Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background check

[Moot]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

:lamo

The states ratify all amendments.

Your arguments just get more and more sad.

Yeah, that's what they used to say about Einstein's theory of relativity, too.

Anyway, the very first thing the second amendment says is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"...and since the states ratified the BoR....then who are the free states and what do they need to be secure from?

 

[VanceMack]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

Yeah, that's what they used to say about Einstein's theory of relativity, too.

Anyway, the very first thing the second amendment says is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"...and since the states ratified the BoR....then who are the free states and what do they need to be secure from?

We the states ratify the constitution and BoR to protect the states rights to free speech and the rights of the states to freely practice religion and the rights of the states to the press and the rights of the states to assemble and the rights of the states to be free of unlawful search and seizure. No. All those it's 'the people'. Just the 2nd...the one you don't like. Even though you have Madison's words. And Mason's. And Jeffersons. And Adams. And Washingtons.

Your arguments are just plain silly.

 

[BretJ]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

Yeah, that's what they used to say about Einstein's theory of relativity, too.

Anyway, the very first thing the second amendment says is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"...and since the states ratified the BoR....then who are the free states and what do they need to be secure from?

Contact the Supreme Court as soon as possible with your incredibly enlightened interpretation of the 2nd. Unbelievable they have gotten it wrong for a couple hundred years.

 

[KevinKohler]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

Since the second amendment makes no mention of individual rights...we assume they exist and their protection can be found elsewhere. IE: ninth amendment

The entire bill of rights is about individual rights.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

The Miller court decided that a sawed off shotgun was not a militia firearm nor was the defendant a member of a state militia and therefore the defendant couldn't claim his second amendment rights were violated, therefore he had no standing. I think that supports my argument...not yours.

you are not being truthful about the militia membership and that is why I schooled you a few days ago over standing.

they did not rule on standing, a dismissal on standing would have meant they didn't even go through the analysis they did

you are just making up definitions for terms you clearly do not understand

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

:lamo

The states ratify all amendments.

Your arguments just get more and more sad.

she keeps digging the hole deeper. the standing argument is hilarious. You'd think there would be at least one leftwing attorney on this board who would tell her what that term means

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

Oh, so you have never cited the second amendment when discussing local or state gun control ?

And you agree that the second amendment does not establish an individual right to keep and bear arms ?

And you think there was a conspiracy to ban ... Sawed off shotguns ...?

where do you come up with this crap. Ever since McDonald applied the second to the states I have noted that action is going to require the courts to do a balancing act since the states had some powers that the federal government never had and those powers may encroach upon the second amendment as to bearing arms. Laws of the states that prevent the keeping of firearms should be struck down

 

[Master PO]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

The founders didn't seem to mention individual rights at all ...in fact, most of the state constitutions and discussions at the state ratifying conventions about the right to bear arms were in context of militias....

I think you need to do some homework, TD.

Actually, the constitution says...life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Collectives/mixed government are a group right...not an individual right. The DoI declares a group right, not an individual right. The constitution secures the collective right of the people to exercise their individual natural right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The people in their collective capacity created the Constitution. Obviously, they believed they had that collective right when they declared their independence from the monarch.

Lets see, you who said that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness was in the constitution.

you who said mixed government is a RIGHT, when mixed government is a type of government

you who said, the american people created the constitution.

for you who constantly gets things wrong about our founding, its documents and government , you have zero room to talk.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

Lets see, you who said that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness was in the constitution.

you who said mixed government is a RIGHT, when mixed government is a type of government

you who said, the american people created the constitution.

for you who constantly gets things wrong about our founding, its documents and government , you have zero room to talk.

It is obvious Moot's hatred of gun owners and the NRA formed long before she actually attempted to read the constitution. Once she read the constitution, she apparently realized that most of her desired harassments of gun owners is unconstitutional. So she started working backwards from what the second amendment in order to try to create an alternative interpretation of the second amendment that would allow all the silly attacks on gun owners that she craves.

