Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight

[BluesStringer]

It's contained within the term "judicial power".

Businessdictionary.com? Wasn't it you hammering Bikenut or someone else about only using a legal dictionary when researching legal definitions? Regardless, the word "interpret" doesn't appear in The Constitution, and nothing in that particular definition nor any other even from a legal dictionary says it does.

With all your claimed psychotic-level attention to detail due to your suffering the mental disorder known as "OCD," I'm surprised you don't read and understand what you read any better than you do. There's a very important phrase in Article III, Section 2 that you clearly fail to understand the significance of, so let me highlight that for you:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution....

Everything in Article III, Section 2 that follows the words "under this Constitution" relates to SCOTUS being granted the authority to umpire disputes based only on what is actually written in The Constitution. As such, while there may indeed be a similar bit of interpretive wiggle room as an umpire has to call balls and strikes, SCOTUS interpreting words or ideas not addressed in any way within the text of The Constitution and its attendant amendments should be taken as no more serious or valid than if a pitcher threw a pitch nowhere near the strike-zone and the umpire called it a strike anyway. Umpires and players are governed by the same set of rules, just as The People, Executive, Congress and SCOTUS are governed by the same set of rules, The Constitution. If The Constitution says "shall not be infringed," it means shall not be infringed. If The Constitution doesn't say a word about various levels of scrutiny that SCOTUS is authorized to apply to the words and precepts of The Constitution, then SCOTUS doesn't get to make-up words or precepts that comport with their ideas of what the words and precepts mean that deviate wildly from the accepted understandings and definitions of the words being scrutinized, anymore than an umpire gets to call a pitch that is thrown over the head of the batter a strike.

While judicial activism does happen way too often, to say that The Constitution "says" SCOTUS can engage in it is anathema to anything described as being within the judiciary's powers in Article III or anywhere else in The Constitution. You repeating such sophomoric prattle that differing levels of scrutiny might apply to the plain language within the Bill of Rights and/or other parts of The Constitution will never, and can never, make it so, except as a way to support the notion that The Constitution itself is a wholly meaningless piece of decomposing sheepskin parchment whose limitations on the reach of government fade over time as much as the ink on the parchment itself does. That is precisely what you've been arguing all along, plus a few other brain-dead ideas like that I should be charged with reckless endangerment under a law that exists neither here in Alabama nor as a federal law that applies to citizens of Alabama. You fluff the oligarchs of the federal government at every turn.

Blues

 

[Rhino]

It's as testable as gravity. Natural Rights are inalienable, so any right that has ever been taken away or surrendered cannot be a Natural Right.

Really? How much do they weigh?
.

The Constitution says the Supreme Court gets to interpret law, and the Supreme Court has established Strict Scrutiny. A minimal safe-storage law would survive Strict Scrutiny.

Trying to change the subject again.
.

Neither of us were born when these rules were made.

Which still means the world doesn't operate by your rules, and that's right back where we started.
.

There's no special power or authority needed to use the scientific method and test anything.

Too bad those don't work on rights and the principles nations are founded on.
.

That's the difference between us: I don't quit.

Same as Jim Jones.
.
Still spinning those wheels.

 

[Blueshell]

Regardless, the word "interpret" doesn't appear in The Constitution, and nothing in that particular definition nor any other even from a legal dictionary says it does.

Here's another one:

“Authority, both constitutional and legal, given to the courts and its judges (1) to preside over and render judgment on court-worthy cases; (2) to enforce or void statutes and laws when scope or constitutionality are questioned (3) to interpret statutes and laws when disputes arise.”
What is JUDICIAL POWER? definition of JUDICIAL POWER (Black's Law Dictionary)

The Constitution gives SCOTS the power to interpret law, SCOTUS has established the Strict Scrutiny standard for doing so, a minimal safe-storage law would survive Strict Scrutiny.

 

[Blueshell]

Which still means the world doesn't operate by your rules, and that's right back where we started.

These aren't -my- rules, they're *the* rules.

 

[Blueshell]

If you are referencing "amendments" as the part that "evolves", your still a moron.

I said the Constitution evolves. The very existence of Amendments proves this.

Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”

Blues disagrees. You may want to clue him in.

 

[Blueshell]

Really? How much do they weigh?

Gravity doesn't weigh anything. Neither does light.

 

[calvin]

blueshell and davidwhite please refrain from personal attacks

davidwhite, doxing is prohibited on this forum

you may both consider this your warning

 

[DavidWhite]

Show me where I signed your "social compact".
I'll tell you right now, my signature is not there.
Sorry!

