and Toryll are because you want no restrictions on freedom unless you agree with them. You are opposed to the rule of law and that makes us like animals. The irony is your type of world would have martial law and would be a nightmare place to be. I figured you would quit sooner or later. Pwned!
@tkcarr " you want no restrictions on freedom unless you agree with them." never said that. I want no restriction on freedom unless it hurts others rights. that's my statement that you just keep ignoring, because it is convenient for you to say so.
I am not opposed to the rule of law, I am opposed to unjust laws which break the constitution and the bill of rights. I am against restrictions that undermine people's right. "pawned" Do you want to play chess against me, I will destroy you.
@fresniak And you decide when it hurts others? Sounds like lawlessness to me. I would stick to your playground games a chessmaster you ain't. Who decides if a law is unjust? The courts or you? Back to school!
@tkcarr "And you decide when it hurts others? " The constitution and the bill of rights decide that. Do you need an example? So please make a case and I will tell you, reading from the constitution, whether the law is against the rights or not.
@fresniak The constitution is a piece of paper and you cannot ask it anything. And no I would never ask YOU to decide such as you don't even understand what the rule of law is. Therefore we must ask a much more learned and principled group than you and your anarchist pals. That would be the court. You and your other buddy would be kangaroo court. Suitable only for lynching.
@fresniak Income Tax is an amendment to the constitution and 3/4s of the states voted for it! Thes people voted for representatives who establsihed the Federal Reserve. Repeal the law, oh but no you can't because THE PEOPLE don't see it the way you do. They don't want another depression. Health Insurance is not mandatory and as to the bailouts well we will see what they think in November as it should be. Not some stupid internet vote.
@tkcarr "HE PEOPLE don't see it the way you do" the people do not want to pay taxes on income. You are just a bullshit-teller. Ask any american if they want to pay taxes or not and see what they tell you.
@fresniak LOL what a joke. Yeah and I want to drive as fast as I want on the Interstate. Ask those same Americans to give up what those taxes provide and you will get another answer. You are really out to lunch pal.
@tkcarr "They don't want another depression." the depression in 29 was caused by the fed, Milton Friedman himself said that and it's now a well known fact. Only the central bank can cause such kind of recessions, because they can make the money scarce or plenty. How about the current crisis, unemployment hits 16% are you happy with the banks? Of course you are, probably you're the son of one of those motherfuckers.
@fresniak Because the fed did NOTHING to stop it. They are not a central bank either. Before the regulation of money we had boom and bust constantly. No I am not happy with the current crisis but that was also caused by too little government not too much. The PEOPLE you keep talking about caused it thru greed. You are using bad language again and need to wahs your mouth out with soap.
@tkcarr please make me a favor just let this thread die, I will just answer to the latest bullshit from yourself:
"Forced prayer, racial segregation, gun control, censorship of books" are ALL against the bill of rights and the constitution, and if you didn't get it yet, in my system unconstitutional laws cannot even be voted on. So the people could not have voted them. Before a law is allowed to be voted on, it will have to stand in front of the constitution and the bill of rights.
@fresniak What determined these were unconstitutional? You say you can't vote on unconstitutional laws then who says they are unconstitutional in the first place. Another vote! You are a very confused young man and need to go back and read more civics. You are clueless.
@tkcarr "We had no voice or vote" If bankers control the congress and the media, if the CFR dictates the policies, your vote counts ZERO. You can vote as much as you want, the people which have to represent you will be easily corrupted or threatened if they don't follow the dictat of those who are at the top of the power pyramid. You call it all conspiracy theories, the real patriots (and there are millions awakened now) know the truth. You're just grown-up with government propaganda and lies.
@fresniak I think the "real" patriots you speak of are "real" crazy. If you are proposing armed lawlessness then count me and the vast majority of Americans as your enemy. We will turn you in and have you in jail if you violate the law. I think you have been brainwashed and need some help. Your way will never work and only lead to destruction.
@tkcarr "f you are proposing armed lawlessness then count me and the vast majority of Americans as your enemy. " you will not even be able to take your guns because you believe in "govt regulation"
@fresniak No I'll have my guns. The question is who will I have to defend myself from? Probably those who are lawless and only follow laws they like and call others traitors who follow the rule of law.
@tkcarr "The question is who will I have to defend myself from?"
Why are you even asking this question? Because you're an idiot who cannot grab the meaning of things and their purpose. Guns use is always legitimate in self-defense does not matter who is the attacker. You're just a dumb-ass I AM ENOUGH WITH YOU
@fresniak I always find with you kooky anarchists that when your logic is exposed and refuted you get pissed, begin name calling and then bow out. You didn't disappoint. I am more afraid of your types than the government.
@tkcarr The Truth is you are already shitting in your pants thinking that soon you won't be able to eat you cheeseburgers and watch your tv anymore, because the new american revolution is coming
@fresniak Not really, there will be no revolution but a few of you might try something and end up like McVeigh with a super intravenous cocktail at the end.What a waste.
@ToryII We are the government and we spek with our vote. There are a lot of opinions about the purpose of the 2A. I think your definition is wrong. So does the court. We have a individual right to self defense but not anygun, anyone or anywhere. That is the law of the land. YOU may interpret the 2A to mean what you think but as stated before that doesn't count. The states controlled the miltias and you have no individual rights as part of a militia absent state control.
@tkcarr "This is crazy talk and I suspect someday I will read about you in the paper and not in a good way."
Very soon there will be no America anymore, the current administration is literally destroying this country. when will you wake up? Never..because you like to swim in the shit that is going on, that's why you do not want to change it. You just hope to see this country become a death camp and you hope to be one of the guards who kill and spit on the prisoners.
@fresniak More crazy talk and I agree there will be no America if people who think like you get any power. Fortunately you are part of a fringe element that no one takes seriuosly. You are the one who would have the death camps filled with your "enemies" fed by your delusions of lawless anarchy.
@fresniak Well, since very smart people disagree on what the constitution means then I guess only a six year old would take your point of view and use your logic. I am not longer six years old so I can't relate to your juvenile logic. A traitor is someone who thinks like a six year old and will only obey laws they like. Are you such a person?
Richard Hamblen correctly interpreted the 2nd amendment. We received our liberty from all the Richard Hamblens who risked losing their freedom by standing up to a govt that no longer obeys the laws that apply to it. I'm not quite so angry at our govt as I am at those who blindly support that govt, and those who so eagerly relinquish their freedom for the beneft of the common good by empowering the govt (our worst enemy) .
@ToryII I support the rule of law not what Joe Bobby or you think the law is. Hamblen went to jail and lost his right forever to own a gun as he is now a felon. Stupid!
@ToryII Strawman like before on the sodomy deal. The Second Amendment DOES NOT prohibit the government from regulating firearms. Do you YOU support the rule of law over your private opinion and interpretation of the Constitution?
@ToryII I would support the arrest (and possible killing) of one who believed and acted as if their private view of law was correct and broke the law.
@tkcarr You (tkcarr) would support the arrest (and execution) of George Washington because he believed and acted as if his private view of the law was correct..
The rule of law clearly prohibits govt from regulating guns (per the 2nd amendment).
tkcarr is a Nazi and for that he should be rounded up and executed. We have had enough of this Nazi con-artistry that destroys freedom, prosperity, and safety. No more talk or debate or compromise with Nazis...
@ToryII Actually the British would have hung him had he failed so I guess they were "Nazis" too. Toryll, you never disappoint whenever I own you in debate, out comes the name calling and now a thinly veiled threat as well. Don't worry, cooler saner heads run things than you so we are safe from anarchy that you propose. BTW I don't think you understand what Rule of Law means but that is because you are an anarchist. You should go to Somalia, no gun control there!
@tkcarr Only Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and tkcarr believe in gun control by the govt. I don't because I know that govt is my worst enemy, therefore I need guns to protect myself from my govt (just common sense).
@ToryII Even the NRA supports some types of gun control. I think people who think like you are dangerous and we need guns and laws to keep you and your anarcho-militias in check. You are a greater threat to liberty than the government. What is common sense to you is lunacy to most.
Yeah, but if a bunch of people make illegal machine guns, the supreme court cannot print enough money to try all those cases, especially if the US government is broke.
It's time that all the pot growers and machine gun makers sprout out of the wood work to bankrupt the already bankrupt US government.
George Washington (1st president) led an illegal armed revolt, against the rule of law, against a govt he hated, and won. Patriotism is public dissent against oppressive govt. Sometimes being a patriot means ignoring laws (especially unjust laws.)
