Wat's Guns-N-Stuff Thread

[HisArpy]

OK, you just asked if you were wrong about the sentence that you bolded, "Harpy already told us that gun rights come from God and predate the Constitution."

The answer is yes, that's wrong. To my knowledge no modern court in the nation has ever cited that as evidence supporting the right to bear arms. Find me a court case in which a party has successfully cited God as the grantor of gun rights in the USA.

Heller v. DC is perfectly clear on this issue. If you knew how to read and comprehend what you were reading, you'd know this.

For example, Heller references Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, which refers to the "natural right of self preservation." The court in Heller also states that the right to bear arms was an English right which existed prior to the creation of this nation. Which, when examined, only proves that the Right PREXISTED the US Constitution. The enumeration of the 2nd Amendment establishes that the government may not strip that right from the people.

Then there's the US Declaration of Independence. The Declaration states clearly "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and it is absurd to believe the courts have never ever cited to the Declaration. Or that they wouldn't uphold and support the words therein as expressed. If you wish citation to that, look it up yourself because I'm not here to hold you hand while you piss your pants.

Then there's the 1st Amendment which prohibits the government from interfering with the practice of religion. You know, that God thing you refuse to acknowledge. Let's not even consider that the courts haven't EVER dealt with that issue or sided with the legitimate exercise of faith. Asserting otherwise will only get you laughed at by nearly everyone, including your own mom.

However, because you're an ignorant asshole you don't understand what any of that means. Instead you believe that some court somewhere "granted" the people the Rights inherent in the 2nd Amendment. This is wrong. ALL of the Rights enumerated in the 2nd Amendment PREDATE the Bill of Rights and therefore aren't "granted" by it. Instead, the courts have continually and consistently held that those enumerated Rights are restrictions on government and the liberties inherent in those Rights are natural rights and rights which flow from the Creator.

Again, if you weren't an ignorant asshole you'd know that. And, again, the fact that you don't only proves that you're an asshole through and through.

 

[HisArpy]

Where is that happening?

He's just grinding his gears trying not to look like the fool he really is.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

I see you included gender transition in your list, which indicates you have very little or no contact with pediatric specialists who consult with minors undergoing counseling and hormone treatment for gender transition.

This is one of the least understood branches of medicine in America, mainly because of the hysteria whipped up by the right-wing. However, any family that has had to address this issue experiences the fallout from control freaks who think they know everything simply because they get their talking points from right-wing politicians rather than medical experts. The same goes for those who want to ban all abortions.

I've read both sides. I stand by that if a person isn't mature enough to handle 1 shouldn't be considered enough for any let alone something that is irreversible or effects the rest of their life ie sterilization and Sweden has banned it for minors for just that reason, others are leaning that way

Many years ago the medical community thought lobotomies were the proper way to deal with some difficult emotional issues.

Someday we will look back on the vast majorities of gender surgeries the same way.

 

[Chobham]

He's just grinding his gears trying not to look like the fool he really is.

The Alinsky pattern is obvious.

They seem to be ignorant of, or ignoring, the fact that the courts are tearing down their silly, do nothing, gun laws as fast as the bed wetters can dream them up.

 

[coati]

Heller v. DC is perfectly clear on this issue. If you knew how to read and comprehend what you were reading, you'd know this.

For example, Heller references Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, which refers to the "natural right of self preservation." The court in Heller also states that the right to bear arms was an English right which existed prior to the creation of this nation. Which, when examined, only proves that the Right PREXISTED the US Constitution. The enumeration of the 2nd Amendment establishes that the government may not strip that right from the people.

Then there's the US Declaration of Independence. The Declaration states clearly "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and it is absurd to believe the courts have never ever cited to the Declaration. Or that they wouldn't uphold and support the words therein as expressed. If you wish citation to that, look it up yourself because I'm not here to hold you hand while you piss your pants.

Then there's the 1st Amendment which prohibits the government from interfering with the practice of religion. You know, that God thing you refuse to acknowledge. Let's not even consider that the courts haven't EVER dealt with that issue or sided with the legitimate exercise of faith. Asserting otherwise will only get you laughed at by nearly everyone, including your own mom.