The problem with this intellectually dishonest approach, is that once you start modifying what the founders intended, and once you start pretending that "shall not be infringed" actually allows all sorts of infringements, you have to start reinterpreting and mutating the rest of the constitution so that your dishonest view of the second amendment will now fit the rest of the constitutional fabric.


Intellectual honest anti gun activists don't bother with pretending that the second amendment means something it doesn't. Rather they merely say the second amendment is whatever the USSC says it is and the same goes with the commerce clause. None of them will make any effort to try to claim that the WICKARD progeny of cases was honestly decided-rather they limit their points to whatever the USSC says is the law

 

[Master PO]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

It is obvious Moot's hatred of gun owners and the NRA formed long before she actually attempted to read the constitution. Once she read the constitution, she apparently realized that most of her desired harassments of gun owners is unconstitutional. So she started working backwards from what the second amendment in order to try to create an alternative interpretation of the second amendment that would allow all the silly attacks on gun owners that she craves.

The problem with this intellectually dishonest approach, is that once you start modifying what the founders intended, and once you start pretending that "shall not be infringed" actually allows all sorts of infringements, you have to start reinterpreting and mutating the rest of the constitution so that your dishonest view of the second amendment will now fit the rest of the constitutional fabric.


Intellectual honest anti gun activists don't bother with pretending that the second amendment means something it doesn't. Rather they merely say the second amendment is whatever the USSC says it is and the same goes with the commerce clause. None of them will make any effort to try to claim that the WICKARD progeny of cases was honestly decided-rather they limit their points to whatever the USSC says is the law

the bold above is so correct, because they cannot in any way use the founders or our founding documents, because it does not support any of their positions, and the simple reason for that is.......because the federal government was granted NO powers into the lifes liberty and property of the people, ONLY THE STATES HAVE THOSE POWERS.


federalist 45- -The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

the bold above is so correct, because they cannot in any way use the founders or our founding documents, because it does not support any of their positions, and the simple reason for that is.......because the federal government was granted NO powers into the lifes liberty and property of the people, ONLY THE STATES HAVE THOSE POWERS.


federalist 45- -The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

what is funny is how desperate the Bannite minions are to pretend that the schemes their Democrat masters concoct are actually constitutional and supported by the intent of the founders when they spend so much time saying the founders were racist rich white guys who have nothing relevant to say

 

[Moot]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

Contact the Supreme Court as soon as possible with your incredibly enlightened interpretation of the 2nd. Unbelievable they have gotten it wrong for a couple hundred years.

Actually, for two hundred years the SCOTUS got it right....until Scalia got it wrong.

 

[Moot]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

The entire bill of rights is about individual rights.

It's about collective rights. Even without the restrictions of the BoR the federal laws would still have to apply equally to all citizens and not just a few individuals.

 

[Moot]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

Lets see, you who said that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness was in the constitution.

you who said mixed government is a RIGHT, when mixed government is a type of government

you who said, the american people created the constitution.

for you who constantly gets things wrong about our founding, its documents and government , you have zero room to talk.

That is so sad and pathetic, Ernst. I feel sorry for you,..really I do.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

That is so sad and pathetic, Ernst. I feel sorry for you,..really I do.

you feel sorry, because of your own errors of telling others about the founding documents, government...how strange!

 

[Moot]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

you are not being truthful about the militia membership and that is why I schooled you a few days ago over standing.

they did not rule on standing, a dismissal on standing would have meant they didn't even go through the analysis they did

you are just making up definitions for terms you clearly do not understand

They didn't rule because the defendant didn't have standing.

Militia membership was mandatory.

The Militia Act of 1792 clarified whom the militia consists of; " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."​

 

[Moot]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

you feel sorry, because of your own errors of telling others about the founding documents, government...how strange!

No, I feel sorry that our public schools failed you.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

No, I feel sorry that our public schools failed you.

lets see now.


you used Jamses Madison to make a point in another thread.

then i made a statement, saying "the lives liberty and property of the people are state powers", which you declared to be nonsense.

then I produced it came from James Madison himself in federalist 45 , you then ran in shame because your education failed you.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

They didn't rule because the defendant didn't have standing.