G. Washington and many many others declared their indepedence from a nation THAT DID NOT use the rule of law in their governance. George and others had no other recourse and would have taken such if one existed other than revolution. You have those avenues today that they didn't under George III. Use them! But if you take up arms against a lawful representative gov't like we have today you are doing treason and will be punished.
Our government does what it is allowed to. If you don't like what they do. Vote and become politically active. Your gun will get you nothing but prison and death if you decide to take the law into your own hands.
Comparing gun regulations to Jim Crow Laws is ridiculous! However, if you choose to play the civil disobiedience game that Richard did then prepare to be sent to jail and lose your right to own a firearm. But I think that would be a dumb thing to do. Finally, as I stated once before the Supreme Court interprets the 2A not you.
The NFA is not a Jim Crow law so your question has a false premise. However, if a law existed that I thought was wrong I would work legally to have it changed. If I decided to break that law then I would be prepared to go to jail for breaking it without whining. That is called living under the rule of law. If you feel the NFA is "morally" wrong then break it. And be prepared to go to jail like Richard did. However, your comparisons to Nazis and Jim Crow are not logical or factual but emotional.
Good for you, However, Richard should not have been jailed. It was immoral and unconstitutional. Jim Crow laws were immoral. The least you could do is agree with that even if you're afraid to ignore an immoral law.
Did the Framers ignore and revolt against immoral laws ? Yes they did. They risked their lives doing it. You think anyone needs you to tell them to obey all laws or else ? We now have immoral and illegal Jim Crow gun laws applied to blacks and whites.
The NFA is not immoral in that it does not deny any basic or fundamental right. Your analogy is false and emotion charged to make a splash. Sorry, ain't buying it. Guns may be regulated and restricted as all rights may be in the BoR. That is a fact. To ignore that means you are ignorant of the rule of law and just want laws to do what YOU THINK is right. Not the way it works in a constitutional government.
Exactly. The NFA tax is not apportioned equally because that tamount of tax only applies to a specific type of gun. And rights that are taxable are not rights.
Rights may be regulated and that includes reasonable taxation. The NFA has withstood such legal scrutiny. The tax is apportioned equally over a class of firearms.
In a Constitutional govt we are to adhere to the Constitution. The 1934 NFA raises the price of full auto weapons, prevents their importation and inhibits new production. It also requires their registration and additional taxation. That type of taxation also violates the Constitution.
Rights may not be restricted according to the Bill of Rights. The BOR applies to govt. It expressly prohibits govt from infringing OUR rights.
Every American has a basic fundamental right to own weapons.
Every American does not have such a right. You are incorrect. Rights may be restricted according to scrutiny that is a part of a hierarchy of standards courts employ to weigh an asserted government interest against a constitutional right or principle that conflicts with the manner in which the interest is being pursued.
Incorrect. Rights listed in the first 10 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution cannot be restricted by the government of said country. You have forgotten that the U.S. is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". The Courts of the U.S. cannot limit Rights listed in the Constitution. The Courts in the U.S. were originally established to weigh cases only based on what the laws the Congress created stated. Nowadays, thanks to changes in laws, they create Caselaw.
All rights are subject to regulation. The only place rights are absolute are in an anarchy and only if you have the might to make it so. The Supreme Court interprets what the Constitution means as related to law. That is what is meant by the rule of law. The Constitution does not mean what you or I THINK it means. Courts determine that. That is our system. The Founders had no problem with the concept of judicial review and so you shouldn't either.
Again incorrect. Your statement contradicts itself. If a right that is set forth by law can be regulated, it is no longer a right but a condition. Legal rights aren't conditional. Secondly, the bill of Rights were created to prevent anarchy as well as preventing a tetrarchy. Third, the Supreme Court doesn't interpret what the Constitution means as related to law, it interprets exactly what it says because it is the Law. The rule of law applies to both government and people.
No you are wrong and demonstarbly so. There are NO absolute rights outside of an anarchy. The court decides what laws are constitutional of not. That is their role and authority. The constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means and that is our law. Sorry if you disagree with them (I do too often) but that is the way it is. Individuals on their own don't get to determine what is constitutional. Just as you think the 2A is unlimited, the Brady's read it different. Who decides? The court
The truth is, that the U.S. Constitution strikes the absolutely even balance of who's in the right and who's in the wrong. You are in the wrong. You haven't answered the "ALL-POWERFUL" question of our legal system, which is this: "Where does the Supreme Court derive it's legal authority?" Answer: "The people and the U.S. Constitution."
I have no issue with where the Supreme Court derives it's authority. The problem you have is you don't think they have authority to rule for something YOU don't like. Too bad. There is a mechanism to make yourself heard. V-O-T-E. Until you vote them out or impeach them they interpret the Constitution. Not you!
The Constitution does mean what "The people" think it means. I have no problem with the concept of judicial review, I do have a problem with Judges creating laws out of thin air and striking down laws created by Congress. You seem to have a concept of government control over the people hard at work in your heart. You would make an excellent dictator. The founding Fathers feared your kind.
NO they feared your kind more. Anarchists who follow the laws they decide are right. We elect the government and they are limited but not to the extent you think they are. If you don't like what they do, vote them out! That is your right. Obey only the laws you "feel" are right and get ready for a long Fed vacation. If you think a law wwrong take it to the courts but you will abide by their decision.
@tkcarr You again are soundly incorrect in your accusations. You accuse me of being an anarchist of which I'm not. I don't obey laws I only "feel" are right, but tyrrannist dictators do. I know the laws and obey them. However, from what I'm reading from your posts, your the kind that likes to make laws for people to obey, and watch out if they don't! What's next for the law books my friend? More taxes? More limitations of freedom?!? Looks like your the type to bring it on! Enjoy your tyranny!
The comedic thing about folks who think like you is that what you propose is real tryanny. The tryanny of force and lawlessness. That is what happens when the individual decides for himself what law he will or won't follow. I propose a nation of law, you propose anarchy and moral relativism. The constitution means what the courts and legislatures SAY it means, Not 300 million different opinions.
The system of government in these United States is 3 tier. 1)President, 2)Congress, 3)Judges. That would be 1)Executive, 2)Legislative, 3)Judicial. Again, 1)The Head of the country, with very limited powers. 2)The lawmakers <---take note! take note! 3) Judges who hear legal cases and make decisions based on law. If a law doesn't exist for the judge to make a decision on, his job is not to create a law because there isn't one on the books concerning it! Well... that has changed!
And the law this guy broke was made by Congress and found to be constitutional in 1939 and Mr. Hamblen took it upon himself to break it and did a year in the big house. So what is your point? The courts did not "create" the NFA 1934, Congress did. Having unreigstered full auto is illegal and that law is constitutional and therefore not an infringment. You are mixed up in your knowledge of US government.
@tkcarr The Second Amendment states: 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. The problem with that law is the same problem we have with most of our legal system... too many laws and way too much contradiction in the laws and the lawyers not doing due diligence in researching whether or not a new law contradicts an old one. Regardless NFA is unConstitutional.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you concerning the NFA. See Miller vs US. The problem you have with law is that it is not giving you what you want. So, change it! Repeal the NFA if you can get the votes. Otherwise, if you possess FA like Mr. Hamblen then off to jail you will go!
@tkcarr "All rights are subject to regulation." this statement from you alone is enough to say that you do not have any clue of what a Right is and why the constitution was created. A Right is an ABSOLUTE and the Constitution was written in CLEAR LETTERS so that everyone can understand what that right is about. The Supreme Cort cannot change the meaning of the constitution, because a RIGHT IS or IS NOT.
@fresniak No rights are absolute. They are all subject to regulation and the Supreme Court no you or me determines how that right may be regulated. We are a nation of laws not personal opinions.
@tkcarr If you do not understand the theory of rights then please again go back and learn it. You have the right to freedom and that is an absolute, the only limitation of a right is the RESPECT of the same right of other people. What determines who has rights and who has not? It is the property. IF you have a property you have any right on that property. The rights may not be regulated, the rights should only be protected by governments, not regulated
@fresniak Yeah I think you are off the wall on this. A right is always subject to regulation. You concede that by talking about the respect you give others. That is regulation. You need to learn more about the rule of law under which this country functions. Property rights? Try laying out naked on "your" property or stating a fire that may damage others on "your" property. Protection IS regulation. You need more study.
