It's true that you are not appealing to our ignorance of the law - and NOBODY ever said you were. After you told me you were ignorant of the law, I was helping to educate readers as to how absolutely wrong you were on every issue. Then you finally cite the law that says each state is sovereign and that means ... THAT MEANS YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND THAT THE SIX STATES THAT DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS ARE NOT GOVERNED BY ANOTHER STATE'S LAWS. The cite in your post proves it. Or are you trying to screw with people again? You do realize that for as much as you say against the "right" that liberalism is a mental disorder? Right? And if you aren't screwing with peoples heads, you just proved one point in my list of 18 reasons why you're wrong. I'll post it again and you guess which number.
just lousy reading comprehension, like usual for the right. I stated the concept of natural rights is the same. What is not covered under the concept of natural rights by the State Constitution I cited? All States recognize and secure the concept of natural rights. - - - Updated - - - simply quibbling over semantics because you don't have a clue or a Cause? unalienable and inalienable are synonyms. only the right never gets it.
I wouldn't know. Are you a part of the "right?" Once again, the lady has proven her abject ignorance AND total disregard for the truth. I think she stays up 24 / 7 just to respond to me. At least she isn't sleeping too good.
Yes, they are. I Only need to reference any dictionary of the English language; our Constitutions are social Contracts. - - - Updated - - - Because they are not different. They are synonyms. And, contract law has to go by the Terms used in the Contract.
IRRELEVANT, COUNSELOR Who is paying you to do this much trolling? How many times do I have to post the list before you respond to it? Layman dictionaries won't do the trick. The rulings by courts trump your layman definitions. - - - Updated - - -
- - - Updated - - - All I have to do, is consult Any dictionary of synonyms. You have to prove they are not synonyms. Those two words are as fungible as money in any given sentence, and will not change the meaning.
The core point are right these strong and strict laws + strong and strict executive using these laws in these countries! In the USA you dont have this at least and it is at least not wanted on one hand, but all these crimes including amok runs with guns are blamed as bad on the other hand. So as one of these foreigners it is for strange when being unpleased with the crimes, but not seeing or wanting to do something against it at least. BTW theoretically you can buy for sport an AR-15 in Germany too, but in practice not really due to these strong and strict laws, because there is no official gun sport or hunting existing which allows or use this weapon. And that the AR-15 is so bad imaged has to do with a) that being in origin (even changed of course) a military weapon and b) being no. 1 weapon of criminals and amok runs aside pistols. I as German can make a shrunk about your US weapon laws of course, because your laws which do not impact me at all at least but out of freedom of speech, only one question: Isnt it ridiculous when an 18 year old person is not allowed to buy a bottle of Whisky, but allowed to buy a gun? By law not old enough to become drunk because law rates them not to be of age enough to decide by their own but to buy a lethal tool they are age enough.
You must be 21 to purchase a firearm, States vary as far as ownership and use of firearms however. You can enlist in the Military at age 18 and get to use all manner of weapons and machine guns etc... We have strict laws about who can buy any Gun in a Gun store, just that Anti-Gun people do not acknowledge this, first, there is a Federal Universal Background check in all States, some States like California, Massachusetts, New York City, New Jersey, go much further and either have Bans on various Rifles and or other restrictions on concealed carry, and complicated purchase requirements. The States with very basic but comprehensive controls also have the lowest crime rates, the States with the most restrictive Gun Laws like New York State / NYC, has very high crime compared to Vermont, that has only the Federal Universal background check and form 4473,. The people committing the largest percentage of Crime are inner city slum dwellers, Minorities, Blacks & Hispanics involved in trade of illegal Drugs and other Criminal activities, these people are not buying their Guns from Gun stores, they illegally obtain them through other people not obeying the Law with full intent to supply Guns to prohibited persons. I witnessed one such attempted purchase at a friend's Gun store in Philadelphia, a young Black woman wanted to purchase a Tech -9, I was helping out at the counter, and I asked her questions, I was able to figure out the purchase was for her boyfriend, an illegal straw sale and I declined the purchase, I told her to come back with her boyfriend, however, that never happened. There are people with Mental illness that also sometimes acquire Firearms and commit shootings, this is regrettably sad, however, there is no conceivable manner to prevent these tragedies. The Federal Bureau of investigation, FBI, has determined that Rifles such as the AR-15 account for a tiny percentage of Crimes committed, handguns are more commonly used in Crime. Finally, the vast majority of Gun Owners with concealed carry licenses are Law Abiding and not committing Crimes, the People committing the bulk of Crimes are Felons and repeat offenders and the Courts are to blame for not prosecuting these Criminals and releasing them early to re-offend, once out of jail, they boast how fast & easy they get more Guns from their Criminal Friends. The Liberal solution to Crime is to severely restrict Firearms to the People not committing the Crimes since they can't take Firearms away from the Minorities that do commit the Crimes leaving Good People defenseless, and that is no solution as well as a Crime.
Any time you want to take me on with a Merriam Webster Dictionary versus a Black's Law Dictionary and a few court rulings interpreting a word or phrase, don't sing it, BRING IT. You will, predictably lose in court.
