Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight

[Blueshell]

This guy...

Completely nonsensical. You can't agree with the definition from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the founding fathers, and then say 'But they don't agree with themselves.'

Definitions don't come from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the founding fathers. Definitions come from the dictionary.
.

Again, the discussion is about the USA. I couldn't care less how you personally define or interpret it.

You think I'm from another country or something? I'm a US citizen and have only left the US twice, one of which was for combat deployment, so wtf are you even talking about?
.

All I'm talking about is this massive delusion you have that you get to define what rights are in the US, and what's in our Constitution means nothing unless you say it does. And the true height of all comedy is that you actually think you have the legs to stand on to lecture others on this.

I'm describing rights, not defining them. Their definitions were set long before I was born.
.

You seem to completely miss the fact that by claiming superiority over the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution...

I've don no such thing. I said they were wrong, as in 'factually incorrect'. They were wrong about women's rights and slavery, too. If I claimed superiority over the founding fathers that would be my saying that I could have come up with a better Constitution back then they could have. I don't know that to be true, that's not testable, so I've made no such claim.

We can PROVE natural rights do not exist. We can PROVE this as certainly as we can PROVE the Earth is round.

This isn't the first thing the Founding Fathers were wrong about so don't act like they're infallible gods. This is the Constitution, not the Word Of God. They were very, very smart men who wrote a Constitution that could "form a more perfect union" over time.

The RKBA exists as a Civil Right created by the social compact of Christianity and has never been defined in a way to excuse or authorize negligence resulting in harm to others, and thus a minimal safe-storage law is not an infringement.

 

[Blueshell]

Actually you bring up a good point. I phrased that quite poorly. The founders made it quite clear that they weren't establishing or creating those rights. They were simply affirming what was already naturally endowed by the creator, and enjoining the government from infringing upon them. Thanks for pointing out my error.

The social compact of the United States acknowledges the pre-existing RKBA which the millenia-old social compact of Christianity created.

The RKBA exists as a Civil Right, not as a Natural Right, because "the laws of nature and of nature's God" grant no rights at all beyond perhaps the right to "pursue happiness"; but even that's debatable.

 

[Rhino]

Definitions don't come from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the founding fathers. Definitions come from the dictionary.

You're playing word games. Those documents and the founders very much define our rights, and how our rights apply in this country, to include the philosophy of natural rights and how natiural rights apply to US citizens.
.

You think I'm from another country or something? I'm a US citizen and have only left the US twice, one of which was for combat deployment, so wtf are you even talking about?

Well, that would explain your apparent ignorance of our founding documents and the tenets this nation was built on.
.

I'm describing rights, not defining them. Their definitions were set long before I was born.

Yet you've been continually denying that they exist. You have been defining rights. You've been defining what they are, how they apply and their limits, at least in your eyes. You've gone to great lengths to define what you believe they aren't, and to describe in detail how you feel the definitions of others are incorrect, which is the same thing as defining. I guess I can't blame you too much for being confused though. You can't even keep up with what you're saying. In one post you said "Natural rights do not exist, on any level, in any way, what so ever", and in another post you said, "Natural rights cannot be forced away from you."
.

I've don no such thing. I said they were wrong, as in 'factually incorrect'.

You most certainly have claimed superiority over the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They all speak of natural rights. They all speak of things you say don't exist or are wrong, and that's the real point here. You can say the sun rises in the west all you want, and you can argue til you're blue in the face that you can prove it, but that won't chnage the fact that you aren't the person that makes that decision. You don't get to decide what rights we have in the United States. You don't get to decide which rights are natural or not. You can disagree with the founders and the Constitution all you want, but no amount of huffing and puffing on this forum will ever change that. Those things were decided when our nation was formed. And while you may feel your revisionist thinking gives you the upper hand somehow in this debate, nothing will change the fact that those documents slap you completely in the face. Attempting to divert the topic away to women's rights or slavery won't change that either. There is simply no way you can convince anyone that you're a higher authority on rights in America than the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the founding fathers, which is the substance of your argument.

 

[Rhino]

The social compact of the United States acknowledges the pre-existing RKBA which the millenia-old social compact of Christianity created.

The RKBA exists as a Civil Right, not as a Natural Right, because "the laws of nature and of nature's God" grant no rights at all beyond perhaps the right to "pursue happiness"; but even that's debatable.

And some day when you form your own country you'll be able to make that the law of the land. But this country doesn't belong to you, and you don't get to make those rules. I am starting to sense an anti-religion sentiment that might explain some of this bluster though. The right was acknowledged long before Christianity.

Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.
--- Aristotle

 

[Blueshell]

And some day when you form your own country you'll be able to make that the law of the land. But this country doesn't belong to you, and you don't get to make those rules.

Right, there's a systom in place to make the rules. That systom says SCOTUS gets to interpret law, and SCOTUS uses Strict Scrutiny.

Once again your argument fails against the perfect logic I employ.

 

[Blueshell]

You're playing word games. Those documents and the founders very much define our rights, and how our rights apply in this country, to include the philosophy of natural rights and how natiural rights apply to US citizens.
.

Well, that would explain your apparent ignorance of our founding documents and the tenets this nation was built on.
.

Yet you've been continually denying that they exist. You have been defining rights. You've been defining what they are, how they apply and their limits, at least in your eyes. You've gone to great lengths to define what you believe they aren't, and to describe in detail how you feel the definitions of others are incorrect, which is the same thing as defining. I guess I can't blame you too much for being confused though. You can't even keep up with what you're saying. In one post you said "Natural rights do not exist, on any level, in any way, what so ever", and in another post you said, "Natural rights cannot be forced away from you."
.

You most certainly have claimed superiority over the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They all speak of natural rights. They all speak of things you say don't exist or are wrong, and that's the real point here. You can say the sun rises in the west all you want, and you can argue til you're blue in the face that you can prove it, but that won't chnage the fact that you aren't the person that makes that decision. You don't get to decide what rights we have in the United States. You don't get to decide which rights are natural or not. You can disagree with the founders and the Constitution all you want, but no amount of huffing and puffing on this forum will ever change that. Those things were decided when our nation was formed. And while you may feel your revisionist thinking gives you the upper hand somehow in this debate, nothing will change the fact that those documents slap you completely in the face. Attempting to divert the topic away to women's rights or slavery won't change that either. There is simply no way you can convince anyone that you're a higher authority on rights in America than the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the founding fathers, which is the substance of your argument.

I haven't denied that rights per-se exist.

This is about the kind of right RKBA is, not whether or not it exists at all.

We can prove Natural Rights do not exist at all. All that need's don is document 1 case where the right to arms was freely given up, or forcibly removed, and this is proven.

The RKBA exists as a Civil Right, and as such is defined by the social compact that created it.

"Is limited", not "to limit". A law is not necessarily an infringement. You don't get to decide these things, there is a system in place and that system uses Strict Scrutiny.

Don't you see how your argument defeats itself? You rely on the DoI, Federalist Papers, the Constitution and other documents...THOSE ARE SOCIAL COMPACTS!

 

[DavidWhite]

Once again your argument fails against the perfect logic I employ.

Link Removed

 

[Blueshell]

Link Removed

I think you posted this like 5 times over the last week. Time to get some new material.

 

[Rhino]

Right, there's a systom in place to make the rules. That systom says SCOTUS gets to interpret law, and SCOTUS uses Strict Scrutiny.
.
Once again your argument fails against the perfect logic I employ.

My argument? The only point I've made is that you don't get to decide that rights mean something different from what the founding fathers and the documents that created this country say they are.
.

I haven't denied that rights per-se exist.
.
This is about the kind of right RKBA is, not whether or not it exists at all.

Case in point. You think you have the power to proclaim a right guaranteed by the Constitution doesn't exist. You have no such power, and your claim is ludicrous. There's no "argument" at all.
.

We can prove Natural Rights do not exist at all. All that need's don is document 1 case where the right to arms was freely given up, or forcibly removed, and this is proven.

We? Sorry dude, but I'm not on that fantasy island with you.
.

The RKBA exists as a Civil Right, and as such is defined by the social compact that created it.
.
"Is limited", not "to limit". A law is not necessarily an infringement. You don't get to decide these things, there is a system in place and that system uses Strict Scrutiny.
.
Don't you see how your argument defeats itself?

Again, haven't made an argument. Still kind of chuckling at this delusion of grandeur you're suffering from.
.
By the way, strict scrutiny isn't capitalized, and it doesn't work that way. It isn't applied against rights. It's applied against laws that infringe on them. But that's too deep a subject for someone who doesn't know how the founding principles of this nation were established, so I'm asking too much by expecting you to understand that.
.

You rely on the DoI, Federalist Papers, the Constitution and other documents...THOSE ARE SOCIAL COMPACTS!

Oh my! Inside voice please. Have Mommy give you another pill and put you down for a nap. When you get older, maybe she'll send you to school where you'll learn that those documents determine how rights really work in this country. And I suppose it's going to be really painful when you get there and find out you really aren't in charge.

 

[DavidWhite]

I think you posted this like 5 times over the last week. Time to get some new material.

