eaglenrider 0 #1 May 29, 2005 When one considers the fact that the 2cnd ammendment agrees that we have a right to bear arms with no encumbrences. One must consider all those who would seek to deny a Man of this Right. Here is an interesting fact; If you depend on the government and the "courts" to protect your Rights, you are fuckin' up!!!! Before the case is even heard you can't have your firearm in any court!!!!! They will not allow you to enter!!!!! Not infringed? LOL!!!!! The very court which you expect to support the Constitution won;t recognize your Right to Bear Arms. And you expect to find Justice there? why? Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
antifnsocial 0 #2 May 29, 2005 Quote When one considers the fact that the 2cnd ammendment agrees that we have a right to bear arms with no encumbrences. One must consider all those who would seek to deny a Man of this Right.Okay...I must consider all those who...-wth are you even jabbering about???? Who do you consider are denying this right? Spit it out already- who is your beef against? QuoteHere is an interesting fact; If you depend on the government and the "courts" to protect your Rights, you are fuckin' up!!!!I am?? Why? Because you say so?? What's your reason? Again, spit it out. QuoteBefore the case is even heard you can't have your firearm in any court!!!!! They will not allow you to enter!!!!! Oh come on, I believe in the right to bear arms and own and use them myself but even I don't want people to have them with them in court! What fool wants a defendent's or victim's family to be able to traipse into a very stressful situation with the ability to shoot someone. Doesn't even make SENSE!Quote Not infringed? LOL!!!!! No I would not call it infringed but very SAFE, which is exactly how I like my courthouses thank you very damn much!QuoteThe very court which you expect to support the Constitution won;t recognize your Right to Bear Arms.QuoteAaaaaah... this must be your REAL point!! To express how indignant you are about groups and people who don't want people to brandish weapons in court? Quote And you expect to find Justice there? why? You really make no sense! You aren't even expressing a coherent idea much less giving us something to discuss here. Are you just too drunk to post in the Speaker's Corner tonight??? I would wait until you aren't to make your point. Just a suggestion.Please feel free to reply to my posts and pm's, but only if you're smart enough to understand what they really mean. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #3 May 29, 2005 QuoteWhen one considers the fact that the 2cnd ammendment agrees that we have a right to bear arms with no encumbrences. One must consider all those who would seek to deny a Man of this Right. I likes to drink too . . . . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites eaglenrider 0 #4 May 29, 2005 Before the case is even heard you can't have your firearm in any court!!!!! They will not allow you to enter!!!!! Oh come on, I believe in the right to bear arms and own and use them myself but even I don't want people to have them with them in court! Here's a clue Pal, "will not be infringed" . " but even I don't want people to have them with them in court! " Clue #2 ,Maurice. What you "want" doesn't have any bearing on what the 2cnd ammendment says. Listen up " the right to bear fire arms shall not be infringed. That means that We have a right to carry fire arms to court, around in our daily lives, Oh yeah, and down to the IRS office if they call us in for an interview. Although I can't imagine why anyone would legitimize them by granting an interview. Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites eaglenrider 0 #5 May 29, 2005 I likes to drink too . . . __________________________________________________ So you like to drink. Nothing wrong with that, And in your absence I'll be more than happy to protect your Rights. We are all in this together ,Lad. My Rights are the same as yours, dontcha know. Be vigilant, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites eaglenrider 0 #6 May 29, 2005 ]Before the case is even heard you can't have your firearm in any court!!!!! They will not allow you to enter!!!!! Oh come on, I believe in the right to bear arms Do you? Do you believe that the Right shall not be infringed? I don't want people to have them with them in court! ___________________________________________________ Shall not be infringed. Are you gettin' it? It's not about what you want ,Guym It's all about the Constitution, "shall not be infringed" That is what the Constitution says. It doesn't mention "infringements " based on entrance to court rooms, oh no. In fact court rooms are the exact places which we should expect our Rights to be upheld!!!!! But today courtrooms deny us our Right to bear arms. Those courts aren't legit Blues, Cliff . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #7 May 29, 2005 Dude, you're hysterical and really barking up the wrong branch. If you read the Constitution it says nothing about private citizens and the right to bear arms. It does say so in relationship to militias. However, it was the courts that interpreted it to include private citizens and they have been the ones protecting your right to bear arms. By the way, "Here is an interesting fact; If you depend on the government and the "courts" to protect your Rights, you are fuckin' up!!!!". That's not a fact; that's an opinion. Right now the court system is getting a bad rap from certain folks in the government that, it appears, didn't attend high-school civics classes where they taught about three branches of government and a system of checks and balances. To these people, any judge that doesn't share their own opinion is an "activist" judge, when, in reality, the judge is just doing the job they were appointed to do -- be a check and balance so that a slight majority opinion of the day doesn't run roughshod over the minorities rights or even worse permanently damage the system itself.