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

  • Ancap
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • LiDad
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Finicky Fat Guy
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • incognito
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • Ancap
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Ancap
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Finicky Fat Guy
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shamuscull
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shamuscull
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ancap
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Ancap
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Finicky Fat Guy
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shamuscull
    replied
    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.......

    Leave a comment:


  • incognito
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ancap
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X