Better?
Link Removed

It's certainly more fitting of your intellect.

 

[Blueshell]

My argument? The only point I've made is that you don't get to decide that rights mean something different from what the founding fathers and the documents that created this country say they are.
.

You argue that the right is whatever the social compact says it is. Your argument once again defeats itself.

If it were a true Natural Right then you would be citing where in nature it's found. You keep citing social compacts instead, further proving that the RKBA, like all rights, exist only within social compacts and are thus are Civil Rights, not a Natural Rights.

A document claiming X is a Natural Right does not make X a Natural Right. X has to be inalienable in order to be a Natural Right. Any right you can name can be alienated.

Case in point. You think you have the power to proclaim a right guaranteed by the Constitution doesn't exist.[/color]

Not just proclaim, I can demonstrate it. It's as testable as gravity. Name any right, and if anyone can document even 1 instance of it being alienated, ever, then it's not a Natural Right.

It's applied against laws that infringe on them.

It's applied to a law to determin if the law is an infringement.

But that's too deep a subject for someone who doesn't know how the founding principles of this nation were established, so I'm asking too much by expecting you to understand that.
.[/color

You're relying on social compacts again...proving my point...

...those documents determine how rights really work in this country. ...

Nature determines Natural Rights. Documents determin Civil Rights.

 

[Blueshell]

Better?
Link Removed

It's certainly more fitting of your intellect.

I saw you use that one yesterday.

 

[DavidWhite]

Your point?

 

[Rhino]

You argue that the right is whatever the social compact says it is. Your argument once again defeats itself.

If it were a true Natural Right then you would be citing where in nature it's found. You keep citing social compacts instead, further proving that the RKBA, like all rights, exist only within social compacts and are thus are Civil Rights, not a Natural Rights.

You're trying to put words in my mouth again. I haven't argued anything. I don't need to. I stated what the founders established for rights in this country. You're the one trying to argue they were wrong and that what you think is somehow superior to what they said. I don't need to argue the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. This is America. If you're going to insist the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are wrong, then the burden of proof is entirely upon you. Now I know you feel you waged a deeply convincing argument full of logic and wisdom, but you haven't even put a dent in the Constitution. It has been good for some laughs though, so feel free to continue if you want.
.

A document claiming X is a Natural Right does not make X a Natural Right. X has to be inalienable in order to be a Natural Right. Any right you can name can be alienated.

This could be part of your conundrum. To Americans, The Constitution is a whole lot more than just "a document." I guess I can understand some of your confusion if you can't grasp that concept.
.

Not just proclaim, I can demonstrate it. It's as testable as gravity. Name any right, and if anyone can document even 1 instance of it being alienated, ever, then it's not a Natural Right.

Still under the delusion that the world operates by your rules, huh? Your life must be really frustrating.
.

It's applied to a law to determin if the law is an infringement.

I believe I just mentioned that.
.

You're relying on social compacts again...proving my point...

Actually I'm relying on you to totally misunderstand the concept, and you're doing an absolutely stellar job. Congratulations.
.

Nature determines Natural Rights. Documents determin Civil Rights.

Wow. I actually thought you'd get that right. Documents don't determine anything. They have no power of reasoning.
.
I'm curious how long you plan to go in this endless circle. You don't have the authority or power to determine the things you're trying to claim here, so all you're doing is hopelessly spinning your wheels. Quite frankly your earlier posts in this thread seemed to indicate at least a moderate intelligence level, so I find it somewhat bewildering that you're expending this much energy in an attempt to claim supremacy over the Constitution and the founding fathers as to the tenets this nation was founded on. I grant you that it's amusing, but I'm sure that won't last all that long. But it's a futile and pointless effort, so I can't help but wonder why you seem so hell bent on going down this path. I know I'm not going to play this game forever, and obviously everyone else has gotten tired of yanking your chain. You know everyone's just been toying with you, right?

 

[Blueshell]

If you're going to insist the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are wrong, then the burden of proof is entirely upon you.

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.

Now I know you feel you waged a deeply convincing argument full of logic and wisdom, but you haven't even put a dent in the Constitution.

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.

Still under the delusion that the world operates by your rules, huh?

Neither of us were born when these rules were made.

You don't have the authority or power to determine the things you're trying to claim here, so all you're doing is hopelessly spinning your wheels.

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

I know I'm not going to play this game forever, and obviously everyone else has gotten tired of yanking your chain.

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

 

[BluesStringer]

The Constitution says the Supreme Court gets to interpret law....