 

[Blueshell]

Show me where I signed your "social compact".
I'll tell you right now, my signature is not there.
Sorry!

And you think that's somehow relevant?

The social contract in question is the US Constitution, are you saying the Second Amendment doesn't protect your RKBA unles you sign the Constitution?

Link Removed
"an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects."

 

[Rhino]

These aren't -my- rules, they're *the* rules.

That's right, and *the* rules aren't made by you or defined by you. The founders took care of that for us. And although you apparently have an ego the size of Montana and consider yourself superior to everything this country was founded upon, you're still just a nobody blowing a lot of hot air who keeps looking more and more ridiculous every time he feigns omnipotence and claims that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are wrong, and the founding fathers were wrong about what tenets this nation was founded on, even though they were the ones that founded it. You sound like a loon. It's been amusing but I'm starting to tire of it, probably because your material never changes and it's getting boring.
.

Gravity doesn't weigh anything.

Then how did you test it if you couldn't weigh it? Let me guess. Sir Isaac Newton was wrong and you hold the only TRUE definition of gravity in the universe? Never mind. Don't answer that. You'll just start going in circles again.

 

[Blueshell]

That's right, and *the* rules aren't made by you or defined by you.

I never claimed they were.

The founders took care of that for us. And although you apparently have an ego the size of Montana and consider yourself superior to everything this country was founded upon, you're still just a nobody blowing a lot of hot air who keeps looking more and more ridiculous every time he feigns omnipotence and claims that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are wrong, and the founding fathers were wrong about what tenets this nation was founded on, even though they were the ones that founded it.

You see ego where there is non. What I present is dry fact. Natural Rights are inalienable. We can test any right by observing if it can be taken away or freely given up. Every right you can name can be taken away and/or freely given up, therefore no right is a Natural Right.

My pointing out that the founders were wrong on this point is an act of dry observation. There's no ego in it. They were men, not gods. They wrote a social contract, not scripture.

You sound like a loon. It's been amusing but I'm starting to tire of it, probably because your material never changes and it's getting boring.

Truth is the truth. I don't define it, and your denyal doesn't change it.

Then how did you test it if you couldn't weigh it?

The same way your computer tests itself through maintenence programs without weighing itself; by using logic algarythums.

Let me guess...

You guessed wrong.

If we were to compair a bowl of Kraft maceroni&cheese to the definition of a modern battleship, we could perform a number of observations, the totality of which leading us to surmise that the bowl of maceroni was not a battleship.

That you have a document written by smart and well meaning men claiming that the bowl of maceroni is a battle ship doesn't mean the bowl of maceroni is a battle ship; it means those men were incorrect. That they wrote it down and signed it changes nothing.

Natural Rights are much easier that that. Natural Rights are inalienable, so if a given right can be alienated, it's not a Natural Right.

The RKBA can and is forcibly removed and willingly given up by millions of people every day. Thus we can see the RKBA is not a Natural Right. The RKBA was created by a social contract and that social contract has never defined the RKBA in a way that would include negligence resulting in harm to others, so a minimal safe storage law can't be an infringement.

 

[Rhino]

That's right, and *the* rules aren't made by you or defined by you.

I never claimed they were.

.

...therefore no right is a Natural Right.

And yet, there you go once again trying to define them, right after claiming you didn't.
.

My pointing out that the founders were wrong on this point is an act of dry observation. There's no ego in it.

No truth either. What you claim to 'point out' is nothing more than your opinion.
.

They were men, not gods. They wrote a social contract, not scripture.

They wrote the principles on which this country was founded, including which rights were considered natural or inalienable, and how such rights were to be viewed and treated. But now your overinflated ego has you believing that your opinion on rights has nullified our Constitution and the tenets our founders set forth, because whatever you say is fact, and anything said by anyone else that doesn't agree with it is therefore wrong. You're right that it isn't mere ego though. It's narcissism to the point of absolute delusion. It's also incredibly repetitious, so if you can't do anything but keep playing this broken record then please spare me the incessant rambling.

 

[Blueshell]

.
And yet, there you go once again trying to define them, right after claiming you didn't.

Only if I literally wrote the dictionary could it be said that I am defining anything. You quoted me comparing the definition, which I didn't make, to the right, which I didn't make.
.

No truth either. What you claim to 'point out' is nothing more than your opinion.

In your opinion.
.

They wrote the principles on which this country was founded, including which rights were considered natural or inalienable, and how such rights were to be viewed and treated.

