Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Court case using Trumps bump stock ban to make ar-15’s illegal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Finicky Fat Guy View Post

    Using certain means of traveling may be a privilege. That doesn't mean that your right to travel has been violated. I have the right to travel to Hawaii. I don't have the right to fly there on American Airlines.
    Agreed

    No different then having a right to a weapon , you still have to buy one
    The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule ...Samuel Adams, "The Rights of the Colonists" page 419

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Ancap View Post

      Agreed

      No different then having a right to a weapon , you still have to buy one
      But you don't have to buy an AR15.

      Catch-22!
      I am not armed out of fear of who's in front of me.
      I am armed out of love of those behind me.

      Anyone who says money doesn't matter to them is either a FOOL or a LIAR or BOTH!

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Finicky Fat Guy View Post
        Enumerate means to count. It does not mean that only the things counted exist. Things that are inalienable can be counted, just like things that are not counted can be inalienable. You are confusing unrelated terms. Enumerate and Inalienable have nothing to do with each other.


        From the dictionary:
        Enumerate:
        verb (used with object), e·nu·mer·at·ed, e·nu·mer·at·ing.
        • to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis.
        • to ascertain the number of; count.
        But natural rights are limitless. Once again, the reason they added the ninth amendment. It was impossible to list them all
        The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule ...Samuel Adams, "The Rights of the Colonists" page 419

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by LiDad View Post

          But you don't have to buy an AR15.

          Catch-22!
          Yes you can print one out, if coumo doesn’t catch you

          but don’t worry I won’t tell
          The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule ...Samuel Adams, "The Rights of the Colonists" page 419

          Comment


            #35


            No.

            The 9A was for the states to decide individually their own laws and regulations as long as the other prior 8 (at the time) amendments weren't being violated.

            So if NYS wants to see that free college is a right for anyone with in the state, but NV doesn't share that view, NYS can do it and NV doesn't have to.
            I am not armed out of fear of who's in front of me.
            I am armed out of love of those behind me.

            Anyone who says money doesn't matter to them is either a FOOL or a LIAR or BOTH!

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by Ancap View Post

              Yes you can print one out, if coumo doesn’t catch you

              but don’t worry I won’t tell
              You missed the point totally.

              whoosh-over-yr-head.jpg
              I am not armed out of fear of who's in front of me.
              I am armed out of love of those behind me.

              Anyone who says money doesn't matter to them is either a FOOL or a LIAR or BOTH!

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Ancap View Post

                But natural rights are limitless. Once again, the reason they added the ninth amendment. It was impossible to list them all
                Irrelevant. You can count something that is limitless since there is no limit to the numbers used to count. You just won't finish the process of counting. Your earlier point was wrong in it's entirety. The USC does in fact, enumerate rights. The right to a free press, the right to assembly, the right to a jury trial, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. That doesn't mean that, as you said, the USC doesn't enumerate rights, only powers.
                "The devil doesn't come dressed in a red cape and pointy horns. He comes as everything you've ever wished for.”
                Tucker Max

                Infirmitate Invitat Violentiam
                Finicky Fat Guy

                Comment


                  #38
                  How can you own land?.....who determines when and if it is private or public and how? it is part of the earth that god created but you believe people can take ownership of portions of it?.......but this country can not prevent non-citizens from traveling onto our country's public land or God's public land? How can land be obtained when doing so prevents people from freely traveling across it which is a Natural right?

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by LiDad View Post

                    No.

                    The 9A was for the states to decide individually their own laws and regulations as long as the other prior 8 (at the time) amendments weren't being violated.

                    So if NYS wants to see that free college is a right for anyone with in the state, but NV doesn't share that view, NYS can do it and NV doesn't have to.
                    i think your confusing the tenth amendment. The ninth amendment are individual rights

                    they stressed the importance of the individual person rights during the convention. hence the reason the 10th amendment was worded
                    The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule ...Samuel Adams, "The Rights of the Colonists" page 419

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by Finicky Fat Guy View Post

                      Irrelevant. You can count something that is limitless since there is no limit to the numbers used to count. You just won't finish the process of counting. Your earlier point was wrong in it's entirety. The USC does in fact, enumerate rights. The right to a free press, the right to assembly, the right to a jury trial, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. That doesn't mean that, as you said, the USC doesn't enumerate rights, only powers.


                      Your missing the point that the founders did not want rights enumerated

                      It would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.
                      The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule ...Samuel Adams, "The Rights of the Colonists" page 419

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by Shamuscull View Post
                        How can you own land?.....who determines when and if it is private or public and how? it is part of the earth that god created but you believe people can take ownership of portions of it?.......but this country can not prevent non-citizens from traveling onto our country's public land or God's public land? How can land be obtained when doing so prevents people from freely traveling across it which is a Natural right?
                        Homesteading . John Locke and Murray Rothbard wrote extensively on it
                        The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule ...Samuel Adams, "The Rights of the Colonists" page 419

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by Ancap View Post



                          Your missing the point that the founders did not want rights enumerated

                          It would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.
                          I am not missing anything. You made a provably false statement. To prove your erroneous point you cite an argument made against a listing of rights, but then the Founding Fathers went and made a list. Their arguments against doing something became moot (with respect to your erroneous statement) when they did exactly what they argued against.

                          There is a list of rights. It is not a complete and exclusive list, but it is an enumerated list non the less.
                          "The devil doesn't come dressed in a red cape and pointy horns. He comes as everything you've ever wished for.”
                          Tucker Max

                          Infirmitate Invitat Violentiam
                          Finicky Fat Guy

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by Finicky Fat Guy View Post

                            I am not missing anything. You made a provably false statement. To prove your erroneous point you cite an argument made against a listing of rights, but then the Founding Fathers went and made a list. Their arguments against doing something became moot (with respect to your erroneous statement) when they did exactly what they argued against.

                            There is a list of rights. It is not a complete and exclusive list, but it is an enumerated list non the less.
                            We are just going to have to agree to disagree
                            The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule ...Samuel Adams, "The Rights of the Colonists" page 419

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Legal and technical writings frequently list specific items but acknowledge that the items stated on the list (the enumerated items) may not be complete.

                              Text such as: party A will pay all [class of expenses] expenses including, but not limited to, item 1, item 2, ...item 15....

                              The 9th amendment serves as the ",but not limited to," clause.

                              The clause is inserted to neuter the principal of expressio unius est exclusio alterius: a principle in statutory construction: when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded.



                              ETA:
                              Row v Wade relies on the right to privacy legalizing abortion. The 9th amendment protects that right. (IMHO, that is one heck of a stretch in its application.)
                              This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
                              — Roe, 410 U.S. at 153
                              Last edited by incognito; 07-16-2019, 05:51 PM.
                              ANY violation by ANY person of ANY provision of this section is a class A misdemeanor. - NYPL §400.00(15)
                              Conspiracy in the sixth degree is a class B misdemeanor. - NYPL §105.00

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by Ancap View Post

                                Homesteading . John Locke and Murray Rothbard wrote extensively on it
                                Homesteading.......so natural law did not apply for the native Americans that were here prior? So if i was born after homesteading I miss out if I am Native American no natural law of man applies. If I am born later in time my freedom of movement and travel is infringed upon because homesteaders staked claim on land on a planet that god created but people took ownership of through homesteading and taking of native American’s land. ...people from foreign lands can come here and we can’t do shit natural law.......

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X