@tkcarr "You concede that by talking about the respect you give others. That is regulation." No that is not a regulation it is just the respect of the SAME RIGHT of the others. Do you understand that? And the role of government is to help protecting the rights of its citizens. That's according to the Theory of Rights. Of course the roman law is very different, in roman laws you have no rights. But the US were founded upon the anglo-saxon common law and the theory of Rights.
@fresniak No the purpose of government is to maintain social order by the rule of law. Can't you understand that? Rights are NOT absolute for if they were you could do whatever you pleased if you had the might. All rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to regulation by the courts and legislature. This is fact and the truth.
@tkcarr "No the purpose of government is to maintain social order " I agree with that and Protecting the rights of each individual is the best way to do that. Don't YOU understand that?
@fresniak I do and don't YOU understand that the government operates thru a system which incorporates the courts, legislature and president? Not individual opinons? As a result rights are regulated and laws that restrict them are subject to judicial review. If the law survives scrutiny IT IS NOT AN INFRINGMENT.
@fresniak NO! You can do what the law allows or is silent on. No more! The law is predicated on many things and one of those is public safety and so we don't let insane people own guns or convicted felons. Do YOU need examples?
@tkcarr The concept of "protection " is often used to steal away rights from the people. IF I do light a fire on my property and if the fire damages some person on my property I will take full responsibility of that. And I will pay the consequences. The prison or any other penalty is the DETERRENT that will keep the people responsible to exercise their rights in the respect of people around. Every right requires a responsibility of using it. BUT NOONE CAN STEAL THAT RIGHT.
@fresniak No public safety is a valid concern and we have the right to limit your actions to prevent such damage. We don't have to wait until you destroy your neighborhood and kill people to restrict you. As you know some are not deterred by prison. Therefore I may not let you store aviation gas on your porperty without inspection and regulation.
@tkcarr I think you just do not get it, I am really exhaust to explain you. Rights are rights, and in the constituion there is a bill of rights that states which are to be considered rights, what is that you do not und about it. Now if you want to restrict the right you have to put it in the constitution, because that is the place it belongs to. And to change the constitution you have to ask "We the People", in other words "We The People" decide what is a right and what is not.
@fresniak Well, "we the people" said thru our congress in 1934 that individuals may not possess unregistered full auto firearms. It withstood court challenge and is law and therefore NOT an infringement of your right to keep and bear. Laws may and do regulate all rights. Every one. It is only an infirngment if the court says it is. This is basic civics and you need to read this slowly I guess to understand it.
@tkcarr "public safety is a concern" so if one day a lobbist government decides that for "safety" we must kill all people with red hair, you just feel confortable with that? That's where the theory of rights come in. Govts are limited, they can take decisions only in matters that do not infringe rights of the people. The fathers put in the constitution that "the gvt members should meet in the parliament ..at least..3 times per year. That tells alot about the role they expected the govt to have.
@fresniak Now you are posing strawmen and Reductio ad Absurdium arguments so I guess I am owning you. One more time for you; we give up absolute natural rights and agree to live under government to preserve social order. In our country the government IS limited by our participation in it and the courts who protect us from unjust majorities. Outside of that there are no rights unless you go back in the jungle.
@tkcarr also consider that "preventive" laws and measures that restrict rights have NEVER worked. Whenever you restrict a right you create a new problem, a new class of privileged persons and a new conflict in the society. The only thing that is proven to work is RESPONSIBILITY and PENAL DETERRENTS in case of crimes. When you ban guns there you find criminals who get their firearms on the black market and are happy they can freely go around and kill people who no longer may protect themselves.
@fresniak Really? I think laws that prevent people like you from owning nukes and nerve gas have worked out pretty well. I agree that laws do not stop crime but (I suppose you are law-abiding) they do help public safety by keeping dangerous stuff away from people who aren't fit to have them.
@tkcarr "We don't have to wait until you destroy your neighborhood and kill people to restrict you. " so if there is only 1 person every 10 millions that has such a crazy plan, you need to restrict the rights of all the10 millions ? Isn't it easier and more appropriate to make a deterrent and send such persons to jail? What is the purpose of having a judicial system then? You seem to think that every person is either a criminal or completely stupid to not be able to control his actions
@fresniak No courts are necessary and so are laws that regulate dangerous behavior. I am not going to let somebody own nerve gas or anthrax legally and then HOPE they don't let it loose. I will regulate that BEFORE it happens. When the stuff gets out and kills 1000 people putting the fool in jail does not serve the public interest.
@tkcarr "No rights are absolute. They are all subject to regulation and the Supreme Court "
YOU'RE WRONG Rights are not subject to anything, they ARE THE LAW. The only that can specify what a Right is or is not is THE CONSTITUTION which is by the people for the people. So if you want to "regulate" rights the only way is you change the constitution. That's how the taxation was introduced, they HAD to amend the constitution to tax labour and property
@fresniak The Constitution has to be interpreted in light of law and is why we have the Supreme Court. This is basic civics. YOU don't determine what the Constitution means the courts do. That is the rule of law. The absence of the rule of law you speak of is anarchy.
@tkcarr "The only place rights are absolute are in an anarchy" again it's incredible how poor is your understanding of the theory of the Rights. First of all a Right is an absolute concept. A Right was, is and will be for ever. Go back to some constitutional school. Second Anarchy has nothing to do with rights, the word anarchy means without government. In anarchy someone could even argue that you do not have any rights at all, because that is a form of law and governance.
@fresniak In an anarchy rights are determined by force and only then if you have the force can any right be without regulation. You need to go back to school as this country does not operate that way. BTW who in your system determines these rights? Each person according to what they want? That is anarchy and lawlessness.
@tkcarr "In an anarchy rights are determined by force " If it is determined by force by definition it is not a right!! Again you do not understand the definitions, that is the basics. A right is something you have from the moment you are born. And there is a huge difference between "enforcing a right" and "using force to prevalicate the rights of others". You simply do not get it, I am very sorry for you. Please consider watching some video of Badnarik, it will help understanding (I hope)
@fresniak You need to read about the social contract and why we have government. The right you have is your vote. Don't like the laws the legislature passed and the Supreme Court upheld? Vote 'em and set the policy you like. BTW not all rights are natural and there is great debate about what those even are. Like health care and abortion. A person that argues the government cannot restrain him or his "rights" whatever he thinks they are is an anarchist as are you.
@tkcarr I don't need to read what you suggest because there's no need of knowing anything else than the theory of Rights, which comes much longer before any other book about law. You like to mix a Roman concept of Law with the theory of rights which is not possible because they are in open contrast. In ancient Rome you did not have any rights you had only privileges given to you by the government. If you restrict a right it is not a right anymore it is a privilege.
@fresniak These theories are your opinion of rights but not the Founding Father's nor the Constitution. Again, Read Locke or Hobbes or Alexander Hamilton. We give up absolute rights in order to form governments for social order and live by the rule of law. Anything other than that is not our system. That is why if my neighbor wrongs me I can't go to his house and blow his brains out but must follow the law to right that wrong. What you propose is the Law of the Jungle.
@tkcarr "We give up absolute rights in order to form governments" What you call absolute rights are the law of the jungle, that is not the kind of RIGHTS the constitution is about. You don't need to take away rights in order to form a government, you need to take away the "law of the jungle" where the stronger prevails on the weaker. And you do it by protecting the equal rights of the stronger and the weaker. And these rights are not arbitrary they have been defined in the constitution.
@fresniak And we do that by law not what each person "thinks" is right. And when the law is unclear or one thinks it wrong we take it to court and arbit it. You are advocating your opinion that guns cannot in any way be regulated. The Supreme Court and Congress disagree and their opinion is the LAW of the LAND. If you break it like Mr. Hamblen did then you will be in club fed! Don't like the 1934 NFA? Get your congressman to repeal it! Otherwise, live with it or go to JAIL.
@tkcarr Another reason why you are confused is because you are assuming that we have any right we want, well that's simply wrong. If that was the case there would not be such theory of Rights. But Rights are not many. Rights are derived from property as I told you, and yes I believe that if you are in your property you can be naked or even have an orgy with hundreds of people. It's up to others to prove that your behavior in your property offended the RIGHT of anyone else.
@fresniak And lots of people have differing views from you and believe things like health care are basic human rights. SO who is right? Your opinion is one thing but there must be some entity that decides for the good of all and that is our government and system of democracy. The facts are you cannot do whatever you want on your property and laws restrict that. The three "rights" you list above would easily be distorted by others to do whatever they wished.
