You are clueless, causeless, ignorant, deceitful, and full of crap. Courts DO define terms and phrases. Since you like online dictionaries so much. let's expose your ignorance using YOUR methods of interpretation: "the general definition of a word will govern interpretation, unless through custom, usage, or legal precedent a special meaning has been attached to the term." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/interpretation The words inalienable and unalienable HAVE been interpreted by legal precedent. They are different. You know what comes next. - - - Updated - - - READ THE LIST DANIELPALOS. YOUR ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. NO POINT WASTING MORE BANDWIDTH WHEN YOU ARE WRONG
Inalienable and indefeasible are found in State Constitutions. You, yourself acknowledged that Blacks Law dictionary did not define those words. They are defined in dictionaries for words, not laws.
Only an idiot would deny that the courts have defined the terminology on inalienable and unalienable Rights. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that anyone here is with the fantastical right as you call it just as we're sure you're not an idiot. Shall I post the reasons you're wrong to prove the point? Since you never read those points, nobody is sure what you're really arguing about. - - - Updated - - - LIE Try again. - - - Updated - - - SEE REASON 8
It was representative Carolyn McCarthy who stated outright that she had no concept of what a barrel shroud was, believed it was something that went over the shoulder, but still claimed that firearms possessing such features should be prohibited from private ownership. One simply does not get anymore clueless, than proposing prohibitions against something that they have no understanding of.
Which does what to address the fact that a lack of prosecutions for criminals is the primary reason for opposition to new legislative measures. Meaning what precisely? Has it ever been argued otherwise that firearms are deadly weapons by design, and cannot be made into anything else? The subject of "need" is in no way relevant to the discussion of constitutional rights. In the united states government is tasked with explaining why the public should not have something, rather than the public being tasked with explaining why they should be allowed to have something. Beyond such facts, the AR-15 is not a military firearm. And the AR-15 and M-16 are two different platforms of firearm, despite looking similar to one another. Their internal components are completely different, and cannot be easily interchanged. FBI estimates put the number of individuals killed by long guns of all variations at less than five hundred annually. That includes not simply the AR-15 but every bolt-action rifle, ever lever-action rifle, every pump-action shotgun, and every single shot platform. Less than five hundred, out of approximately twelve thousand firearm-related homicides, eighty percent of which have been proven as the fault of individuals with known criminal records and gang affiliations who cannot legally possess a firearm under any circumstances. On the scale of importance, the AR-15 ranks very low. It simply gains more attention because of the isolated incidents when it is used. However such instances ignore that the city of Chicago alone experiences approximately five hundred murders per year, all committed with stolen handguns. There are more important matters to worry about than a specific rifle being sporadically used, if ultimately it is saving lives that is important rather than politics. While on that subject, in the city of Nice, in the nation of France, eighty four individuals were murdered, and another three hundred injured in a matter of minutes, by one individual operating a motor vehicle. Excluding september eleventh from the list, this is a mass murder that exceeds every single other one experienced by the united states, and it was committed without firearms but rather a truck. It is indeed denied, because the semi-automatic version has never been used by any military in the world. It was neither designed, nor provided for military use, it is a civilian firearm. Its fame comes from its ability to function reliably in adverse conditions when regular maintenance is not an option, making it dependable. It would suggest that firearms pose less risk than intoxication, as intoxication impairs the individual whereas firearms do not.
It depends on your perspective. That is a traditional police power of a State, secured by our Second and Tenth Amendments.
Only in layman terms are the words unalienable and inalienable synonyms. They are treated differently by judicial interpretation and by interpretations in various legal dictionaries. This has been spelled out to you many times. No matter how many times danielpalos is PROVEN WRONG, she comes back for more - and trolling (not to mention that back door attempt to start name calling) is against the rules here. One more time we'll prove the point: "the general definition of a word will govern interpretation, unless through custom, usage, or legal precedent a special meaning has been attached to the term." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...interpretation The words inalienable and unalienable HAVE been interpreted by legal precedent. They are different. You know what comes next. - - - Updated - - - If we have to post this 100 times to get danielpalos to read it we can. (524)
I've heard it said that a person who could not use their brain may as well have been born with two butt holes... or similar facsimile thereof. We've now had this unending argument going on for at least 75 post or more and one poster refuses to acknowledge that the courts DO interpret both words and phrases when necessary. I spent a lot of time learning law - and generally from liberals in school, so when one certain poster is allowed to falsely accuse me of what I "don't get" I'm here to tell you they could not make a more idiotic statement. Liberal school teachers graded me and they say I know my stuff with legal research. Sooo... Nothing will change. I'm going to post that list over and over until I'm either responded to with a legal counter-opinion OR the trolling stops. It has nothing to do with a "fantastical right wing" as if the left has a monopoly on the truth and understanding. I know one thing for sure: calling me names over and over won't work when, each time, the responses are links to people who are teaching this from a left of center approach.
Okay, so you presented a fallacy. Big deal. Everybody forgives you. Now read the fricking list already. this silliness where you keep bringing up fallacies, and being proud that they are fallacies - and telling us that is getting OLD. Please read the list and quit with fallacies that we already know are fallacies. BTW, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are irrelevant to this discussion since the words inalienable and unalienable have been interpreted in case law. If you continue on with that irrelevancy, I'll add those to the list. Ultimately, all I will have to do is post the list and the number that addresses the fallacy you keep posting.
They are synonyms. You are simply "moving the goal posts" to suit your convenience. Here is how legal interpretation is supposed to occur:
dude, States and State Constitutions secure the concept of natural rights. That precludes your entire argument. This, is what that, means:
Legal interpretation occurs when the courts rule on a law, statute, regulation, meaning of terminology, etc. This idiotic denial of the facts, not opinions, NOT some alleged fantastical right theory, but what can be shown by accredited law schools, government sites, public education sites, court rulings and the word of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. danielpalos, you've shown NOTHING except your personal opinion and that opinion never has anything to do with the facts. Would you please quit this childish arguing and READ THE LIST OF WHY YOU'RE WRONG AND STOP THIS INSANITY.
You cannot explain the matter, otherwise you would have already. Irrelevant. The city of Chicago in the state of Illinois, have attempted this argument in the wake of the McDonald ruling, in an effort to make it as difficult as possible for individuals to legally acquire firearms. And repeatedly federal courts have found their efforts unconstitutional, and told them that they could not engage with such, regardless of what the state constitution suggested to the contrary.
We have dictionaries. The terms are synonymous; there is no distinction in federal venues, for terms specifically enumerated in State Constitutions.
There is nothing in our Second Amendment that covers the concept of natural rights. They are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process. That State merely exceeded its mandate by the People, seeking to Prohibit arms; regulation is not Prohibition. - - - Updated - - -
The city of Chicago attempted to prohibit the legal acquisition of firearms by enactment of regulations and stipulations that made it impossible for those who were not economically advantaged to actually meet said requirements. For regulation to not amount to prohibition, it must have guidelines that can realistically met by everyone without a disqualifying record.
I liked hearing his testimony, he apologised as English was his second language, yet he spoke better English than many American. He was most eloquent and had prepared well so as to debunk the Anti Gun folks.
I disagree on the Pro-Gun side needing any education at all. After watching the Great Gun Debate for 40 years, I come to the logical conclusion that most Gun Control beyond the UBC, and form 4473, the FFL system, is unnecessary, and even that is questionable, Firearms from full auto, to everything else, Suppressors, every type of firearms regardless of barrel length or type of stock, should be classified as "Firearms" and sold to any FFL or C&R license holder, to enhance a personal collection, hence, any modern Firearms.
