Re: If Obama Supports The Second Amendment....

grey_ghost471-newsgroups@xxxxxxxxx (Gray Ghost) wrote in
news:Xns9B63B769442EWereofftoseethewizrd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
The Lone Weasel <theloneweasel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in


The Constitution grants rights, the state
constitutions and statutes grant rights and you
can't cite any US Supreme Court justice saying
otherwise.
Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights,
Jabba, old slime stench.
No, the amendments don't talk and if they did they
wouldn't say that rights are not said to be granted.
Now, you cite any learned commentator on the US
Constitution who says rights are not granted, then
I'll cite two.  You cite another one and I'll cite two
more, different from the first two. Back up your NRA
lawloon horseshit with some real facts Cramma-Jamma-
Ding-a-ling-a-ling. Or recede, nitwit.
So rights only exist insofar that governments grant
them and allow them to be exercised?
Black people should have always had the same rights as
white people, right Frank?  The rights were granted to
everybody, but only secured - enforced - for white
people.  Equal protection of the laws was created by the
Fourteenth Amendment, nor was it secured by that
amendment or even by the Enforcement Acts that were
supposed to secure the right. If you could give a speech
to all those black, Latino, Asian-Americans, Native
Americans, etc and try to explain to them why they
always possessed the right to equal protection of the
laws, and even if the right was consistently infringed,
that doesn't matter or change the fact that they had the
right all along:  how do you think they'd respond to
you, those millions of betrayed Americans?   Eh, our
Fine Tarred & Feathered Goose?
Wow there goes a few centuries of common law!
Common law that's not enforced is meaningless until it
is enforced. "Ubi non est condendi auctoritas, ibi non
est parendi necessitas. Where there is no authority to
enforce, there is no authority to obey. Dav. 69."
What part of "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" is not clear to you? Where in this
does it say government "grants" rights. Nowhere. But then
you have "to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed. " Seems to me me that
governments are created to ensure that rights are
secured. The fact that a government somehow abuses that
authority means nothing, the rights already exist.
Including the right to healthcare?
What right to health care?

[Double standards.]

 > > The pre-existing, God-given right to healthcare, silly.
Was he more
concerned with guns?
Don't ever remember seeing that one before. Recent invention?

You guys started it with your pre-existing, God-given right to
own a gun crap.

Horseshit.  Quote where I've said it's a God-given right.

Put it right here -> [ ]

Keep your shit straight.

Just say where your pre-existing right to own a gun comes from.
Is it a natural right? if so, why is it that owning a gun a
natural right but healthcare isn't? Isn't good health more to do
with nature than man-made guns?



"And God said, man shall hath guns....if man ever inventeth
them."

Men will have to fight or have others fight for them to
secure those rights. Seems to me that governments do more
to  destroy rights than protect them. Hence the
limitations on gevernment power in the constitution.
Seems to me you just want to make government stronger so
it can once again abuse those rights unobstructed by the
men it seeks to control. --

It would come under the heading of the right to live your life as
you see fit without others telling you how to live and what to own
so long as you don't hurt another.

Bold concept. Doubt you'll get it.

Possession and use of weapons has never been common law and still
isn't. It's always been regulated under the police power, since
ancient times.

Ancient Roman Law was natural law. Who told you this horseshit
about a natural right to possess and use weapons? It's a big lie,
Frank.

So the right to defend one's life

[begin excerpt]

In the United States, killing is only justifiable where the crime
could not otherwise have been prevented, and where force is employed.
When an attempt is made to commit a secret felony, without violence,
the right does not exist. It is different, however, where the
precincts of a man's home are invaded in the daytime, or at night.
"An attack on a house or its inmates may be resisted by taking life.
This may be when burglars threaten an entrance, or when there is
apparent ground to believe that a felonious assault is to be made on
any of the inmates of the house, or when an attempt is made violently
to enter the house in defiance of the owner's rights."

"But this right is only one of prevention. It cannot be extended so
as to excuse the killing of persons not actually breaking into or
violently threatening a house." (Wharton, A Treatise on Criminal Law,
Secs. 629, 630, 634, 635.) ? Ed.

