[ingliz]

as per gun control

The right to keep and bear arms is not inalienable.

Arguing over state's rights or individual rights, prefatory or operative clauses, whatever, does not change the fact that the Amendment was seen as a bar only to federal action, not state or private restraints.

District of Columbia v. Heller

Because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, the Court did not reconsider its prior decisions that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

[Drlee]

I'm not proposing anything other than people read, support, and sign the Charter and Declaration of the Rights of Man. Currently, like it or not we do not have a legitimate Constitution.

Garbage. You are unhinged.

We have a constitution. 330 million people live by it. You may not like the interpretations and amendments over the last couple of hundred years but the overwhelming majority of us do. And that constitutes the "consent of the governed" which you posted in your Sacred first three posts.

The very idea that possessing an automatic rifle or bazooka is a God given right is patently absurd. And it is one that same overwhelming majority of people would not support. So since the government exists at the pleasure of the people, as the founders intended it, the point is moot anyway.

The people giveth and the people taketh away. That is how the founders wanted it. If thy had wanted irrevocable portions of the constitution they would have written that into the document.

As for you equally absurd idea that the 14th Amendment is not valid. And you seem to have pulled this right out of your ass. Can you explain to us how it is invalid in any way?

You can deny labels all that you want to. We are free to categorize anyone as may suit our fancy.

As for encouraging us to "sign" your Declaration. I will not. It is a document that is seditious on the face of it and flies in the face of conservative ideas and ideals.

Then there is the practical reasons I will not sign it. I disagree with this:

In order to insure the Right to Life and to prevent tyranny in government, the People declare an unfettered Right to keep and bear Arms as an extension of the Right to Life. No legitimate man made law can will deprive or disparage the freeman's Right to keep and bear Arms nor deny to him the Right to Stand Their Ground when a credible threat of danger is imminent.

I do not believe that the individual right to bear arms (note the odd capitalization in this rag) should be unfettered. I can think of a vast array of weaponry that should not fall into the hands of anyone who wants it. I can think of any number of people whose actions or illness deprives them of this right.

I do not believe that any "right" claimed by anyone in the US exists outside of the constitution. The constitution is our overarching governing document. Should any part of it, as Jefferson frequently wrote, become obsolete it contains the mechanism for change and that mechanism protects the document form mere whim.

I do not believe that any citizen of the US has the right to take up arms against the government.

In my opinion your position, though certainly not uncommon, is a mere lashing out at the inevitable change all people see in the progression of time. I do not want to "go back" to the good old days of the 50's. (1850s or 1950s though God knows I would be one of the undisputed winners if we did.)

Your problem The Resistor is that you can't sell what you are selling. You have run into a forum embracing people who are smart enough to see what you are advocating and smart enough to see the devil in all of the details.

[late]

You are unhinged.

He's fruit loops.

Which is why, for the most part, I've stopped talking to him.

You didn't answer my question..

While he's articulate, he's careful to hide bits that would undermine his position. It's why he needs to use archaic language and such.

One recurring theme of Right wing kooks is to hide their agenda. I am beginning to wonder if his agenda is the so called 'Virginia school' started by a deranged economist by the name of Buchanon.

https://evonomics.com/how-to-disguise-r ... economics/

[Drlee]

This is from his document in which he is so proud:

Democracies are the worst form of government ever devised by man.

Gee. I can think of a few worse. Churchill:

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

[annatar1914]

@late

I noted this;

One recurring theme of Right wing kooks is to hide their agenda. I am beginning to wonder if his agenda is the so called 'Virginia school' started by a deranged economist by the name of Buchanon.

https://evonomics.com/how-to-disguise-r ... economics/

I think so. James Buchanon was one of the real sinister bastards that has had such a tremendous effect on modern America, and I give you credit for mentioning him.

[late]

@late

I noted this;




I think so. James Buchanon was one of the real sinister bastards that has had such a tremendous effect on modern America, and I give you credit for mentioning him.

Thanks, nobody here knows about him. I've been talking about the Kochs for over a decade, and I didn't know about him, until recently, when I read that article.