@tkcarr "And lots of people have differing views from you and believe things like health care are basic human rights. SO who is right?"
I am right and they are wrong cause Rights derive from property and I have proven according to this postulate that health-care cannot ever be considered a right.
@fresniak LOL! OK well we will now defer all matters of law to the great fresniak for resolution. Funny. You liked Heller didn't you? And McDonald too? Well the Supreme Court gave you those and not the great fresniak. Rights BTW DO NOT derive from property they dervie from God or nature whatever your bent is. They are "self-evident" and those without property have them as well as those who do not.
@tkcarr All rights derive from property, you have right to life and freedom cause you own your body and mind. It's always property that defines rights.
You keep ignoring my statement that you need to change the constitution in order to redefine rights, laws CANNOT SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION. And regulating dangerous things is possible without infringing rights of the people. The constitution was created so that gvt may not become tyrannical. I had enough with you, you have the brain of a mouse.
@fresniak Wrong again. reread the Delcaration of Independence for better info than you are apparently getting. "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." Don't see property in there. Do see Creator. You have clearly lost the argument as now you resort to name calling. You are ignorant and proud of it. Sad.
Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.Arizona Constitution and most others have this same clause in it. SO if you don't agree with a statute then DO NOT CONSENT AND WAIVE THE BENEFIT.Statutes are not law they are legislative enactments given the force of law by the consent of the governed. Not LAW!!!
justaman6972 1 year ago
Mudook v. Penn. : 319 US 105 (1943) and Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.: 373 US 262 (1962) The Govt. cannot take a right charge a fee and issue a license for it in the first case and if they do use the second case which say if the state does this you can ignore the license and fee and continue the act with impunity.United States v. Bishop 412 US 346 (1973):Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent1.they must prove you are the party,you had method and opportunity&acted willful
justaman6972 1 year ago
The 2nd amendment was created to prohibit govts from regulating guns. We use guns to protect ourselves from govt (our worst enemy).
ToryII 1 year ago
@ToryII Wrong. See Heller vs DC. I think conspiracy theory kooks are our enemy. Fortunately there are not very many of them.
tkcarr 1 year ago
I'm a longtime member of NRA, GOA, and ISRA
ToryII 1 year ago
@ToryII Good for you. Support them and you may make some strides for gun rights. Do like Hamblen did and you will need soap on a rope soon!
tkcarr 1 year ago
A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Meaning:
Govt is not allowed to regulate guns.
ToryII 1 year ago
@ToryII Wrong again! the government may regulate guns to the extent Congress and the Courts allow. Back to 4th grade civics for you!
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Congress and the courts have ignored the law. The law, the 2nd amendment, prohibits the Congress and the courts from regulating guns.
ToryII 1 year ago
@ToryII That is your opinion but it doesn't count. The court's and the legislature's opinions do. If you don't like it, vote others in and change the laws. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke. If you disobey the law as Hamblen did then you will also go to jail like he did. Join the NRA right now (as I have) and work to change those laws as we have in my state. Civic participation, it works, try it and quit whining!
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Fool. Stop defending a process that's been corrupted by Nazis. Chicago's draconian gun laws (combined with its assault rifle ban) combined with The Cook County longgun ban are unconstitutional and unAmerican. All guns with the exception of a few models of handguns are banned, along with bullets and other types of weapons. This Hitlerein system occurs even after the SCOTUS has recently ruled the 2nd amendment is a basic fundamental right.
The time for words and debate is over.
ToryII 1 year ago
@ToryII Nazis? I hope you are not serious. Are you infatuated with Hitler? The time for words an debate are over? What are you proposing Toryll? Rebellion? Don't do it! You will end up like Tim McVeigh; dead.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "The court's and the legislature's opinions do." here's your critical ignorant mistake: the legislature is void when it is against the constitution which is the supreme law that cannot be subverted. Therefore the courts should not decide upon a law that is in fact VOID. So you're right when you say that the courts must decide, but you are wrong when you state the courts need to base their decisions on a VOID law which is contrary to the constitution.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Here is your fatal mistake. WHO declares laws void? You? No, the courts do or the people can vote out those who supported the law and then change it thru the legislative process. We do not allow the Great fresniak to declare laws void and unconstitutional. We don't allow you to determine what cases the courts will hear. Pick up that civics book and read about it.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Nowhere it is written that the constitution has to be interpreted by the courts. That is your invention. The constitution is for the people by the people and the people must be vigilant to preserve it, if the government and courts fail to do so. If the government creates laws which are unconstitutional it's duty of the people to resist them and if it gets tyrannical, it's their duty to overthrow the government. This is what the founding fathers said and wrote.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Now you are back talking like an anarchist. Let's go back to basic civics. The Legislature passes laws that are binding UNLESS the Supreme Court RULES the law(s) to be unconstitutional. This is called judicial review and it was established in Marbury vs Madision about 200 years ago. The people "resist" laws they don't like by voting and taking laws to court they feel are unconstitutional. Other types of lawless resistance is TREASON. Have you had civics yet in school?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Why do you need a court to understand what even a 6 years old boy can understand? The constitution is VERY EXPLICIT and written in a very clear and simple language, understandable by everybody. The courts just choose to ignore it, they are the traitors of this country, together with the government that makes unconstitutional laws.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Yep. The govt has become a law breaker and tkcarr has become a govt suckup who defends the govt before he would defend we the people..
Tory II
ToryII 1 year ago
@ToryII This is crazy talk and I suspect someday I will read about you in the paper and not in a good way. I promise you that the "people" who think like you are in short supply and will not be supported by the rest of us. When you can find a better system than ours, let me know. Better yet, just go there and leave us law abiding citizens alone. People who talk like you do are what help get Gun Control laws passed to protect others from lawless gun owners like you.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Our govt is ignoring the law, not me. You have it backwards. The only purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prohibit (by law) the govt from regulating weapons. The 2nd amendment speaks to the govt (not to me). It tells govt it can't regulate weapons. Why did the Framers include a 2nd amendment ? So that the people could arm themselves and form ARMED militias to protect themselves from invasion OR from rogue govt.
Tory II
ToryII 1 year ago
@ToryII continued:
The idea of allowing govt to regulate guns is like alllowing Hitler to babysit Jewish kids. We have guns to kill police or soldiers if the govt goes rogue (becomes tyrannical or oppressive.) Why would we allow the govt to regulate the tool we'll use to protect ourselves from the govt ? It's like giving the jailbird the key to the prison. It's like asking the burglar when we should leave town on vacation.
sign, Tory II
ToryII 1 year ago
@ToryII We are not protected from tyranny by the gun in your closet but by our democratic system. Read Section One Article Eight. The Congress may call out the militia to suppress INSURRECTION. They tried to do what you propose in 1861. It didn't turn out too well for the South. You have no constitutional right to rebel against the government. The constitution has no suicide clause.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "INSURRECTION" was called PATRIOTISM when the american colonies became independent. YOU'RE THE TRAITOR tkarr
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Our government today is not the same as King George's in 1776. We had no voice or vote. It is sad that rather than try to change policy through the wonderful system of our country you want to destroy it because you are too lazy or inept to try and make a difference. I am a traitor? You are a traitor and a a criminal if you act as you are talking. If so, then you will go to jail and I hope soon.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr tkcarr, our vote is wortheless. Amerika has become a nation of nazis and hoplophobes.
ToryII 1 year ago
@ToryII If our vote is no good then the Constitution is null and void and no good either. So it's back to the law of the jungle then. What a crock! You two (fresniak) are just out of touch with reality. This makes you dangerous to liberty because you don't accept facts but make them up to suit your delusions. The irony of your logic is that YOU are the danger to freedom and liberty for if governing is not based on reality it is like a child with a loaded gun. Sorry, but you two are crazy.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "So it's back to the law of the jungle then" No after the revolution, the constitution will be restored and all the unconstitutional laws will be erased. That's plain simple tkarr. No need of the law of the jungle.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak No need for the constitution in your world. Just the law of the gun. You need to not read those crazy miltia books out there. They are crazy. By refusing to vote and saying the vote is no good anymore as well as the courts and legislature you effectively destroy our system. The result? Anarchy where might is right. A true nightmare world like Mad Max. Your vision of such is insanity.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr you like to accuse me of being violent and anarchist. While I have never spoken about killing anyone. I am just speaking that it's time for the US people to go by millions in front of their capitol hills and RESIST pacifically untill a new revolution will arise, because this shit cannot keep going on. OF course if the government will decide to deny the people their right to speak out. The violence may arise. But we the people do not want violence. We want just return to the constitution.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Well then, exercise your rights! Vote, get involved. You have the way to do just what you say. However, you must do it within the system and government we have created. Nobody will stop you from protesting in DC. Many have done so before and been successful. But your comments earlier show you do not understand the rule of law and how we live by it. You keep saying the people this and the people that. Well, the "People" want some types of regulation of guns.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "Vote, get involved. " who said I might not being doing that? I am saying that vote todays is ineffective, because whoever you vote for will be corrupted or threatened. Ant if you control the media you can push a mass of brainwashed people to vote for the "elite's candidates" pushing the elite's agendas.