They were wrong on slavery and women's rights, they were wrong on Natural Rights as well. What makes the Founders great is that they knew they were imperfect and wrote a document to accommodate that. They didn't pretend to be the gods you hold them up as today.

But now your overinflated ego has you believing that your opinion on rights has nullified our Constitution and the tenets our founders set forth, because whatever you say is fact, and anything said by anyone else that doesn't agree with it is therefore wrong. You're right that it isn't mere ego though. It's narcissism to the point of absolute delusion. It's also incredibly repetitious, so if you can't do anything but keep playing this broken record then please spare me the incessant rambling.

I said the RKBA is a civil right which pre-dates the Constitution. That's not an argument for nullification.

I said Natural Rights don't exist, that doesn't mean no rights of any kind exist at all. Civil rights certainly exist and the RKBA is one of them.

If I thought the RKBA didn't exist then I wouldn't carry a gun every day as I do.

 

[Rhino]

Slavery and women's rights weren't in the Constitution, nor were they a principle the nation was founded on. The rest was, again, just another repeat of your omnipotence claims, so I won't bother with them again. You're just going in circles, and I have no desire to go with you.

 

[Blueshell]

Slavery and women's rights weren't in the Constitution, nor were they a principle the nation was founded on. The rest was, again, just another repeat of your omnipotence claims, so I won't bother with them again. You're just going in circles, and I have no desire to go with you.

“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”
― Viktor E. Frankl, Link Removed

Read the book then come back here and tell me that holocaust survivor is full of ego.

Natural Rights cannot be taken away. Since everything can be taken away from you, you have no Natural Rights. The Founders were wrong and we can objectively prove this with perfect replicability.

You think I'm going in circles because you choose to not understand. I've stayed in one spot this entire thread. The RKBA does not include negligence resulting in harm to others, which the product in OP condones. A minimal safe storage law is not an infringement.

You picked this fight. I'm not backing down.

 

[Rhino]

You think I'm going in circles because you choose to not understand. I've stayed in one spot this entire thread. The RKBA does not include negligence resulting in harm to others, which the product in OP condones. A minimal safe storage law is not an infringement.

You are going in circles because you keep coming back to the ludicrous assumption that your views on rights supersede what's set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and what our founders well documented as their intent for those rights. You also keep coming back in a circle to the the product in OP, which I believe I twice reminded you that I never mentioned or discussed.
.

You picked this fight. I'm not backing down.

You have no fight to back down from. That's what you don't get. You claiming omnipotence and superiority over the Constitution and our founders constitutes no fight whatsoever. It constitutes comedy at best, and lunacy at worst. You aren't in a battle. You missed the line where they were handing out the adult weapons and you're still sitting at the kids' table. There is no fight.

 

[Blueshell]

You are going in circles because you keep coming back to the ludicrous assumption that your views on rights supersede what's set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and what our founders well documented as their intent for those rights.

If the founders wrote down "2+2=3" you would argue that they were right because they said so and wrote it down, proof to the contrary be damned.

You also keep coming back in a circle to the the product in OP, which I believe I twice reminded you that I never mentioned or discussed.

The product in OP is the only thing this thread is about. I do keep returning to it because that's what we're here to discuss. All this talk about rights/constitution etc is a sidebar. If you don't want to discuss the product in OP then I don't know why you're in this thread.

./color]

Only your posts keep adding these in.

You claiming omnipotence and superiority over the Constitution and our founders constitutes no fight whatsoever.

I've made no such claim. I said they were wrong on this point and it's objectively provable.

You can't name a single right which cannot be alienated from you, which proves non of your rights fit what a "natural right" is.

That's not ego, that's dry fact.

 

[Rhino]

So you've got nothing. I knew this was getting boring.

 

[Blueshell]

So you've got nothing. I knew this was getting boring.

Just proof. I acknowledge that you find proof boring.

Natural Rights are "inalienable". Any right you name can be alienated from you either willingly or by force. Therefore you have no Natural Rights at all for a right to arms to be one of them.

All you have are Civil Rights. Civil Rights are created by social contracts. No social contract has ever defined any right so as to include negligence resulting in harm to others, thus a minimal safe-storage law falls outside of the RKBA, would survive Strict Scrutiny, and would thus not be an infringement.

Your Appeal o Authority Fallacy cannot succeed. Just because some people wrote something down one day doesn't make it true. It must be true in it's own right. In this case we can demonstrate, over and over and over, that what they wrote down is not true. We can prove the negative. The Founders were wrong. You're going to have to come to term with that on your own.

 

[jeanramar]

wow, nice gun hide
Link Removed