[annatar1914]

Thanks, nobody here knows about him. I've been talking about the Kochs for over a decade, and I didn't know about him, until recently, when I read that article.

@late ;

I knew about him decades ago when some refined circles of persons I know encouraged me to read him. I'd already familiarized myself with Calhoun and other reactionaries, so I knew how to read between the lines with Buchanon.

[Julian658]

@late

I noted this;




I think so. James Buchanon was one of the real sinister bastards that has had such a tremendous effect on modern America, and I give you credit for mentioning him.

I would argue that all politicians hide their true intentions. They pander a lot and the recipients of the pandering eat it up without having a cue about the true agenda. Anyone that thinks a politician is going to solve his or her problems is a set up for disappointment.

[annatar1914]

I would argue that all politicians hide their true intentions. They pander a lot and the recipients of the pandering eat it up without having a cue about the true agenda. Anyone that things that a politician is going to solve his or her problems is a set up for disappointment.

@Julian658 ;

Well, strictly speaking Buchanon was not a ''politician'', but an Economic Philosopher. Is his thinking close to your own, I might ask?

But yes, politicians can't solve mankind's problems, because mankind's problems are ultimately within the human heart.

[Julian658]

@Julian658 ;

Well, strictly speaking Buchanon was not a ''politician'', but an Economic Philosopher. Is his thinking close to your own, I might ask?

But yes, politicians can't solve mankind's problems, because mankind's problems are ultimately within the human heart.

I posted without looking into Buchanan. Thanks!

[The Resister]

The right to keep and bear arms is not inalienable.

Arguing over state's rights or individual rights, prefatory or operative clauses, whatever, does not change the fact that the Amendment was seen as a bar only to federal action, not state or private restraints.


Because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, the Court did not reconsider its prior decisions that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

Get a life. Your objections have been asked and answered REPEATEDLY and the courts refuted your position across the board as did the man who wrote the Second Amendment. This is not about the Second Amendment per se, but it is fully covered with case citations in the first three postings on this thread.

[Drlee]

Get a life. Your objections have been asked and answered REPEATEDLY and the courts refuted your position across the board as did the man who wrote the Second Amendment. This is not about the Second Amendment per se, but it is fully covered with case citations in the first three postings on this thread.

Get an education.

Yet the fact remains that we have protective and restrictive gun laws in the US that have been enacted by duly elected legislatures and upheld by the SCOTUS. Just as the founders wanted the process to go.

[ingliz]

Get a life.

You are a very foolish person.

Reductio ad absurdum:

If I have an unlimited right to life, I enjoy the right to preemptive self-defense. Preemptive self-defense relies on the mere possibility of an attack at some unspecified future time. All I need to say, loudly enough, so bystanders hear, is, "I've read your political manifesto and consider you a threat to my life, and that of my family," before I put a bullet into your brain.

No court in the land would convict me.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

@The Resister ,

A reminder of 2 board customs from the Newbie Guide:

One Line Posts (aka One-Liners/The Bane of Our Existence)

Once upon a time in a forum far away, we came up with the maxim "One line. One bullet." That pretty much sums up our feeling about one line posts. For those blissfully uninitiated, a one-liner is a post that conveys NO ACTUAL relevence to the topic at hand. It is usually short, useless, and often contains random profanity.

Double Posts

A standard practice on some messageboards is to respond to individual people in a thread by placing those responses into individual, successive posts; in other words, to create a new post for each reply to each person who has said something to you up to this point. In effect: to make two, three, four or even an excess of five posts in a row to a single thread at once.

Please don't do that.

PoFo is designed to read more like a magazine, which calls for a somewhat fluid reply protocol. If you want to respond to more than one person at once, the best way to do this is to just put the name of the person to whom you are replying into the quote tags.

You're breaking these rules - especially the latter.

(PoFo moderator)

[The Resister]

You are a very foolish person.