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #8 May 29, 2005 QuoteDude, you're hysterical and really barking up the wrong branch. If you read the Constitution it says nothing about private citizens and the right to bear arms. It does say so in relationship to militias. However, it was the courts that interpreted it to include private citizens and they have been the ones protecting your right to bear arms. By the way, "Here is an interesting fact; If you depend on the government and the "courts" to protect your Rights, you are fuckin' up!!!!". That's not a fact; that's an opinion. Right now the court system is getting a bad rap from certain folks in the government that, it appears, didn't attend high-school civics classes where they taught about three branches of government and a system of checks and balances. To these people, any judge that doesn't share their own opinion is an "activist" judge, when, in reality, the judge is just doing the job they were appointed to do -- be a check and balance so that a slight majority opinion of the day doesn't run roughshod over the minorities rights or even worse permanently damage the system itself. Actually, if you read the words of the founding fathers, they intended that private citizens be armed... it's been the last several decades that the more liberal judges in the Supreme Court have ruled for the "collective rights" argument. Quote"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188 Quote"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." -- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840 Quote"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court Quote"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment Need more?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites antifnsocial 0 #9 May 29, 2005 I agree with you, you made a point. A voice of reason. But the point of the thread wasn't what you stated. He was just a rambling drunk when he posted it obviously spouting opinions. I can't stand it when someone isn't clear with what they want to say. I agree with the right to bear arms and that it shouldn't be taken away from the people. I own guns. I know how to use them. What I disagree with is people giving people with my like beliefs a bad name by ranty psycho sounding unresearched drunk tantrums. It makes everyone who believes in the RTBA look like raving lunatic manifesto writing psycho wantabes. We are not.Please feel free to reply to my posts and pm's, but only if you're smart enough to understand what they really mean. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites eaglenrider 0 #10 May 29, 2005 I agree with the right to bear arms and that it shouldn't be taken away from the people. __________________________________________________ You agree with the Right to bear arms? But you think it only applies "part time"? Do you are do you not believe that the Right to bear arms and any Right for that matter, is full time? Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #11 May 29, 2005 I agree with you, anti... it *IS* a personal right... I was answering Quade's post, not eaglenrider....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tink1717 2 #12 May 31, 2005 Got stopped a the door again, didn't you?Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites eaglenrider 0 #13 May 31, 2005 QuoteDude, you're hysterical and really barking up the wrong branch. If you read the Constitution it says nothing about private citizens and the right to bear arms. It does say so in relationship to militias. However, it was the courts that interpreted it to include private citizens and they have been the ones protecting your right to bear arms. __________________________________________________ I don't know about the "courts" but I also interpreted it to include private citizens. As far as your statement that the "courts" are protecting this Right, How can you reconcile that statement with the fact that Citizens are prohibited from carrying a firearm into every/any court house in the US? Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #14 May 31, 2005 Quote Actually, if you read the words of the founding fathers, they intended that private citizens be armed... I'm not exactly a legal scholar, but my understanding is that it doesn't matter one bit what a person may have said outside of the Constitution, but rather what is actually written down. There are plenty of laws wherein one individual may have been a proponent of a specific agenda but what was actually written into law was different and didn't include what a minority opinion may have wanted. Again, if you look at the actual WORDS of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Consitution, parse that any way you want, it says nothing about an individual right.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #15 May 31, 2005 Quote I don't know about the "courts" but I also interpreted it to include private citizens. Fortunately we live in a society where we actually have laws and they are not up for interpretation by individuals to suit themselves. In otherwords, you're opinion in this matter, while it may be valid for you, simply doesn't count when it comes to the law. QuoteAs far as your statement that the "courts" are protecting this Right, How can you reconcile that statement with the fact that Citizens are prohibited from carrying a firearm into every/any court house in the US? You also aren't allowed to take a gun on an airliner or into the White House or any other Federal Building. I think any reasonable individual would understand why.