What you need in order for the vote to work is people thinking with their heads and not believing propaganda and lies.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak So if everybody who is elected is corrupted and spoiled what do you propose? I guess you being in charge would be immune to same? Yeah right. As to thinking I agree and wish you would do some instead of believing crazy conspiracies and saying all is lost unless we revolt and destroy everything.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "So if everybody who is elected is corrupted what do you propose?"
First I propose return to the constitution, abolish the federal reserve, these only two steps would bring the country to normality and drastically reduce corruption.
I also propose direct democracy, rather than representative gvt. In a direct democracy everyone can propose laws (given that they are constitutional) and you may allow people voting on the internet to approve them, but that's too long to explain here
fresniak 1 year ago
@tkcarr "No need for the constitution in your world. " NO IN YOUR WORLD THERE IS NO CONSTITUTION not in mine.The government has destroyed it, Bush said the constitution is just a piece of paper, and so Obama implied in one of his talks. They are the traitors not me. The constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak The constitution is a piece of paper and one that needs to be interpreted against policy and law. In your world you decide what the constitution means and will not accept the decisions of those the constitution has given power to govern to unless you like it. That is treason and lawlessness.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr The constituion is not a just a piece of paper, it is the supreme law of the land. And the constitution has not been created to be "interpreted", because it leaves no space to interpretation. Can you argue that the ocean is blue, or that in the desert there is no water? You can't because they are self evident truths, so it is the constitution a self evident Truth.
fresniak 1 year ago
@tkcarr for your knowledge I have never read any militia book, are you used to think that people need to be brainwashed just like you? I guess you believe the story of the man from a cave that with 4 planes defeated the US defense. The gvt wants you to believe that a group of boy-scouts can defeat its entire defense and fuck around buildings with planes.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Oh Good God Almighty! A 9/11 conspiracy believer too? You and Toryll are just plain nuts! What about Area 51? I think THEY did it. LOL You guys need to have summer end so you can go back to school. Sheesh!
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "ou and Toryll are just plain nuts! " And you believe that a few hijackers used plastic knives to take control of 4 boeing airplanes, that despite being incompetent pilots who never flew a boeing in their life, they found their way through the sky to New York and with incredible precision and ability hit their targets, that the subsequent explosions were able to bring down 3 steel buildings (first time in history) and one of the hijackers passports was found intact in the rubble.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak I think the aliens from Area 51 did it. Did they kidnap you too? LOL
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr " think the aliens from Area 51 did it. Did they kidnap you too? LOL" I thin kyou're just a dumbass, who does not want to answer questions
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak I think you are a school child who has too much summer vacation. You need to go outside and play with your firends if you have any. Do you believe in area 51 and that there are aliens there?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "I think you are a school child who has too much summer vacation." I think you're just an idiot and that's all
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak I think I am owning you with logic and so you cannot respond with anything but personal insults. This isn't the play ground where you call someone stupid because they are smarter than you. You need to grow up and act like an adult (assuming you are one).
tkcarr 1 year ago
Comment removed
fresniak 1 year ago
@tkcarr "I think I am owning you with logic" I think you are just owning your dick with your logic. I have made a lot of perfectly logical points, that you have not been able to refute. Your only argument is that everyone who speaks against the government and wants it changed is an anarchist. This is the only point you have made along all the discussion. So dear dictator I am done with you, have fun with the coming martial law.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak You have made nothing but infantile points and don't understand government. I haven't said anyone who speaks agin the govt is anarchist I just say you and Toryll are because you want no restrictions on freedom unless you agree with them. You are opposed to the rule of law and that makes us like animals. The irony is your type of world would have martial law and would be a nightmare place to be. I figured you would quit sooner or later. Pwned!
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr " you want no restrictions on freedom unless you agree with them." never said that. I want no restriction on freedom unless it hurts others rights. that's my statement that you just keep ignoring, because it is convenient for you to say so.
I am not opposed to the rule of law, I am opposed to unjust laws which break the constitution and the bill of rights. I am against restrictions that undermine people's right. "pawned" Do you want to play chess against me, I will destroy you.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak And you decide when it hurts others? Sounds like lawlessness to me. I would stick to your playground games a chessmaster you ain't. Who decides if a law is unjust? The courts or you? Back to school!
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "And you decide when it hurts others? " The constitution and the bill of rights decide that. Do you need an example? So please make a case and I will tell you, reading from the constitution, whether the law is against the rights or not.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak The constitution is a piece of paper and you cannot ask it anything. And no I would never ask YOU to decide such as you don't even understand what the rule of law is. Therefore we must ask a much more learned and principled group than you and your anarchist pals. That would be the court. You and your other buddy would be kangaroo court. Suitable only for lynching.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr I will make just a few examples of the laws that would have never been passed under a system like I describe.
- The patriot act - Unconstitutional
-The federal reserve and income tax - The people would have never voted for that
-Mandatory Health Insurance - the people would have never voted for that
-The bailout of banks and big corps - the people would have never voted for that
and the list continues..
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Income Tax is an amendment to the constitution and 3/4s of the states voted for it! Thes people voted for representatives who establsihed the Federal Reserve. Repeal the law, oh but no you can't because THE PEOPLE don't see it the way you do. They don't want another depression. Health Insurance is not mandatory and as to the bailouts well we will see what they think in November as it should be. Not some stupid internet vote.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "HE PEOPLE don't see it the way you do" the people do not want to pay taxes on income. You are just a bullshit-teller. Ask any american if they want to pay taxes or not and see what they tell you.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak LOL what a joke. Yeah and I want to drive as fast as I want on the Interstate. Ask those same Americans to give up what those taxes provide and you will get another answer. You are really out to lunch pal.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "They don't want another depression." the depression in 29 was caused by the fed, Milton Friedman himself said that and it's now a well known fact. Only the central bank can cause such kind of recessions, because they can make the money scarce or plenty. How about the current crisis, unemployment hits 16% are you happy with the banks? Of course you are, probably you're the son of one of those motherfuckers.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Because the fed did NOTHING to stop it. They are not a central bank either. Before the regulation of money we had boom and bust constantly. No I am not happy with the current crisis but that was also caused by too little government not too much. The PEOPLE you keep talking about caused it thru greed. You are using bad language again and need to wahs your mouth out with soap.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@fresniak Here are some examples of things we would have today if there were no courts:
Forced prayer in school. The PEOPLE would have voted for that.
Racial segregation. The PEOPLE did vote for that.
Gun Control! The PEOPLE would have voted for that and in fact did in 1934.
Censorship of books. The PEOPLE would have voted for that.
and the list goes on...
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr please make me a favor just let this thread die, I will just answer to the latest bullshit from yourself:
"Forced prayer, racial segregation, gun control, censorship of books" are ALL against the bill of rights and the constitution, and if you didn't get it yet, in my system unconstitutional laws cannot even be voted on. So the people could not have voted them. Before a law is allowed to be voted on, it will have to stand in front of the constitution and the bill of rights.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak What determined these were unconstitutional? You say you can't vote on unconstitutional laws then who says they are unconstitutional in the first place. Another vote! You are a very confused young man and need to go back and read more civics. You are clueless.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "We had no voice or vote" If bankers control the congress and the media, if the CFR dictates the policies, your vote counts ZERO. You can vote as much as you want, the people which have to represent you will be easily corrupted or threatened if they don't follow the dictat of those who are at the top of the power pyramid. You call it all conspiracy theories, the real patriots (and there are millions awakened now) know the truth. You're just grown-up with government propaganda and lies.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak I think the "real" patriots you speak of are "real" crazy. If you are proposing armed lawlessness then count me and the vast majority of Americans as your enemy. We will turn you in and have you in jail if you violate the law. I think you have been brainwashed and need some help. Your way will never work and only lead to destruction.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "f you are proposing armed lawlessness then count me and the vast majority of Americans as your enemy. " you will not even be able to take your guns because you believe in "govt regulation"
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak No I'll have my guns. The question is who will I have to defend myself from? Probably those who are lawless and only follow laws they like and call others traitors who follow the rule of law.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "The question is who will I have to defend myself from?"