Please cite the passage(s) of The Constitution that "says" the Supreme Court gets to interpret law. I know you won't, because you can't, but this sophistry needs to be challenged every time you spew the lie.

The men and women who sit/have sat on the Supreme Court are human beings. They are as fallible, potentially evil, potentially tyrannical and potentially usurping as any other human being who is an official of government, and from top to bottom, the government is full of usurpers and the wider society is full of useful idiots who enable their incrementally-imposed tyranny. Your obstinance against even acknowledging the clear intent of the Founders of this country as not making the Supreme Court empowered to interpret laws made and signed by Congress and the Executive makes you and your ilk among the most useful to tyrants. You're not fooling anybody, and you're certainly not convincing anybody.

Thomas Paine may have said it best: "All power exercised over a nation…must be either delegated, or assumed…All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation." The Supreme Court assumed power to "establish strict scrutiny." Nowhere in The Constitution is the power articulated for any branch of government to establish a way of interpreting as outdated, irrelevant or unintended the clear and unambiguous meanings of the words within it. "Strict scrutiny" or "judicial review" of any sort as a "legal" axiom is wholly made-up by the oligarchs who benefit from its sheep-like, useful-idiot acquiescence by the citizenry, and as James Madison, often-referred to as "The Father of The Constitution" said in Federalist #10, "“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." It benefits the Judiciary by putting it above the Legislative and Executive branches, and absolutely nothing in The Constitution "says" the High Court has anything but the powers granted it by The Constitution, which throughout defines a co-equal system of governance between the three branches. If co-equal is the mandate, then how can review and overruling of two branches by the other be "constitutional" when the other two supposedly have no way to overrule the overrulers?

You should really stop talking about The Constitution and the courts. You embarrass yourself at least a couple of times a day since you started spewing in this thread. And the embarrassment is that you talk like you know something when The Constitution, Declaration, Federalist Papers and thousands of quotes by Founders prove that you don't have a freakin' clue of what you're talking about. I predict another embarrassing post within 10...9...8...7...

Blues

 

[Blueshell]

Please cite the passage(s) of The Constitution that "says" the Supreme Court gets to interpret law.

Ahh you didn't graduate high-school. That's ok, I'm here to help.

Constitution Of The United States
Article 3, Section 2.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. ..."

If you have any other questions please feel free to ask

The men and women who sit/have sat on the Supreme Court are human beings. They are as fallible...

I agree the Justices were/are fallible, like when SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution granted no right to vote to women in Minor v. Happersett, thus the 19th Amendment was born.

Humans are fallible, which is why our Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution which could evolve over time. It's a miraculous document, truly. The Founders, like all Men, were fallible themselves. They owned slaves, they didn't let their women own property or vote, and they said Natural Rights were a thing even though we can conclusively prove they are not. We can also prove the Earth is round, so if the Founding Fathers wrote a document to the contrary, you would be here arguing that the Earth was flat because they wrote a document saying so and facts be damned.

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court power over this topic, the Supreme Court has established Strict Scrutiny when it comes to matters of specifically enumerated rights such as the RKBA, and a minimal safe-storage law would survive Strict Scrutiny, thus not being an infringement.

You would be better served arguing based on the effectiveness of safe-storage laws per-se.

 

[BluesStringer]

Please cite the passage(s) of The Constitution that "says" the Supreme Court gets to interpret law.

Ahh you didn't graduate high-school. That's ok, I'm here to help.

Constitution Of The United States
Article 3, Section 2.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. ..."

If you have any other questions please feel free to ask

Yeah, I do have another question. Two in fact. One, since you're supposedly answering my question asking you to cite where The Constitution "says" SCOTUS gets to interpret law, where is the word "interpret" or the words "shall interpret" in Article III, Section 2?

And two, if co-equal is the mandate, then how can review and overruling of two branches by the other be "constitutional" when the other two have no way to overrule the overrulers?

Actually I have a third question too. Have you always been a oligarchyfluffer?

Blues

 

[Blueshell]

Yeah, I do have another question. Two in fact. One, since you're supposedly answering my question asking you to cite where The Constitution "says" SCOTUS gets to interpret law, where is the word "interpret" or the words "shall interpret" in Article III, Section 2?

It's contained within the term "Link Removed".

And two, if co-equal is the mandate, then how can review and overruling of two branches by the other be "constitutional" when the other two have no way to overrule the overrulers?

Equal =/= same. Legislative makes the law, Judicial interprets the law, and the Executive enforces the law.

Have you always been a oligarchyfluffer?

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

[DavidWhite]

Humans are fallible, which is why our Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution which could evolve over time. It's a miraculous document, truly.

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

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.”

S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk