The background check campaign

[TurtleDude]

All you have provided is personal opinion. You have presented no reliable data which supports your claim that registration should be rejected because it leads to confiscation.

how do you enforce a UBGC without registration

do you deny your own leaders' conclusions?

 

[Master PO]

mind reading now EB? When I say I do not understand what was written - that is exactly what i mean. This seems to happen far too often with things you attempt to say that simply do not come across. Again - here it is from you



What is it you are trying to say there?

time to refresh your memory on what you stated.

. I have no problem in any way with the vast vast majority of gun owners other than the small extremist fringe who have totally perverted and hijacked the Constitution for their own nefarious purposes.

it is impossible for people to hi-jack the Constitution, because the Constitution's restrction does not apply to the people.....and the interpretation of it is in the hands of the court....... not the people.

 

[TurtleDude]

Sorry for you but I never took that position. If you claim I did please reproduce it or retract that false claim.

sorry, you know you did and you have stated that the 2A does not protect a specific type of gun

you have also said if you own one gun, then the government cannot prevent you from "enjoying" your 2A rights

the 2A gives us NOTHING, rather it prevents the government from taking what we always had

 

[haymarket]

how do you enforce a UBGC without registration

do you deny your own leaders' conclusions?

How does the system work in states that demand background checks for all firearms purchases?

Which "leader" are you referring to?

 

[haymarket]

sorry, you know you did and you have stated that the 2A does not protect a specific type of gun

Yet you are unable to present any quote from me saying this nonsense about your claim of two shots. being unable to back your claims about my positions as you are unable to do here is pretty much standard operating procedure Turtle.

the 2A gives us NOTHING, rather it prevents the government from taking what we always had

Where and what did you ALWAYS HAVE? If this is another rant about natural rights you have already conceded that they only existed as a figment of someones imagination and until government protected the behavior there was no actual right to exercise. That leaves you with nothing Turtle.

 

[haymarket]

time to refresh your memory on what you stated.



it is impossible for people to hi-jack the Constitution, because the Constitution's restrction does not apply to the people.....and the interpretation of it is in the hands of the court....... not the people.

The rights given in the Constitution certainly do indeed apply to the people.

 

[Master PO]

The rights given in the Constitution certainly do indeed apply to the people.

wrong....... no rights are given, only powers are granted by the Constitution article 1 section 1

the 2nd is a restriction on government, not a grant, give or bestow to anyone

 

[haymarket]

wrong....... no rights are given, only powers are granted by the Constitution article 1 section 1

the 2nd is a restriction on government, not a grant, give or bestow to anyone

So who did then if not the Constitution? Even your ally Turtle has conceded the point that natural rights only pre existed in peoples imaginations and until government took action there was no real right to be exercised or protected for anyone.

So where does that leave you EB?

 

[Jerry]

So you cannot answer questions about your own claims . Got it loud and clear.

It was your claim as it was your link who said it.

 

[Master PO]

So who did then if not the Constitution? Even your ally Turtle has conceded the point that natural rights only pre existed in peoples imaginations and until government took action there was no real right to be exercised or protected for anyone.

So where does that leave you EB?

i have the words of the Constitution itself which say only powers are granted by the Constitution......people do not have powers........ and the bill of rights stating the clauses of the bill of rights are restrictions on the federal government.

i have the man, James Madison who wrote the bill of rights starting that they are restrictions on the federal government...........

here they are


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.



James Madison- But the evidence is still stronger. The proposition of amendments made by Congress is introduced in the following terms:

"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions."

Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government"



since you cannot produce anything to back you foolish claim, where does that leave you?..........hung out to dry.

 

[TurtleDude]

How does the system work in states that demand background checks for all firearms purchases?

Which "leader" are you referring to?

it has been a complete waste of time

 

[TurtleDude]

wrong....... no rights are given, only powers are granted by the Constitution article 1 section 1

the 2nd is a restriction on government, not a grant, give or bestow to anyone

his entire silly argument falls apart when examined in that light

hence the evasive nonsense about whether natural rights "existed"

 

[TurtleDude]

So who did then if not the Constitution? Even your ally Turtle has conceded the point that natural rights only pre existed in peoples imaginations and until government took action there was no real right to be exercised or protected for anyone.

So where does that leave you EB?

again your interpretation is dishonest

 

[haymarket]

It was your claim as it was your link who said it.

Who said what exactly?

 

[haymarket]

again your interpretation is dishonest

How so? i merely reported your own concessions on the issue.

 

[haymarket]

his entire silly argument falls apart when examined in that light

hence the evasive nonsense about whether natural rights "existed"

What "argument" would that be?

 

[TurtleDude]

How so? i merely reported your own concessions on the issue.

you completely misunderstand the point.

 

[haymarket]

it has been a complete waste of time

what you just posted is a complete disconnect from the questions I asked of you as a follow up to your own post.

Again - how do background checks and registration already work in states that have it now?

Which "leader" are you referring to?

 

[haymarket]

you completely misunderstand the point.

How so? I am merely reporting your own concessions on the issue made right in this very thread.

 

[TurtleDude]

What "argument" would that be?

that the 2A-which was intended by the founders to prevent the federal government from having any ability to interfere with the right (a right they saw as existing from the start of mankind's time on earth) of free men to be armed. when you understand that, you could not possibly claim that they intended only to allow a creature of government-a federal militia-to be armed in a document that was intended to limit that very federal government

you see, when there are competing "interpretations" (in this case, the proper one and the revisionist dishonest statist one) the best way to determine which one is correct is to examine the entire context of the document, letter, clause or sentence in question

doing that, your interpretation is patently absurd

 

[haymarket]

i have the words of the Constitution itself which say only powers are granted by the Constitution.....

Powers are indeed granted to the government.

Rights are granted to the people by the Bill of Rights and other Amendments.

One does NOT preclude the other.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the Constitution and has no relevance in any discussion of the contents of the Constitution.

 

[haymarket]

that the 2A-which was intended by the founders to prevent the federal government from having any ability to interfere with the right (a right they saw as existing from the start of mankind's time on earth) of free men to be armed. when you understand that, you could not possibly claim that they intended only to allow a creature of government-a federal militia-to be armed in a document that was intended to limit that very federal government

you see, when there are competing "interpretations" (in this case, the proper one and the revisionist dishonest statist one) the best way to determine which one is correct is to examine the entire context of the document, letter, clause or sentence in question

doing that, your interpretation is patently absurd

In which post did I make that argument?

 

[TurtleDude]

Powers are indeed granted to the government.

Rights are granted to the people by the Bill of Rights and other Amendments.

One does NOT preclude the other.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the Constitution and has no relevance in any discussion of the contents of the Constitution.

rights are RECOGNIZED by the constitution

No wonder your arguments are so wrong. You continue to reject the entire premise of the constitution

 

[TurtleDude]

In which post did I make that argument?

why do you constantly pretend you never said stuff that we all saw you post?

its a pretty lame tactic

are you now denying that you claimed the 2A was only intended to allow the federal government to arm a militia that you claim no longer exists?

 

[Master PO]

Powers are indeed granted to the government.

Rights are granted to the people by the Bill of Rights and other Amendments.

One does NOT preclude the other.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the Constitution and has no relevance in any discussion of the contents of the Constitution.

of coarse you can produce nothing for your case...only your own words.

the preamble is stating the clauses of the bill of rights are restrictive on the federal government.......which they are


no where........ DOES THE CONSTITUTION GRANT ,GIVE ,BESTOW, ANYTHING TO THE PEOPLE OR THE STATES.