Why are you even asking this question? Because you're an idiot who cannot grab the meaning of things and their purpose. Guns use is always legitimate in self-defense does not matter who is the attacker. You're just a dumb-ass I AM ENOUGH WITH YOU
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak I always find with you kooky anarchists that when your logic is exposed and refuted you get pissed, begin name calling and then bow out. You didn't disappoint. I am more afraid of your types than the government.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "I am more afraid of your types than the government." Cowards are always afraid.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Crazy people aren't afraid when they should be.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr The Truth is you are already shitting in your pants thinking that soon you won't be able to eat you cheeseburgers and watch your tv anymore, because the new american revolution is coming
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Not really, there will be no revolution but a few of you might try something and end up like McVeigh with a super intravenous cocktail at the end.What a waste.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@ToryII We are the government and we spek with our vote. There are a lot of opinions about the purpose of the 2A. I think your definition is wrong. So does the court. We have a individual right to self defense but not anygun, anyone or anywhere. That is the law of the land. YOU may interpret the 2A to mean what you think but as stated before that doesn't count. The states controlled the miltias and you have no individual rights as part of a militia absent state control.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "This is crazy talk and I suspect someday I will read about you in the paper and not in a good way."
Very soon there will be no America anymore, the current administration is literally destroying this country. when will you wake up? Never..because you like to swim in the shit that is going on, that's why you do not want to change it. You just hope to see this country become a death camp and you hope to be one of the guards who kill and spit on the prisoners.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak More crazy talk and I agree there will be no America if people who think like you get any power. Fortunately you are part of a fringe element that no one takes seriuosly. You are the one who would have the death camps filled with your "enemies" fed by your delusions of lawless anarchy.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr the deat hcamp is already here. And now it even smells of BP oil.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs!
tkcarr 1 year ago
@fresniak Well, since very smart people disagree on what the constitution means then I guess only a six year old would take your point of view and use your logic. I am not longer six years old so I can't relate to your juvenile logic. A traitor is someone who thinks like a six year old and will only obey laws they like. Are you such a person?
tkcarr 1 year ago
Hang in there, you have support.
Mygeeto25 2 years ago
Richard Hamblen correctly interpreted the 2nd amendment. We received our liberty from all the Richard Hamblens who risked losing their freedom by standing up to a govt that no longer obeys the laws that apply to it. I'm not quite so angry at our govt as I am at those who blindly support that govt, and those who so eagerly relinquish their freedom for the beneft of the common good by empowering the govt (our worst enemy) .
ToryII 2 years ago
@ToryII I support the rule of law not what Joe Bobby or you think the law is. Hamblen went to jail and lost his right forever to own a gun as he is now a felon. Stupid!
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr If the rule of law says you are to be sodomized would you support it ?
We go in circles.
The 2nd amendment prohibits govt from regulating guns. do you support that rule of law ?
ToryII 1 year ago
@ToryII Strawman like before on the sodomy deal. The Second Amendment DOES NOT prohibit the government from regulating firearms. Do you YOU support the rule of law over your private opinion and interpretation of the Constitution?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@ToryII We only go in circles because your logic is circular. You will not recognize a legal authority over your own opinion.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr He should kill the lawbreakers. I would support it.
ToryII 1 year ago
@ToryII I would support the arrest (and possible killing) of one who believed and acted as if their private view of law was correct and broke the law.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr You (tkcarr) would support the arrest (and execution) of George Washington because he believed and acted as if his private view of the law was correct..
The rule of law clearly prohibits govt from regulating guns (per the 2nd amendment).
tkcarr is a Nazi and for that he should be rounded up and executed. We have had enough of this Nazi con-artistry that destroys freedom, prosperity, and safety. No more talk or debate or compromise with Nazis...
ToryII 1 year ago
@ToryII Actually the British would have hung him had he failed so I guess they were "Nazis" too. Toryll, you never disappoint whenever I own you in debate, out comes the name calling and now a thinly veiled threat as well. Don't worry, cooler saner heads run things than you so we are safe from anarchy that you propose. BTW I don't think you understand what Rule of Law means but that is because you are an anarchist. You should go to Somalia, no gun control there!
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Only Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and tkcarr believe in gun control by the govt. I don't because I know that govt is my worst enemy, therefore I need guns to protect myself from my govt (just common sense).
ToryII 1 year ago
@ToryII Even the NRA supports some types of gun control. I think people who think like you are dangerous and we need guns and laws to keep you and your anarcho-militias in check. You are a greater threat to liberty than the government. What is common sense to you is lunacy to most.
tkcarr 1 year ago
The 2nd amendment prohibits all govts from regulating guns (period). Any laws or court decisions to the contrary are illegal.
ToryII 2 years ago
Better read the Constitution again. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional. Not you.
tkcarr 2 years ago
Yeah, but if a bunch of people make illegal machine guns, the supreme court cannot print enough money to try all those cases, especially if the US government is broke.
It's time that all the pot growers and machine gun makers sprout out of the wood work to bankrupt the already bankrupt US government.
ShiekUrBooty 2 years ago
Very childish thinking and might lead you to jail soon.
tkcarr 2 years ago
No, it's very "boston tea partyish" and very patriotic.
ShiekUrBooty 2 years ago
You are no patriot. Just a lawbreaker.
tkcarr 2 years ago
George Washington (1st president) led an illegal armed revolt, against the rule of law, against a govt he hated, and won. Patriotism is public dissent against oppressive govt. Sometimes being a patriot means ignoring laws (especially unjust laws.)
Amerikanos love their govt.
ToryII 2 years ago
G. Washington and many many others declared their indepedence from a nation THAT DID NOT use the rule of law in their governance. George and others had no other recourse and would have taken such if one existed other than revolution. You have those avenues today that they didn't under George III. Use them! But if you take up arms against a lawful representative gov't like we have today you are doing treason and will be punished.
tkcarr 2 years ago
Our govt does whatever it wants, regardless of any law (that it created).
Only the rich can afford to tackle our govt.
Treason deals with our foreign enemies and domestic Nazis.
ToryII 2 years ago
Our government does what it is allowed to. If you don't like what they do. Vote and become politically active. Your gun will get you nothing but prison and death if you decide to take the law into your own hands.
tkcarr 2 years ago
I'm not debating the consequnces for ignoring the law, I'm telling you the laws violate the supreme law (the 2nd amendment.)
Would you obey Jim Crow laws that subjugated African/Americans ?
ToryII 2 years ago
Comparing gun regulations to Jim Crow Laws is ridiculous! However, if you choose to play the civil disobiedience game that Richard did then prepare to be sent to jail and lose your right to own a firearm. But I think that would be a dumb thing to do. Finally, as I stated once before the Supreme Court interprets the 2A not you.
tkcarr 2 years ago
Would you obey Jim Crow laws ? Answer the question.
ToryII 2 years ago
Remember, you don't get to decide what is constitutional or not. Only the courts do. Would you obey Jim Crow laws ?
ToryII 2 years ago
The NFA is not a Jim Crow law so your question has a false premise. However, if a law existed that I thought was wrong I would work legally to have it changed. If I decided to break that law then I would be prepared to go to jail for breaking it without whining. That is called living under the rule of law. If you feel the NFA is "morally" wrong then break it. And be prepared to go to jail like Richard did. However, your comparisons to Nazis and Jim Crow are not logical or factual but emotional.
tkcarr 2 years ago
Good for you, However, Richard should not have been jailed. It was immoral and unconstitutional. Jim Crow laws were immoral. The least you could do is agree with that even if you're afraid to ignore an immoral law.
Did the Framers ignore and revolt against immoral laws ? Yes they did. They risked their lives doing it. You think anyone needs you to tell them to obey all laws or else ? We now have immoral and illegal Jim Crow gun laws applied to blacks and whites.
ToryII 2 years ago
The NFA is not immoral in that it does not deny any basic or fundamental right. Your analogy is false and emotion charged to make a splash. Sorry, ain't buying it. Guns may be regulated and restricted as all rights may be in the BoR. That is a fact. To ignore that means you are ignorant of the rule of law and just want laws to do what YOU THINK is right. Not the way it works in a constitutional government.
tkcarr 2 years ago
Actually, the rule of law means that the taxing of firearms is illegal.
ShiekUrBooty 2 years ago
On what do you base that?
tkcarr 2 years ago
Exactly. The NFA tax is not apportioned equally because that tamount of tax only applies to a specific type of gun. And rights that are taxable are not rights.
ToryII 2 years ago
Rights may be regulated and that includes reasonable taxation. The NFA has withstood such legal scrutiny. The tax is apportioned equally over a class of firearms.
tkcarr 2 years ago
In a Constitutional govt we are to adhere to the Constitution. The 1934 NFA raises the price of full auto weapons, prevents their importation and inhibits new production. It also requires their registration and additional taxation. That type of taxation also violates the Constitution.
Rights may not be restricted according to the Bill of Rights. The BOR applies to govt. It expressly prohibits govt from infringing OUR rights.
Every American has a basic fundamental right to own weapons.
ToryII 2 years ago
Every American does not have such a right. You are incorrect. Rights may be restricted according to scrutiny that is a part of a hierarchy of standards courts employ to weigh an asserted government interest against a constitutional right or principle that conflicts with the manner in which the interest is being pursued.
tkcarr 2 years ago
Incorrect. Rights listed in the first 10 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution cannot be restricted by the government of said country. You have forgotten that the U.S. is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". The Courts of the U.S. cannot limit Rights listed in the Constitution. The Courts in the U.S. were originally established to weigh cases only based on what the laws the Congress created stated. Nowadays, thanks to changes in laws, they create Caselaw.
jtrisgood 2 years ago
All rights are subject to regulation. The only place rights are absolute are in an anarchy and only if you have the might to make it so. The Supreme Court interprets what the Constitution means as related to law. That is what is meant by the rule of law. The Constitution does not mean what you or I THINK it means. Courts determine that. That is our system. The Founders had no problem with the concept of judicial review and so you shouldn't either.
tkcarr 2 years ago
Again incorrect. Your statement contradicts itself. If a right that is set forth by law can be regulated, it is no longer a right but a condition. Legal rights aren't conditional. Secondly, the bill of Rights were created to prevent anarchy as well as preventing a tetrarchy. Third, the Supreme Court doesn't interpret what the Constitution means as related to law, it interprets exactly what it says because it is the Law. The rule of law applies to both government and people.
jtrisgood 2 years ago
No you are wrong and demonstarbly so. There are NO absolute rights outside of an anarchy. The court decides what laws are constitutional of not. That is their role and authority. The constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means and that is our law. Sorry if you disagree with them (I do too often) but that is the way it is. Individuals on their own don't get to determine what is constitutional. Just as you think the 2A is unlimited, the Brady's read it different. Who decides? The court
tkcarr 2 years ago
The truth is, that the U.S. Constitution strikes the absolutely even balance of who's in the right and who's in the wrong. You are in the wrong. You haven't answered the "ALL-POWERFUL" question of our legal system, which is this: "Where does the Supreme Court derive it's legal authority?" Answer: "The people and the U.S. Constitution."
jtrisgood 2 years ago
I have no issue with where the Supreme Court derives it's authority. The problem you have is you don't think they have authority to rule for something YOU don't like. Too bad. There is a mechanism to make yourself heard. V-O-T-E. Until you vote them out or impeach them they interpret the Constitution. Not you!
tkcarr 2 years ago
The Constitution does mean what "The people" think it means. I have no problem with the concept of judicial review, I do have a problem with Judges creating laws out of thin air and striking down laws created by Congress. You seem to have a concept of government control over the people hard at work in your heart. You would make an excellent dictator. The founding Fathers feared your kind.
jtrisgood 2 years ago
NO they feared your kind more. Anarchists who follow the laws they decide are right. We elect the government and they are limited but not to the extent you think they are. If you don't like what they do, vote them out! That is your right. Obey only the laws you "feel" are right and get ready for a long Fed vacation. If you think a law wwrong take it to the courts but you will abide by their decision.
tkcarr 2 years ago
@tkcarr You again are soundly incorrect in your accusations. You accuse me of being an anarchist of which I'm not. I don't obey laws I only "feel" are right, but tyrrannist dictators do. I know the laws and obey them. However, from what I'm reading from your posts, your the kind that likes to make laws for people to obey, and watch out if they don't! What's next for the law books my friend? More taxes? More limitations of freedom?!? Looks like your the type to bring it on! Enjoy your tyranny!
jtrisgood 2 years ago
The comedic thing about folks who think like you is that what you propose is real tryanny. The tryanny of force and lawlessness. That is what happens when the individual decides for himself what law he will or won't follow. I propose a nation of law, you propose anarchy and moral relativism. The constitution means what the courts and legislatures SAY it means, Not 300 million different opinions.
tkcarr 2 years ago
The system of government in these United States is 3 tier. 1)President, 2)Congress, 3)Judges. That would be 1)Executive, 2)Legislative, 3)Judicial. Again, 1)The Head of the country, with very limited powers. 2)The lawmakers <---take note! take note! 3) Judges who hear legal cases and make decisions based on law. If a law doesn't exist for the judge to make a decision on, his job is not to create a law because there isn't one on the books concerning it! Well... that has changed!
jtrisgood 2 years ago
And the law this guy broke was made by Congress and found to be constitutional in 1939 and Mr. Hamblen took it upon himself to break it and did a year in the big house. So what is your point? The courts did not "create" the NFA 1934, Congress did. Having unreigstered full auto is illegal and that law is constitutional and therefore not an infringment. You are mixed up in your knowledge of US government.
tkcarr 2 years ago
@tkcarr The Second Amendment states: 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. The problem with that law is the same problem we have with most of our legal system... too many laws and way too much contradiction in the laws and the lawyers not doing due diligence in researching whether or not a new law contradicts an old one. Regardless NFA is unConstitutional.
jtrisgood 2 years ago
The Supreme Court disagrees with you concerning the NFA. See Miller vs US. The problem you have with law is that it is not giving you what you want. So, change it! Repeal the NFA if you can get the votes. Otherwise, if you possess FA like Mr. Hamblen then off to jail you will go!
tkcarr 2 years ago
@tkcarr "All rights are subject to regulation." this statement from you alone is enough to say that you do not have any clue of what a Right is and why the constitution was created. A Right is an ABSOLUTE and the Constitution was written in CLEAR LETTERS so that everyone can understand what that right is about. The Supreme Cort cannot change the meaning of the constitution, because a RIGHT IS or IS NOT.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak No rights are absolute. They are all subject to regulation and the Supreme Court no you or me determines how that right may be regulated. We are a nation of laws not personal opinions.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr If you do not understand the theory of rights then please again go back and learn it. You have the right to freedom and that is an absolute, the only limitation of a right is the RESPECT of the same right of other people. What determines who has rights and who has not? It is the property. IF you have a property you have any right on that property. The rights may not be regulated, the rights should only be protected by governments, not regulated
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Yeah I think you are off the wall on this. A right is always subject to regulation. You concede that by talking about the respect you give others. That is regulation. You need to learn more about the rule of law under which this country functions. Property rights? Try laying out naked on "your" property or stating a fire that may damage others on "your" property. Protection IS regulation. You need more study.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "You concede that by talking about the respect you give others. That is regulation." No that is not a regulation it is just the respect of the SAME RIGHT of the others. Do you understand that? And the role of government is to help protecting the rights of its citizens. That's according to the Theory of Rights. Of course the roman law is very different, in roman laws you have no rights. But the US were founded upon the anglo-saxon common law and the theory of Rights.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak No the purpose of government is to maintain social order by the rule of law. Can't you understand that? Rights are NOT absolute for if they were you could do whatever you pleased if you had the might. All rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to regulation by the courts and legislature. This is fact and the truth.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "No the purpose of government is to maintain social order " I agree with that and Protecting the rights of each individual is the best way to do that. Don't YOU understand that?
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak I do and don't YOU understand that the government operates thru a system which incorporates the courts, legislature and president? Not individual opinons? As a result rights are regulated and laws that restrict them are subject to judicial review. If the law survives scrutiny IT IS NOT AN INFRINGMENT.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "Rights are NOT absolute for if they were you could do whatever you pleased if you had the might."