However, because you're an ignorant asshole you don't understand what any of that means. Instead you believe that some court somewhere "granted" the people the Rights inherent in the 2nd Amendment. This is wrong. ALL of the Rights enumerated in the 2nd Amendment PREDATE the Bill of Rights and therefore aren't "granted" by it. Instead, the courts have continually and consistently held that those enumerated Rights are restrictions on government and the liberties inherent in those Rights are natural rights and rights which flow from the Creator.

Again, if you weren't an ignorant asshole you'd know that. And, again, the fact that you don't only proves that you're an asshole through and through.

No, the Heller v DC decision does not cite God as the grantor of gun rights, nor does it cite the Declaration of Independence.

The Supreme Court majority cites the Second Amendment as the basis for their decision, and only uses historical context to define who benefits from the Second Amendment (e.g., only militias?). History is only prefatory to interpreting what was meant by the writers of the Second Amendment. In fact, the second part of the Heller decision describes the limits of the Second Amendment. Did God take away certain rights, or are there humans involved in defining these rights and the limits thereto?

Where is God actually cited in any court case related to gun rights? [hint: the Declaration of Independence is not a court case]

Give me a link to specific court case in which the decision has stated God and/or the Declaration of Independence are the statutory basis for gun rights. Still waiting.

Also still waiting on proof of your alternative theory about the molecular structure of water. Was that alternative structure defined by God?

 

[coati]

Many years ago the medical community thought lobotomies were the proper way to deal with some difficult emotional issues.

Someday we will look back on the vast majorities of gender surgeries the same way.

Today, not "someday", there are transexuals and intersexual people and other people who need appropriate healthcare. Just because you have a simplistic view that all treatments involve gender surgery does not justify withholding hormone blocking treatments for minors when medically indicated.

Also, not all transexuals suffer from gender dysphoria. Most are very happy with their gender identity.

 

[Rightguide]

Thank you for confirming my observation.

As indicated by his AV he has half a brain.

 

[Rightguide]

true, but what's wrong with restricting guns to single shot or bolt action weapons?

The power is not in the Constitution.

 

[ll74]

The power is not in the Constitution.

SCOTUS disagrees

 

[Rightguide]

Heller v. DC is perfectly clear on this issue. If you knew how to read and comprehend what you were reading, you'd know this.

For example, Heller references Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, which refers to the "natural right of self preservation." The court in Heller also states that the right to bear arms was an English right which existed prior to the creation of this nation. Which, when examined, only proves that the Right PREXISTED the US Constitution. The enumeration of the 2nd Amendment establishes that the government may not strip that right from the people.

Then there's the US Declaration of Independence. The Declaration states clearly "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and it is absurd to believe the courts have never ever cited to the Declaration. Or that they wouldn't uphold and support the words therein as expressed. If you wish citation to that, look it up yourself because I'm not here to hold you hand while you piss your pants.

Then there's the 1st Amendment which prohibits the government from interfering with the practice of religion. You know, that God thing you refuse to acknowledge. Let's not even consider that the courts haven't EVER dealt with that issue or sided with the legitimate exercise of faith. Asserting otherwise will only get you laughed at by nearly everyone, including your own mom.

However, because you're an ignorant asshole you don't understand what any of that means. Instead you believe that some court somewhere "granted" the people the Rights inherent in the 2nd Amendment. This is wrong. ALL of the Rights enumerated in the 2nd Amendment PREDATE the Bill of Rights and therefore aren't "granted" by it. Instead, the courts have continually and consistently held that those enumerated Rights are restrictions on government and the liberties inherent in those Rights are natural rights and rights which flow from the Creator.

Again, if you weren't an ignorant asshole you'd know that. And, again, the fact that you don't only proves that you're an asshole through and through.

A small point often overlooked by the left is the wording of the Second Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" by itself presumes the preexistence of the right.

 

[Rightguide]

SCOTUS disagrees

Show me.

 

[ll74]

Show me.

You don't pay attention to your own fucking threads.
DC v Heller

 

[Bn2f]

I’m gonna give it to HisArpy. This may be one of his finest posts. He threw the kitchen sink in on this one. I’m just going to point to the misdirection, in relation to coati’s question of god.
Notice how HisArpy seamlessly integrates God into his 1a argument.

“You know, that God thing you refuse to acknowledge.”