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #16 May 31, 2005 Quotewe actually have laws and they are not up for interpretation by individuals to suit themselves not true, they are called 'judges' and they can interpret law in any way in which their 'handlers' tell them Thanks - I need a cynical moment. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites eaglenrider 0 #17 May 31, 2005 [Fortunately we live in a society where we actually have laws and they are not up for interpretation by individuals to suit themselves. In otherwords, you're opinion in this matter, while it may be valid for you, simply doesn't count when it comes to the law.________________________________________________________________________________________________ Actually, and I know this concept will be very hard for you to accept so sleep on it a while. Laws *are* up for interpretation by individuals to suit themselves. Ya see, government derives it's just power from the *consent* of the governed. If I opt out , or if I never signed that permision slip. your government has no "just power" over me. If you decide to opt in , well than sure,abide by the rules your legislative branch and your judges declare. Don't expect me to take part. I refuse to be "ruled " by any man or by the whims of any group of men. Rights ,however, are not subject to the whims of a majority or any group of men. Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #18 May 31, 2005 Please then, go into a court carring a gun and make an announcement to that effect. I don't think it's going to matter one whit whether you "opt in" or not. Better yet, go to Washington D.C. and talk to the Supreme Court about it while you're armed. You'll get far more interesting results than spouting off here.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites eaglenrider 0 #19 May 31, 2005 You also aren't allowed to take a gun on an airliner or into the White House or any other Federal Building. I think any reasonable individual would understand why. __________________________________________________ Please explain why. Ps; LOL! I like that "allowed " thing. In the land of the Free and the home of the Brave! Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites eaglenrider 0 #20 May 31, 2005 QuotePlease then, go into a court carring a gun and make an announcement to that effect. I don't think it's going to matter one whit whether you "opt in" or not. Better yet, go to Washington D.C. and talk to the Supreme Court about it while you're armed. You'll get far more interesting results than spouting off here. __________________________________________________ I can't get in to any court carrying a firearm ,even though it is my Right, Mr.Quade. That is the point of this thread The duty of the courts is to uphold the Rights of the Citizens. The courts themselves deny the citizens the Rights outlined in the 2cnd ammendment. They also subject the Citizens to unlawful search but we'll save that for another thread. The fact that every court in the USA denies the Citizenry their 2nd ammendment Rights proves those courts illegitimate. IMO,ofcourse. Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #21 June 1, 2005 QuoteQuote Actually, if you read the words of the founding fathers, they intended that private citizens be armed... I'm not exactly a legal scholar, but my understanding is that it doesn't matter one bit what a person may have said outside of the Constitution, but rather what is actually written down. There are plenty of laws wherein one individual may have been a proponent of a specific agenda but what was actually written into law was different and didn't include what a minority opinion may have wanted. Again, if you look at the actual WORDS of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Consitution, parse that any way you want, it says nothing about an individual right. Really? I guess "the right of the of the people" must be a typo, then.... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #22 June 1, 2005 I dunno what dictionary you're using but mine shows "people" a plural and not a singular. In other words, it doesn't refer to an individual, but rather a group. In this case one with the capability, intent and right of being a militia.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #23 June 1, 2005 QuoteIn other words, it doesn't refer to an individual, but rather a group. In this case one with the capability, intent and right of being a militia. Right, but the militia is made up of regular people with guns."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #24 June 1, 2005 Quotea right to bear arms with no encumbrences Does this right extend to a drunk walking through a school? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #25 June 1, 2005 QuoteI dunno what dictionary you're using but mine shows "people" a plural and not a singular. In other words, it doesn't refer to an individual, but rather a group. In this case one with the capability, intent and right of being a militia. So, using your logic...the 1st is only applicable to reporters then.... http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.htmlMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Subscriptions Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