NO YOU CAN DO ONLY WHAT IS YOUR RIGHT TO DO and You cannot infringe the same right of others. Do you really need examples or you finally get it.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak NO! You can do what the law allows or is silent on. No more! The law is predicated on many things and one of those is public safety and so we don't let insane people own guns or convicted felons. Do YOU need examples?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr The concept of "protection " is often used to steal away rights from the people. IF I do light a fire on my property and if the fire damages some person on my property I will take full responsibility of that. And I will pay the consequences. The prison or any other penalty is the DETERRENT that will keep the people responsible to exercise their rights in the respect of people around. Every right requires a responsibility of using it. BUT NOONE CAN STEAL THAT RIGHT.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak No public safety is a valid concern and we have the right to limit your actions to prevent such damage. We don't have to wait until you destroy your neighborhood and kill people to restrict you. As you know some are not deterred by prison. Therefore I may not let you store aviation gas on your porperty without inspection and regulation.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr I think you just do not get it, I am really exhaust to explain you. Rights are rights, and in the constituion there is a bill of rights that states which are to be considered rights, what is that you do not und about it. Now if you want to restrict the right you have to put it in the constitution, because that is the place it belongs to. And to change the constitution you have to ask "We the People", in other words "We The People" decide what is a right and what is not.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Well, "we the people" said thru our congress in 1934 that individuals may not possess unregistered full auto firearms. It withstood court challenge and is law and therefore NOT an infringement of your right to keep and bear. Laws may and do regulate all rights. Every one. It is only an infirngment if the court says it is. This is basic civics and you need to read this slowly I guess to understand it.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "public safety is a concern" so if one day a lobbist government decides that for "safety" we must kill all people with red hair, you just feel confortable with that? That's where the theory of rights come in. Govts are limited, they can take decisions only in matters that do not infringe rights of the people. The fathers put in the constitution that "the gvt members should meet in the parliament ..at least..3 times per year. That tells alot about the role they expected the govt to have.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Now you are posing strawmen and Reductio ad Absurdium arguments so I guess I am owning you. One more time for you; we give up absolute natural rights and agree to live under government to preserve social order. In our country the government IS limited by our participation in it and the courts who protect us from unjust majorities. Outside of that there are no rights unless you go back in the jungle.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr also consider that "preventive" laws and measures that restrict rights have NEVER worked. Whenever you restrict a right you create a new problem, a new class of privileged persons and a new conflict in the society. The only thing that is proven to work is RESPONSIBILITY and PENAL DETERRENTS in case of crimes. When you ban guns there you find criminals who get their firearms on the black market and are happy they can freely go around and kill people who no longer may protect themselves.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Really? I think laws that prevent people like you from owning nukes and nerve gas have worked out pretty well. I agree that laws do not stop crime but (I suppose you are law-abiding) they do help public safety by keeping dangerous stuff away from people who aren't fit to have them.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "We don't have to wait until you destroy your neighborhood and kill people to restrict you. " so if there is only 1 person every 10 millions that has such a crazy plan, you need to restrict the rights of all the10 millions ? Isn't it easier and more appropriate to make a deterrent and send such persons to jail? What is the purpose of having a judicial system then? You seem to think that every person is either a criminal or completely stupid to not be able to control his actions
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak No courts are necessary and so are laws that regulate dangerous behavior. I am not going to let somebody own nerve gas or anthrax legally and then HOPE they don't let it loose. I will regulate that BEFORE it happens. When the stuff gets out and kills 1000 people putting the fool in jail does not serve the public interest.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "No rights are absolute. They are all subject to regulation and the Supreme Court "
YOU'RE WRONG Rights are not subject to anything, they ARE THE LAW. The only that can specify what a Right is or is not is THE CONSTITUTION which is by the people for the people. So if you want to "regulate" rights the only way is you change the constitution. That's how the taxation was introduced, they HAD to amend the constitution to tax labour and property
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak The Constitution has to be interpreted in light of law and is why we have the Supreme Court. This is basic civics. YOU don't determine what the Constitution means the courts do. That is the rule of law. The absence of the rule of law you speak of is anarchy.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "The only place rights are absolute are in an anarchy" again it's incredible how poor is your understanding of the theory of the Rights. First of all a Right is an absolute concept. A Right was, is and will be for ever. Go back to some constitutional school. Second Anarchy has nothing to do with rights, the word anarchy means without government. In anarchy someone could even argue that you do not have any rights at all, because that is a form of law and governance.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak In an anarchy rights are determined by force and only then if you have the force can any right be without regulation. You need to go back to school as this country does not operate that way. BTW who in your system determines these rights? Each person according to what they want? That is anarchy and lawlessness.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "In an anarchy rights are determined by force " If it is determined by force by definition it is not a right!! Again you do not understand the definitions, that is the basics. A right is something you have from the moment you are born. And there is a huge difference between "enforcing a right" and "using force to prevalicate the rights of others". You simply do not get it, I am very sorry for you. Please consider watching some video of Badnarik, it will help understanding (I hope)
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak You need to read about the social contract and why we have government. The right you have is your vote. Don't like the laws the legislature passed and the Supreme Court upheld? Vote 'em and set the policy you like. BTW not all rights are natural and there is great debate about what those even are. Like health care and abortion. A person that argues the government cannot restrain him or his "rights" whatever he thinks they are is an anarchist as are you.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr I don't need to read what you suggest because there's no need of knowing anything else than the theory of Rights, which comes much longer before any other book about law. You like to mix a Roman concept of Law with the theory of rights which is not possible because they are in open contrast. In ancient Rome you did not have any rights you had only privileges given to you by the government. If you restrict a right it is not a right anymore it is a privilege.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak These theories are your opinion of rights but not the Founding Father's nor the Constitution. Again, Read Locke or Hobbes or Alexander Hamilton. We give up absolute rights in order to form governments for social order and live by the rule of law. Anything other than that is not our system. That is why if my neighbor wrongs me I can't go to his house and blow his brains out but must follow the law to right that wrong. What you propose is the Law of the Jungle.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "We give up absolute rights in order to form governments" What you call absolute rights are the law of the jungle, that is not the kind of RIGHTS the constitution is about. You don't need to take away rights in order to form a government, you need to take away the "law of the jungle" where the stronger prevails on the weaker. And you do it by protecting the equal rights of the stronger and the weaker. And these rights are not arbitrary they have been defined in the constitution.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak And we do that by law not what each person "thinks" is right. And when the law is unclear or one thinks it wrong we take it to court and arbit it. You are advocating your opinion that guns cannot in any way be regulated. The Supreme Court and Congress disagree and their opinion is the LAW of the LAND. If you break it like Mr. Hamblen did then you will be in club fed! Don't like the 1934 NFA? Get your congressman to repeal it! Otherwise, live with it or go to JAIL.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Another reason why you are confused is because you are assuming that we have any right we want, well that's simply wrong. If that was the case there would not be such theory of Rights. But Rights are not many. Rights are derived from property as I told you, and yes I believe that if you are in your property you can be naked or even have an orgy with hundreds of people. It's up to others to prove that your behavior in your property offended the RIGHT of anyone else.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak And lots of people have differing views from you and believe things like health care are basic human rights. SO who is right? Your opinion is one thing but there must be some entity that decides for the good of all and that is our government and system of democracy. The facts are you cannot do whatever you want on your property and laws restrict that. The three "rights" you list above would easily be distorted by others to do whatever they wished.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr "And lots of people have differing views from you and believe things like health care are basic human rights. SO who is right?"
I am right and they are wrong cause Rights derive from property and I have proven according to this postulate that health-care cannot ever be considered a right.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak LOL! OK well we will now defer all matters of law to the great fresniak for resolution. Funny. You liked Heller didn't you? And McDonald too? Well the Supreme Court gave you those and not the great fresniak. Rights BTW DO NOT derive from property they dervie from God or nature whatever your bent is. They are "self-evident" and those without property have them as well as those who do not.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr All rights derive from property, you have right to life and freedom cause you own your body and mind. It's always property that defines rights.
You keep ignoring my statement that you need to change the constitution in order to redefine rights, laws CANNOT SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION. And regulating dangerous things is possible without infringing rights of the people. The constitution was created so that gvt may not become tyrannical. I had enough with you, you have the brain of a mouse.
fresniak 1 year ago
@fresniak Wrong again. reread the Delcaration of Independence for better info than you are apparently getting. "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." Don't see property in there. Do see Creator. You have clearly lost the argument as now you resort to name calling. You are ignorant and proud of it. Sad.
tkcarr 1 year ago
Comment removed
fresniak 1 year ago