Scott, The Civil Law, The Laws of the Twelve Tables, Table II, Law
IV.

And your point is what? It appears that the law is simply
acknowledging a person's right to protect thier home.

Self-defense doesn't necessarily entail use of a weapon or killing
somebody. Your first thought is to kill somebody.

"So the right to defend one's life..." Relatively few self-defense
situations involve deadly force eother way.

You want to make every confrontation a death match - just as long as you
have the gun and the other guy's unarmed, eh Gooseboy?

[end excerpt]

with the best technology available

I've never seen anything about "best technology". Where did you read
that? Or did an NRA handout tell you so, CrammaJammaDingDong?

So one should not have the best available technology to defened one's
home?

Who says you have a natural right to the best technology? That would be
military, probably, and you don't have a natural right to play with
military weapons.

[begin excerpt]

AN ACT to alter and amend an Act to guard and protect the
citizens of this State against the unwarrantable and too
prevalent use of deadly weapons, passed on the twenty-fifth day
of December, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the State of Georgia, in General Assembly met,
and it is hereby enacted by authority of the same, That from and
after the passage of this Act, instead of the penalty against the
offences mentioned in said Act, and which are prescribed in the
second section, the Court may, in its discretion, substitute that
of imprisonment in the common jail of the county where the
offence was committed; on conviction for the first offence, the
imprisonment to consist of a term of not less than one month, nor
more than two months, and upon a second conviction every
conviction for a like offence, the imprisonment to consist of a
term of not less than two months nor more than four months.

Sec. 2. And be it futher enacted by the authority of the
aforesaid, That all laws and parts of laws mitigating against
this Act, be and the same are hereby repealed.

Approved, December 8th, 1845.

An Act to alter and amend an Act to guard and protect the
citizens of this State against the unwarrantable and too
prevalent use of deadly weapons, passed on the twenty-fifth day
of December, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven (Dec. 8, 1845),
Laws of Georgia, p26.

And what is the point here? The state is simply prescribing penalties
fpr violations of it's laws.

Georgia in 1845. "an Act to guard and protect the citizens of this State
against the unwarrantable and too prevalent use of deadly weapons"\

Do you think these antebellum Southerners, these future seccessionists,
were lily-livered liberal elitists?

Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.

[end excerpt]

Sibce we're going back to Roman times and according to your view a
correct view of police power, what say you we reinstate slvery?

You're the one invoking natural rights, not me. If you want to learn
something about the principles you believe in - but not that you
particularly believe - read around in Scott's "The Civil Law".

Any law not based on natural law is be defintion null and void. In
some states in is illegal to kill a home invader, no matter the
circumstances. Does this seem just to you?

What states would those be and what statutes are they, cite them please.
I'm watching the Cowboys and don't have time to do your homework for you.

If you're invoking Divine Law, it has nothing to do with weapons or
self defense.

Partially correct. It just says no blame is attached to a person who
defends thier home.

Where?


--

Yours truly,

The Lone Weasel
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... Bouvier's Law Dictionary ... its collective and political capacity. ... NOBODY has shown that my evidence that STATES have rights, ... persons were going to serve on juries or in the militia, ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... Bouvier's Law Dictionary ... its collective and political capacity. ... There's a DA to REPRESENT THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE precisely because EACH and EVERY individual CAN'T make himself the self-appointed judge or jury whenever he feels like it! ... NOBODY has shown that my evidence that STATES have rights, ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... Bouvier's Law Dictionary ... its collective and political capacity. ... YOU don't get to be judge and jury and decide when an argument fails simply because YOU refuse to deal with it and use any silly excuse you make up! ... NOBODY has shown that my evidence that STATES have rights, ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Rick Stanley RATIONAL REGULATION OF RIGHTS
    ... OPINION RELEASE: RATIONAL REGULATION OF RIGHTS ... > gun law is constitutional. ... > analysis to the 2nd Amendment while applying strict scrutiny analysis to ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Marriage - refusal against Human Rights 2005
    ... "British law is a morass of dated acts: the 1836 act that allowed civil ... Human Rights, which in the view of the Lord Chancellor, makes it illegal to ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)