skydyvr 0 #3 May 29, 2005 QuoteWhen one considers the fact that the 2cnd ammendment agrees that we have a right to bear arms with no encumbrences. One must consider all those who would seek to deny a Man of this Right. I likes to drink too . . . . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eaglenrider 0 #4 May 29, 2005 Before the case is even heard you can't have your firearm in any court!!!!! They will not allow you to enter!!!!! Oh come on, I believe in the right to bear arms and own and use them myself but even I don't want people to have them with them in court! Here's a clue Pal, "will not be infringed" . " but even I don't want people to have them with them in court! " Clue #2 ,Maurice. What you "want" doesn't have any bearing on what the 2cnd ammendment says. Listen up " the right to bear fire arms shall not be infringed. That means that We have a right to carry fire arms to court, around in our daily lives, Oh yeah, and down to the IRS office if they call us in for an interview. Although I can't imagine why anyone would legitimize them by granting an interview. Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eaglenrider 0 #5 May 29, 2005 I likes to drink too . . . __________________________________________________ So you like to drink. Nothing wrong with that, And in your absence I'll be more than happy to protect your Rights. We are all in this together ,Lad. My Rights are the same as yours, dontcha know. Be vigilant, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eaglenrider 0 #6 May 29, 2005 ]Before the case is even heard you can't have your firearm in any court!!!!! They will not allow you to enter!!!!! Oh come on, I believe in the right to bear arms Do you? Do you believe that the Right shall not be infringed? I don't want people to have them with them in court! ___________________________________________________ Shall not be infringed. Are you gettin' it? It's not about what you want ,Guym It's all about the Constitution, "shall not be infringed" That is what the Constitution says. It doesn't mention "infringements " based on entrance to court rooms, oh no. In fact court rooms are the exact places which we should expect our Rights to be upheld!!!!! But today courtrooms deny us our Right to bear arms. Those courts aren't legit Blues, Cliff . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #7 May 29, 2005 Dude, you're hysterical and really barking up the wrong branch. If you read the Constitution it says nothing about private citizens and the right to bear arms. It does say so in relationship to militias. However, it was the courts that interpreted it to include private citizens and they have been the ones protecting your right to bear arms. By the way, "Here is an interesting fact; If you depend on the government and the "courts" to protect your Rights, you are fuckin' up!!!!". That's not a fact; that's an opinion. Right now the court system is getting a bad rap from certain folks in the government that, it appears, didn't attend high-school civics classes where they taught about three branches of government and a system of checks and balances. To these people, any judge that doesn't share their own opinion is an "activist" judge, when, in reality, the judge is just doing the job they were appointed to do -- be a check and balance so that a slight majority opinion of the day doesn't run roughshod over the minorities rights or even worse permanently damage the system itself.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 May 29, 2005 QuoteDude, you're hysterical and really barking up the wrong branch. If you read the Constitution it says nothing about private citizens and the right to bear arms. It does say so in relationship to militias. However, it was the courts that interpreted it to include private citizens and they have been the ones protecting your right to bear arms. By the way, "Here is an interesting fact; If you depend on the government and the "courts" to protect your Rights, you are fuckin' up!!!!". That's not a fact; that's an opinion. Right now the court system is getting a bad rap from certain folks in the government that, it appears, didn't attend high-school civics classes where they taught about three branches of government and a system of checks and balances. To these people, any judge that doesn't share their own opinion is an "activist" judge, when, in reality, the judge is just doing the job they were appointed to do -- be a check and balance so that a slight majority opinion of the day doesn't run roughshod over the minorities rights or even worse permanently damage the system itself. Actually, if you read the words of the founding fathers, they intended that private citizens be armed... it's been the last several decades that the more liberal judges in the Supreme Court have ruled for the "collective rights" argument. Quote"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188 Quote"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." -- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840 Quote"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court Quote"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment Need more?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
antifnsocial 0 #9 May 29, 2005 I agree with you, you made a point. A voice of reason. But the point of the thread wasn't what you stated. He was just a rambling drunk when he posted it obviously spouting opinions. I can't stand it when someone isn't clear with what they want to say. I agree with the right to bear arms and that it shouldn't be taken away from the people. I own guns. I know how to use them. What I disagree with is people giving people with my like beliefs a bad name by ranty psycho sounding unresearched drunk tantrums. It makes everyone who believes in the RTBA look like raving lunatic manifesto writing psycho wantabes. We are not.Please feel free to reply to my posts and pm's, but only if you're smart enough to understand what they really mean. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eaglenrider 0 #10 May 29, 2005 I agree with the right to bear arms and that it shouldn't be taken away from the people. __________________________________________________ You agree with the Right to bear arms? But you think it only applies "part time"? Do you are do you not believe that the Right to bear arms and any Right for that matter, is full time? Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 May 29, 2005 I agree with you, anti... it *IS* a personal right... I was answering Quade's post, not eaglenrider....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #12 May 31, 2005 Got stopped a the door again, didn't you?Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eaglenrider 0 #13 May 31, 2005 QuoteDude, you're hysterical and really barking up the wrong branch. If you read the Constitution it says nothing about private citizens and the right to bear arms. It does say so in relationship to militias. However, it was the courts that interpreted it to include private citizens and they have been the ones protecting your right to bear arms. __________________________________________________ I don't know about the "courts" but I also interpreted it to include private citizens. As far as your statement that the "courts" are protecting this Right, How can you reconcile that statement with the fact that Citizens are prohibited from carrying a firearm into every/any court house in the US? Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #14 May 31, 2005 Quote Actually, if you read the words of the founding fathers, they intended that private citizens be armed... I'm not exactly a legal scholar, but my understanding is that it doesn't matter one bit what a person may have said outside of the Constitution, but rather what is actually written down. There are plenty of laws wherein one individual may have been a proponent of a specific agenda but what was actually written into law was different and didn't include what a minority opinion may have wanted. Again, if you look at the actual WORDS of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Consitution, parse that any way you want, it says nothing about an individual right.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #15 May 31, 2005 Quote I don't know about the "courts" but I also interpreted it to include private citizens. Fortunately we live in a society where we actually have laws and they are not up for interpretation by individuals to suit themselves. In otherwords, you're opinion in this matter, while it may be valid for you, simply doesn't count when it comes to the law. QuoteAs far as your statement that the "courts" are protecting this Right, How can you reconcile that statement with the fact that Citizens are prohibited from carrying a firearm into every/any court house in the US? You also aren't allowed to take a gun on an airliner or into the White House or any other Federal Building. I think any reasonable individual would understand why.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #16 May 31, 2005 Quotewe actually have laws and they are not up for interpretation by individuals to suit themselves not true, they are called 'judges' and they can interpret law in any way in which their 'handlers' tell them Thanks - I need a cynical moment. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites eaglenrider 0 #17 May 31, 2005 [Fortunately we live in a society where we actually have laws and they are not up for interpretation by individuals to suit themselves. In otherwords, you're opinion in this matter, while it may be valid for you, simply doesn't count when it comes to the law.________________________________________________________________________________________________ Actually, and I know this concept will be very hard for you to accept so sleep on it a while. Laws *are* up for interpretation by individuals to suit themselves. Ya see, government derives it's just power from the *consent* of the governed. If I opt out , or if I never signed that permision slip. your government has no "just power" over me. If you decide to opt in , well than sure,abide by the rules your legislative branch and your judges declare. Don't expect me to take part. I refuse to be "ruled " by any man or by the whims of any group of men. Rights ,however, are not subject to the whims of a majority or any group of men. Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #18 May 31, 2005 Please then, go into a court carring a gun and make an announcement to that effect. I don't think it's going to matter one whit whether you "opt in" or not. Better yet, go to Washington D.C. and talk to the Supreme Court about it while you're armed. You'll get far more interesting results than spouting off here.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites eaglenrider 0 #19 May 31, 2005 You also aren't allowed to take a gun on an airliner or into the White House or any other Federal Building. I think any reasonable individual would understand why. __________________________________________________ Please explain why. Ps; LOL! I like that "allowed " thing. In the land of the Free and the home of the Brave! Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 May 31, 2005 Quote Actually, if you read the words of the founding fathers, they intended that private citizens be armed... I'm not exactly a legal scholar, but my understanding is that it doesn't matter one bit what a person may have said outside of the Constitution, but rather what is actually written down. There are plenty of laws wherein one individual may have been a proponent of a specific agenda but what was actually written into law was different and didn't include what a minority opinion may have wanted. Again, if you look at the actual WORDS of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Consitution, parse that any way you want, it says nothing about an individual right.