OK, a handgun, my mistake, however, in many States the age to use a handgun varies, hunting, target shooting etc. You can serve in the Military and die in the line of Duty, and yet not be old enough to legally drink a beer.
dude; you provided the article yourself, that Black's Law Dictionary did not even define the word, inalienable, or indefeasible. Both those terms are found in State Constitutions and secured in State Courts of the People, not the State. - - - Updated - - - not at all; you are Still, merely clueless and Causeless. it is why i believe, the right never gets it. States only recognize inalienable rights at the state level Our federal Constitution only secures, Due Process from State Courts and State Constitutions.
You also have a supreme court that eliminated the concept of limited government by expanding the commerce clause to give government authority over everything it wishes.
We have a Tenth Amendment. And, if you are referring to the Commerce Clause, you are merely proving my point about sloth in federal government.
Ultimately it stems from a lack of actual prosecution for such crimes being committed. In the last seven years, the number of individuals to be prosecuted for attempting to illegally purchase a firearm has dwindled to far less than one percent of the numbers who commit such an offense. The number of individuals prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm is minute enough to be almost nonexistent. The various laws are being ignored and go unused, suggesting new legislative restrictions would do no better. The united states has created sports around the design. Such as a large number of bolt-action rifles that were fielded during world wars one and two? The AR-15 was a civilian rifle originally, before later being adapted for the military approximately two years after it was introduced to the market. Its primary cartridge was itself modified from a preexisting hunting cartridge. In the united states the FBI has reported that more people are beaten to death, than are killed with rifles of any kind. This would suggest the AR-15 is hardly the primary weapon of the criminal element. As has been noted, the legal age for purchase of a handgun is twenty one years. However someone who is eighteen can easily enlist in the united states military, and be trained to manage far more destructive weapons. Not being old enough to own a handgun does not stop them from being given access to a rocket propelled grenade launcher.
Yep. Pretty sad when we can trust an 18 year to drive a tank, fire the gun on the tank, operate an AT4 or Javelin anti tank missle launcher, carry a M240/249 machine gun or a M203 grenade launcher, and have frag grenades but that same 18 year can't carry conceal in most states.
I should charge the troll for proving her wrong. For example, she keeps saying that I'm arguing this from the "right." When in the Hell did government websites become run by the right? Let's ask PBS for their take: "In 1776, Americans proclaimed their focus on rights in the Declaration of Independence. It stated that all people were created with certain unalienable rights and that the very purpose of government was to secure these rights. ... the first Congress under the Constitution proposed twelve amendments on September 25, 1789. Ten of those were ratified by the states on December 15, 1791, and became known as the Bill of Rights. The First through Eighth Amendments protect the rights of individuals... http://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/rights/#.V_wxXiQpC1s danielpalos is doing her dead level best to rewrite history - and to no avail. So, daniella, are you going to argue that PBS is a right wing fantasy?
UPDATED AGAIN! TWENTY REASONS that danielpalos is wrong 1 - Thomas Jefferson: On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. Thomas Jefferson 2 - If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield. George Washington (Farewell Address) 3 - [A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity. George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights 4 -Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can. Samuel Adams, American statesman, political philosopher and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States 5 - 17th-century Englishman John Locke, philosopher discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract Preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights 6 - The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356. 7 - 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 (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence which is at the head of the U.S. Code, the official laws of the United States and has been used as precedent in over 100 cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.) Unalienable rights are described as the same natural inherent and absolute Rights listed in numbers 3, 4, 5, and six of this list 8 - " Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the Creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights. 9 - Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights. 10 - "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree.. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) was a Georgia state supreme court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the .Second Amendment This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds 11 - The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. 1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 12 - "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859) 13 - "To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (187 14 - "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp.(*)253. (a) The Amendments prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clauses text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp.(*)222." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200 15 - individual self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment right ...elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010) 16 - "In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. ...Madison argued that a declaration of rights would help install the judiciary as "guardians" of(*) individual rights against the other branches". http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...ghtsintro.html 17 - danielpalos maintains that states bestow upon individuals their rights AND that a state constitutional provision in one state dictates the law in other states. This is civics 101 high school. This position is wrong on every level 18 - The most recent attack against the people by this individual trolling this thread is to make the false claim that the Declaration of Independence is not law. That has been disproven in earlier posts on this thread. So, in sum, danielpalos denies that the term used to describe natural rights, God given Rights, inherent Rights is unalienable rights. Look at the exact word used in the Declaration of Independence. This entire argument revolves around Rights. Do you think the government grants you your God given, natural, inherent, unalienable Rights OR do you believe that Rights emanate from a Creator (whomever you deem that to be) and are above the reach of law? You've been given the cites and links to read about this in detail. 