Reductio ad absurdum:

If I have an unlimited right to life, I enjoy the right to preemptive self-defense. Preemptive self-defense relies on the mere possibility of an attack at some unspecified future time. All I need to say, loudly enough, so bystanders hear, is, "I've read your political manifesto and consider you a threat to my life, and that of my family," before I put a bullet into your brain.

No court in the land would convict me.

If you would like to issue a death threat to me, you should do it in PM so a proper response can be given.

This country was founded on the presupposition of unalienable Rights that were codified into law by the Bill of Rights. The earliest courts determined the Right to keep and bear Arms was above the law. IF the law was to be changed, that was the legislature's job, NOT the job of the United States Supreme Court to reinterpret the law (which the founders and framers were opposed to).

[The Resister]

@The Resister ,

A reminder of 2 board customs from the Newbie Guide:



You're breaking these rules - especially the latter.

(PoFo moderator)

You would have to put that in better English. Prefer it be done in PM so that I can ask questions. Do I have one line posts? Do others on this thread? When I hit the quote feature, am I not responding to the poster that made the post?

Rules aside, this thread has run its course. The facts in the first three posts have stood up to any and all criticisms and the only thing the opposition has left is death threats.

[ingliz]

death threats

Don't be silly.

I was just pointing out what happens when you give people an unlimited right - They use it, and life becomes "nasty, brutish, and short" (Leviathan, i. xiii. 9).




p.s. I noticed you didn't dispute the gist of my argument.

[annatar1914]

You would have to put that in better English. Prefer it be done in PM so that I can ask questions. Do I have one line posts? Do others on this thread? When I hit the quote feature, am I not responding to the poster that made the post?

Rules aside, this thread has run its course. The facts in the first three posts have stood up to any and all criticisms and the only thing the opposition has left is death threats.

@The Resister ;

How have your three original posts ''stood up to any and all criticisms''?

You blatantly ignored all valid criticisms.

And you are now revealing in this thread some kind of manifesto in which you set aside the US Constitution?

You think you're following the laws of God, but you're engaged in political lawlessness, in Satanism. How does this lunacy serve the common good or the rights of the individual? Where are the duties and responsibilities of men to help each other and think of what is right for all instead of selfish egoism?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

@The Resister ,
Your 2 posts above are a good example of what not to do. You replied to one person, posted it, and then immediately composed another post to reply to someone else. No, the English in the Newbie Guide is perfectly clear, so I'm not going to rephrase it for you. You appear to be a native English speaker, so you'll have no trouble understanding it. Everyone else can.

Yes, you have made one-line posts in this thread, such as "I am no longer responding to people who misrepresent my positions.". That was a content-free one-liner. There is no point in posting to say you're not going to post. It just fills up the thread with junk, and wastes people's time.

[The Resister]

@The Resister ,
Your 2 posts above are a good example of what not to do. You replied to one person, posted it, and then immediately composed another post to reply to someone else. No, the English in the Newbie Guide is perfectly clear, so I'm not going to rephrase it for you. You appear to be a native English speaker, so you'll have no trouble understanding it. Everyone else can.

Yes, you have made one-line posts in this thread, such as "I am no longer responding to people who misrepresent my positions.". That was a content-free one-liner. There is no point in posting to say you're not going to post. It just fills up the thread with junk, and wastes people's time.

I don't feel that telling people that I am, essentially, not responding to off topic troll posts to be a junk post. It is intended to keep them from wasting their time.

Do you know why Hillary Clinton had so many problems with her e mail? She is a Luddite. In my late teens I was still typing legal briefs on a manual typewriter. Electric models were on the market, but for nearly a year, I was doing my work on a manual typewriter that I got at a flea market. Many apologies for not knowing how to do what you're asking. Being a target for those who don't seem to be able to use critical thinking skills and watching the same argument go on and on and on simply because people playing board games want the last word (as if the last word means they "won" some debate they lost way back when I first entered this thread) isn't changing the bottom line.

As for one line posts... there are a LOT of violators on this board. You have my first three posts and nobody can refute the facts contained therein. I support the Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man. Most on this board don't. That will NEVER make them right. Thank you.