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #15 May 31, 2005 Quote I don't know about the "courts" but I also interpreted it to include private citizens. Fortunately we live in a society where we actually have laws and they are not up for interpretation by individuals to suit themselves. In otherwords, you're opinion in this matter, while it may be valid for you, simply doesn't count when it comes to the law. QuoteAs far as your statement that the "courts" are protecting this Right, How can you reconcile that statement with the fact that Citizens are prohibited from carrying a firearm into every/any court house in the US? You also aren't allowed to take a gun on an airliner or into the White House or any other Federal Building. I think any reasonable individual would understand why.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #16 May 31, 2005 Quotewe actually have laws and they are not up for interpretation by individuals to suit themselves not true, they are called 'judges' and they can interpret law in any way in which their 'handlers' tell them Thanks - I need a cynical moment. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eaglenrider 0 #17 May 31, 2005 [Fortunately we live in a society where we actually have laws and they are not up for interpretation by individuals to suit themselves. In otherwords, you're opinion in this matter, while it may be valid for you, simply doesn't count when it comes to the law.________________________________________________________________________________________________ Actually, and I know this concept will be very hard for you to accept so sleep on it a while. Laws *are* up for interpretation by individuals to suit themselves. Ya see, government derives it's just power from the *consent* of the governed. If I opt out , or if I never signed that permision slip. your government has no "just power" over me. If you decide to opt in , well than sure,abide by the rules your legislative branch and your judges declare. Don't expect me to take part. I refuse to be "ruled " by any man or by the whims of any group of men. Rights ,however, are not subject to the whims of a majority or any group of men. Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #18 May 31, 2005 Please then, go into a court carring a gun and make an announcement to that effect. I don't think it's going to matter one whit whether you "opt in" or not. Better yet, go to Washington D.C. and talk to the Supreme Court about it while you're armed. You'll get far more interesting results than spouting off here.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eaglenrider 0 #19 May 31, 2005 You also aren't allowed to take a gun on an airliner or into the White House or any other Federal Building. I think any reasonable individual would understand why. __________________________________________________ Please explain why. Ps; LOL! I like that "allowed " thing. In the land of the Free and the home of the Brave! Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eaglenrider 0 #20 May 31, 2005 QuotePlease then, go into a court carring a gun and make an announcement to that effect. I don't think it's going to matter one whit whether you "opt in" or not. Better yet, go to Washington D.C. and talk to the Supreme Court about it while you're armed. You'll get far more interesting results than spouting off here. __________________________________________________ I can't get in to any court carrying a firearm ,even though it is my Right, Mr.Quade. That is the point of this thread The duty of the courts is to uphold the Rights of the Citizens. The courts themselves deny the citizens the Rights outlined in the 2cnd ammendment. They also subject the Citizens to unlawful search but we'll save that for another thread. The fact that every court in the USA denies the Citizenry their 2nd ammendment Rights proves those courts illegitimate. IMO,ofcourse. Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #21 June 1, 2005 QuoteQuote Actually, if you read the words of the founding fathers, they intended that private citizens be armed... I'm not exactly a legal scholar, but my understanding is that it doesn't matter one bit what a person may have said outside of the Constitution, but rather what is actually written down. There are plenty of laws wherein one individual may have been a proponent of a specific agenda but what was actually written into law was different and didn't include what a minority opinion may have wanted. Again, if you look at the actual WORDS of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Consitution, parse that any way you want, it says nothing about an individual right. Really? I guess "the right of the of the people" must be a typo, then.... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #22 June 1, 2005 I dunno what dictionary you're using but mine shows "people" a plural and not a singular. In other words, it doesn't refer to an individual, but rather a group. In this case one with the capability, intent and right of being a militia.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #23 June 1, 2005 QuoteIn other words, it doesn't refer to an individual, but rather a group. In this case one with the capability, intent and right of being a militia. Right, but the militia is made up of regular people with guns."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #24 June 1, 2005 Quotea right to bear arms with no encumbrences Does this right extend to a drunk walking through a school? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 June 1, 2005 QuoteI dunno what dictionary you're using but mine shows "people" a plural and not a singular. In other words, it doesn't refer to an individual, but rather a group. In this case one with the capability, intent and right of being a militia. So, using your logic...the 1st is only applicable to reporters then.... http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.htmlMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
