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

    #46
    Originally posted by Ancap View Post

    We are just going to have to agree to disagree
    There is nothing to disagree about. You made a demonstrably false assertion. I demonstrated that falsity. You made irrelevant arguments which did nothing to prove that your false statement was other than false. Here’s a suggestion, go get yourself a good dictionary and learn what words mean before you use them.
    "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


      #47
      Originally posted by Shamuscull View Post

      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.......
      If you want to disregard the concepts that the Declaration of Independence, the articles of confederation, and the constitution is based on, that’s your prerogative

      these arent my ideas, they have been well established for thousands of years

      maybe you would like Karl Marx his Views on property match yours very well
      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


        #48
        Originally posted by Finicky Fat Guy View Post

        There is nothing to disagree about. You made a demonstrably false assertion. I demonstrated that falsity. You made irrelevant arguments which did nothing to prove that your false statement was other than false. Here’s a suggestion, go get yourself a good dictionary and learn what words mean before you use them.
        Maybe you should pick up a history book and read about the founders intent
        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


          #49
          Originally posted by Ancap View Post

          If you want to disregard the concepts that the Declaration of Independence, the articles of confederation, and the constitution is based on, that’s your prerogative

          these arent my ideas, they have been well established for thousands of years

          maybe you would like Karl Marx his Views on property match yours very well
          I never said what my ideas on property were. I guess like your knowledge of so many others you never met you know what I think and believe also.

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by Ancap View Post

            Maybe you should pick up a history book and read about the founders intent
            Lots of history books genius and not all have the same interpretation of things as you've read in yours but of course your view must be correct since you are smarter than us.

            Comment


              #51
              Originally posted by Ancap View Post

              Maybe you should pick up a history book and read about the founders intent
              The Founders intent has nothing to do with your demonstrably false assertions nor your misuse of and misunderstanding of the word enumerate and inalienable.
              "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


                #52
                Originally posted by Shamuscull View Post

                Lots of history books genius and not all have the same interpretation of things as you've read in yours but of course your view must be correct since you are smarter than us.
                Yes, dismiss books like Two treatises of government, Notes of debates in the federal convention of 1787,
                the federalists papers and the anti federalists papers...because what do those authors know

                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


                  #53
                  Originally posted by Finicky Fat Guy View Post
                  The Founders intent has nothing to do with your demonstrably false assertions nor your misuse of and misunderstanding of the word enumerate and inalienable.
                  Actually it does but you are just being difficult

                  but I love you anyway
                  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


                    #54
                    Originally posted by Finicky Fat Guy View Post
                    There is a list of rights. It is not a complete and exclusive list, but it is an enumerated list non the less.
                    ^ This.

                    Don't get hung up in semantics.

                    The 50,000 feet overview is the bill of rights limits the power of the central government in favor of the people or the states (will create no law..., shall not be abridged..., shall not be infringed..., no quartering of soldiers) or puts obligations on the central government to protect its citizens (speedy trial, trial by jury).

                    Whatever the various founder's intents were (and they were not unanimous), they ultimately included specific provisions to protect certain named rights and then included the catch all 9th and 10th amendments to protect rights of the people not previously mentioned and reserve to the states or the people powers not previously mentioned.

                    Some of those rights were not created by the constitution but the constitution intended to protect those inalienable rights, while others were either created or documented by the constitution (I would not consider the right to a jury trial as an inalienable right but one that may have existed by law at the time).
                    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


                      #55
                      Originally posted by incognito View Post

                      ^ This.

                      Don't get hung up in semantics.

                      The 50,000 feet overview is the bill of rights limits the power of the central government in favor of the people or the states (will create no law..., shall not be abridged..., shall not be infringed..., no quartering of soldiers) or puts obligations on the central government to protect its citizens (speedy trial, trial by jury).

                      Whatever the various founder's intents were (and they were not unanimous), they ultimately included specific provisions to protect certain named rights and then included the catch all 9th and 10th amendments to protect rights of the people not previously mentioned and reserve to the states or the people powers not previously mentioned.

                      Some of those rights were not created by the constitution but the constitution intended to protect those inalienable rights, while others were either created or documented by the constitution (I would not consider the right to a jury trial as an inalienable right but one that may have existed by law at the time).
                      Semantics is the entirety of Ancaps reasoning. Take that away and he'd be lost.
                      "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


                        #56
                        Originally posted by Shamuscull View Post

                        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.......
                        Natural Law didn't work so well for a "natural man" in (I think) Colorado.

                        A few years ago a guy was given a bench ticket for fishing w/o a license. He argued that he was a "natural man", that fishing is how he feeds himself, and as such he doesn't need a license.

                        Ultimately he lost the court fight.
                        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


                          #57
                          Originally posted by LiDad View Post

                          Natural Law didn't work so well for a "natural man" in (I think) Colorado.

                          A few years ago a guy was given a bench ticket for fishing w/o a license. He argued that he was a "natural man", that fishing is how he feeds himself, and as such he doesn't need a license.

                          Ultimately he lost the court fight.
                          Natural law was the only way to prosecute the nazi's during the Nuremberg trials and justification for the Declaration of Independence/ Bill of rights

                          while there will be plenty of “Cato's”, If your God believing man...we all win in the end anyway
                          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

                          Working...
                          X