19 - Merriam Webster dictionaries, online dictionaries, and anything written by laymen has no binding authority on the courts that interpret the law. It does not matter what a dictionary says. If a court has issued a ruling on the meaning of a word or a phrase, then that is the law. In 1803 the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Marbury v. Madison, that the United States Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the law is. Sorry daniella 20 - It is a well know precedent in our American system of jurisprudence and he United States Supreme Court has ruled: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 386 p. 491 One thing I get that danielpalos is hiding from you: If the government grants rights, then the government can take those rights with or without your consent. If you take a license / permit in exchange for your Rights, you have agreed with danielpalos. Only you can decide whether or not your Rights are for sale - and more importantly whether they are inalienable or unalienable. Regardless of danielpalos attempts to spin the law, the above proves, directly from the founding fathers to standing precedents in law that: A) You have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms B) Your right to keep and bear Arms is absolute and you do NOT derive the Right from the state C) You do not have to be in the militia to keep and bear Arms; neither does a militiaman have any special Rights over the citizen in keeping and bearing Arms D) Unalienable Rights absolutely are not secured by the state; they are merely acknowledged by the state. States only recognize inalienable rights at the state level E) Unalienable Rights cannot be forfeited and the state has no authority to take away an unalienable Right. Inalienable rights, on the other hand, can be forfeited or taken away by the government This is the law. It is not "propaganda," right wing fantasy, rhetoric or any of the few other terms danielpalos can come up with. Unless she can show you a standing statute, court decision or something other than a layman's explanation, the above constitutes the basic laws she keeps chattering about. Every time she comes back with her one line zingers (the same old, same old) we can quote this post and demonstrate by number WHY this individual has proven she cannot read. danielpalos has stated you cannot appeal to her ignorance of the law. She's wrong and she knows it. She has proven to be clueless, causeless, and living in a world of fantasy with just enough room for her. Even liberals that hate guns don't come rushing to her defense. Don't it make you wonder why? Responding to danielpalos last criticism of me, she LIED about what was shown to her in Black's Law Dictionary. She needs to read this list.
There are so many statistics milling around and there is a true saying about statistics: “Never trust any statistic which you have not faked by your own”. At least are statistics (and expertise) a matter to back own minds of group A against B and it is usually that B makes a counter-statistic of course and so which one you will believe is your own decision and has lesser to do with truth as with opinions. This is given at this topic here too … Sure, in the USA it is given, maybe in this or that country too, but it is a local sport at least and in Germany it is not. Gun Sport is of course in Germany and has a long tradition, but usually only with such weapons as at Olympic Games etc. But with an AR-15 you can forget in Germany and several other European countries …. Even for an Air gun it is not easy to get legal here! Majority of gun weapons are in origin war weapons or are developments or further developments of military or police arms since ever. This does back the saying that guns are developed to kill (others or at hunting) in the first (no matter if offensive or defensive) and then used for other things like sport. However, there is a difference given between such weapons and weapons: History! To collect shoot able historic weapons legally is one point, but weapons in current use of military is another point. But honestly it is a large grey area between when ending to be historic and starting to be current use. As you know, the 0.50cal M2 was in use in WW-2 and is still in use by US Forces and others. But to stay at this weapon: Why does someone need a private, full function able 0.50cal MG today? I’m familiar with the history of the AR-15 from Stoner, the following M16 variants including the M-4 and the current AR-15 from Colt or the HK-416 and all the sub-modifications etc etc. etc. Correct is that the origin was the AR-10 with 7.62mm which was re-designed to the AR-15 with 0.223cal Remington ammunition and then given for tests to US Army, but failed for the first. It was then introduced to police forces and later 8,500 were delivered to US Air force security forces before it finally entered as M-16 the US Army and rest too (short version of history). You can make comparing’s that at this and that more people die or are killed as by guns / rifles. But this does not change the fact that the AR-15 is too often used in criminal and terrorist actions of last years as to be ignored…. Think for Aurora, Newton and San Bernadino. On the other hand it is the same with the famous AK-47 Kalashnikov of course, but does anyone here deny that this was a military weapon (even that only semi-automatic in civilian use). And so isn’t it ridiculous that an 18 year old person is by law age enough to be drilled to be soldier and to use deadliest weapons in military of the USA … but not age enough to go into a bar to drink a whisky?
People are killed by guns. To that I would not argue. OTOH, IF the gun owners in the United States wanted to stop mass killings by firearms, they would take an active role in making it harder to get SSRIs (psychotropic drugs), keeping the users in a controlled environment AND we would quit trying to fool ourselves about this idiotic notion of legal v. "illegal" aliens. But, to put this into perspective for you, we have more people killed by people driving under the influence of alcohol each year as compared to gun deaths. Why not outlaw alcoholic drinks? And, again, you, as a nonsmoker, are five times more likely to be killed by second hand smoke than by a firearm in the U.S. (and that includes police actions and wars.) Government cannot protect every individual from every possible cause. The reality is, the firearm can have a useful purpose. It can save your life; it can fend off evil people; it can be the tool that feeds you. Can't say that about alcohol, cigarettes or any of the other causes of death in front of firearms. At the end of the day, I choose to be the master of my own destiny and allow no man to tyrannize me.