Militia membership was mandatory.

The Militia Act of 1792 clarified whom the militia consists of; " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."​

the law, does not require Citizens to go and enroll.

now please think and read the law before you say something silly, and say..."yes it does", because if you do i am going to have to show you, you failed in your education again.

 

[Moot]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

lets see now.


you used Jamses Madison to make a point in another thread.

then i made a statement, saying "the lives liberty and property of the people are state powers", which you declared to be nonsense.

then I produced it came from James Madison himself in federalist 45 , you then ran in shame because your education failed you.

I really have no idea what you're talking about other than you cherry picked and took a few quotes out of context to fit your agenda and then you repeat it as if it had credibility. You still can't comprehend the meaning of "We the People."

 

[Moot]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

the law, does not require Citizens to go and enroll.

now please think and read the law before you say something silly, and say..."yes it does", because if you do i am going to have to show you, you failed in your education again.

Shortly after the second amendment was ratified congress passed a bill making militia membership mandatory. Go read a history book, Ernst.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

I really have no idea what you're talking about other than you cherry picked and took a few quotes out of context to fit your agenda and then you repeat it as if it had credibility. You still can't comprehend the meaning of "We the People."

oh, so are you are saying you can used madison to make a point, but if others use him to make point then the point is not valid?

as you have been told many times, the people did into create the constitution, they did not even know a convention was taking place, and they did not vote to ratify the constitution .

i don't not know what left wing school you went to but they did you a great disservice, by not giving you a proper education our history

 

[Master PO]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

Shortly after the second amendment was ratified congress passed a bill making militia membership mandatory. Go read a history book, Ernst.

thats not what i say, read what i wrote

but since you will not read, the law directs the captain/ commander who is a state official of the militia to enroll men, and it states that the men will be noticed of their enrollment.

it does not direct men to go and enroll

 

[Moot]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

oh, so are you are saying you can used madison to make a point, but if others use him to make point then the point is not valid?

as you have been told many times, the people did into create the constitution, they did not even know a convention was taking place, and they did not vote to ratify the constitution . i don't not know what left wing school you went to but they did you a great disservice, by not giving you a proper education our history

I'm saying you either took the quotes out of context or you didn't comprehend the words at all.

There were plenty of newspapers and editorials in the colonies and the colonists were probably more informed about politics and government than most people are today.

"... the early colonial newspapers ― chief among them the Boston Evening Post, Boston Gazette, Boston Newsletter, Providence Gazette & Country Journal, New York Courier and Enquirer, New York Statesman and Evening Advertiser, New York Gazette and Mercury, and Pennsylvania Gazette ― were aggressive, rude, unabashedly partisan, and tremendously influential.

"The influence and circulation of [colonial] newspapers is great beyond any thing ever known in Europe," an English visitor wrote. "Newspapers penetrate to every crevice of the [country]." And these newspapers were carrying not only news about America but crucial editorial commentary about America's new government.

English editor and censor Roger L'Estrange cautioned in 1663, "A public newspaper makes the multitude too familiar with the actions and counsels of its superiors, too pragmatical and censorious, and gives them, not only an itch, but a kind of colourable right and licence to be meddling with the government.

"In the decade leading up to the American Revolution," wrote Mitchell Stephens, "a hostile press certainly created unrest and helped dissolve whatever union of opinion had existed between British officials and their American subjects. But the true power of the pre-Revolutionary press is not to be found in its ability to wound the British. The true power of this press was its ability to enfranchise and unify the Americans. ...It helped the inhabitants of the colonies imagine themselves Americans."

The colonial newspapers were to become the most powerful weapon in the struggle to persuade the people to join in what John Adams called "the real American revolution," a conviction later to be echoed by these words of James Madison: "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to farce or a tragedy."

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center
​

 

[Moot]

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

thats not what i say, read what i wrote

but since you will not read, the law directs the captain/ commander who is a state official of the militia to enroll men, and it states that the men will be noticed of their enrollment.

it does not direct men to go and enroll

Nope. The law says "shall be enrolled in the militia".

"...Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act..."​