It’s religion, in regards to the government not establishing nor restricting, that’s stated in 1a. And it’s also the exercising of your religious rights (faith), that are stated in 1a. Both religion and faith can exist separate of the belief in and/or existence of a god or God (which is NEVER mentioned in the amendment).

 

[Rightguide]

You don't pay attention to your own fucking threads.
DC v Heller

So you really didn't find that language in the Heller ruling that would allow Congress to legislate a rule allowing only single-shot weapons?

 

[ll74]

So you really didn't find that language in the Heller ruling that would allow Congress to legislate a rule allowing only single-shot weapons?

The second Amendment is not absolute.

 

[Chobham]

I’m gonna give it to HisArpy. This may be one of his finest posts. He threw the kitchen sink in on this one. I’m just going to point to the misdirection, in relation to coati’s question of god.
Notice how HisArpy seamlessly integrates God into his 1a argument.

“You know, that God thing you refuse to acknowledge.”

It’s religion, in regards to the government not establishing nor restricting, that’s stated in 1a. And it’s also the exercising of your religious rights (faith), that are stated in 1a. Both religion and faith can exist separate of the belief in and/or existence of a god or God (which is NEVER mentioned in the amendment).

Stuck on the 'God' thing I see.

A great deal of the philosophy contained in our Constitution goes back to the writings of John Locke, a 17th century English philosopher. Locke put forth the notion that the right of self defense is a 'natural' law and in the context of the day that would mean that it was God given. As you choose to dispense with the notion of a God, fine, but that changes nothing. All you have to do is observe nature and notice that throughout the animal, and plant, kingdom the various living entities practice self defense each in their own manner. So indeed, the right of self defense DOES pre-exist. Not just in terms of the formation of governments by man but throughout the natural history of the earth itself. And this more or less puts you in a quandary for if you choose not to acknowledge a God figure then you most likely are a disciple of evolution which leads us directly to the notion that you are an animal and like all other animals you have the right to self defense.

In other words your argument has no base to stand on.

 

[Rightguide]

The second Amendment is not absolute.

So you and Joe say, but Bruen made a point to recognize the "unqualified command" of the Second Amendment.

 

[ll74]

So you and Joe say, but Bruen made a point to recognize the "unqualified command" of the Second Amendment.

I recognize the SCOTUS ruling that you apparently don't...yes.

Apparently you only recognize the Supreme Court when it rules in your favor.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

There is.

I note for the record that it wasn't I who said you were wrong.

No, you didn't, and I found your statement amusing. So I added the roflmao thingie.


There is no god but Allah. Just because you decline to believe it doesn't mean he ain't there.

 

[Starfire6369]

I’m gonna give it to HisArpy. This may be one of his finest posts. He threw the kitchen sink in on this one. I’m just going to point to the misdirection, in relation to coati’s question of god.
Notice how HisArpy seamlessly integrates God into his 1a argument.

“You know, that God thing you refuse to acknowledge.”

It’s religion, in regards to the government not establishing nor restricting, that’s stated in 1a. And it’s also the exercising of your religious rights (faith), that are stated in 1a. Both religion and faith can exist separate of the belief in and/or existence of a god or God (which is NEVER mentioned in the amendment).

Some call it a "God given right" in the contemporary language when written in the Constitution it was also called a "Natural Right" to self defense. The arms and means to do so being unrestricted.

Just going to add that originally the Constitution was designed to LIMIT the powers of the Federal government. A nice little read through the Federalist Papers is enlightening though frustrating to see how far from the original intention of the Constitution we've allowed our government to grow.

 

[ll74]

Some call it a "God given right" in the contemporary language when written in the Constitution it was also called a "Natural Right" to self defense. The arms and means to do so being unrestricted.

Just going to add that originally the Constitution was designed to LIMIT the powers of the Federal government. A nice little read through the Federalist Papers is enlightening though frustrating to see how far from the original intention of the Constitution we've allowed our government to grow.

Militia

 

[Chobham]

Militia

Individual.

 

[ll74]

Individual.

The word is not part of the amendment.

Maybe you're working on different class material.

 

[Chobham]

The word is not part of the amendment.

Maybe you're working on different class material.

"the right of the people" Not the 'militia. "People" noun The whole of human beings, collectively or individually.

 

[ll74]

"the right of the people" Not the 'militia. "People" noun The whole of human beings, collectively or individually.

The amendment discusses militia

Are you part of one?