|
Post by johndrake on Apr 6, 2024 21:18:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by liquidreigns on Apr 8, 2024 21:38:37 GMT
There is no unalienable right to own/posses a firearm, it is a right that pre-existed our US Constitution that dates back to the 1100's. The Constitution protects the peoples right to posses firearms.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Apr 9, 2024 0:03:25 GMT
There is no unalienable right to own/posses a firearm, it is a right that pre-existed our US Constitution that dates back to the 1100's. The Constitution protects the peoples right to posses firearms. Lady, you are absolutely wrong and all over the map all the time. There IS an unalienable Right to own / possess a firearm. Let's visit that in a moment. We can agree that the Right pre-existed before the Constitution was ratified. THAT is one of the things that makes it an unalienable Right. Let's move forward: The first recorded use of a firearm was 1364. It's kind of hard to have a law that applies to firearms when firearms haven't been invented yet. On one hand you claim there is no unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms and then you say the Constitution " protects the right to possess firearms." So, which are you claiming? Time to school you: The Constitution of the United States neither grants Rights nor does it create Rights. It only acknowledges and protects Rights. See this: resisters.freeforums.net/thread/191/second-amendment-real-storyresisters.freeforums.net/thread/229/unalienable-inalienable-mattersLady, once again, you have been schooled.
|
|
|
Post by liquidreigns on Apr 9, 2024 12:29:20 GMT
The only thing you are showing is that you don't understand or even comprehend the word "unalienable". The only rights that are "unalienable" are the right to life (the right to self defense), the right of liberty (self determination), and the pursuit of happiness (identity).
No where in the US Constitution, nor its preamble, does it say/refer that any right, let alone the Bill of Rights, is "unalienable". The 2nd Amendment protects the peoples right to keep and bear arms (weapons, i.e. sticks, stones, knives, firearms, etc). This dates back to the proclamation of King Henry II of England, the Assize of Arms of 1181, where the obligation of all freemen of England to possess and bear arms in the service of king and realm and to swear allegiance to the king, on pain of "vengeance, not merely on their lands or chattels, but on their limbs". The assize stipulated precisely the military equipment that each man should have according to his rank and wealth. It further progressed via the English Bill of Rights of 1689, Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; and as a side note, that very Bill also says that private armies are against the law, so now you know why private militias are illegal. keeping a standing army in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
Unalienable rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, i.e. the right to Life, Liberty, and to Pursue Happiness.
Legal rights, also called positive rights/laws, are those that are bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, i.e. the Assize of Arms and the English Bill of Rights, the requirement and then the granting of owning and possessing arms (military equipment) for their defense. The US Constitution protects the legal right to keep and bear arms.
Your forum is nothing more then a few clowns posting as if they are authoritative on given subjects due to their many years of "experience", that can't even comprehend basic English. LMFAO SMFH
|
|
|
Post by johndrake on Apr 9, 2024 14:44:16 GMT
The only thing you are showing is that you don't understand or even comprehend the word "unalienable". The only rights that are "unalienable" are the right to life (the right to self defense), the right of liberty (self determination), and the pursuit of happiness (identity). No where in the US Constitution, nor its preamble, does it say/refer that any right, let alone the Bill of Rights, is "unalienable". The 2nd Amendment protects the peoples right to keep and bear arms (weapons, i.e. sticks, stones, knives, firearms, etc). This dates back to the proclamation of King Henry II of England, the Assize of Arms of 1181, where the obligation of all freemen of England to possess and bear arms in the service of king and realm and to swear allegiance to the king, on pain of "vengeance, not merely on their lands or chattels, but on their limbs". The assize stipulated precisely the military equipment that each man should have according to his rank and wealth. It further progressed via the English Bill of Rights of 1689, Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; and as a side note, that very Bill also says that private armies are against the law, so now you know why private militias are illegal. keeping a standing army in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law; Unalienable rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, i.e. the right to Life, Liberty, and to Pursue Happiness. Legal rights, also called positive rights/laws, are those that are bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, i.e. the Assize of Arms and the English Bill of Rights, the requirement and then the granting of owning and possessing arms (military equipment) for their defense. The US Constitution protects the legal right to keep and bear arms. Your forum is nothing more then a few clowns posting as if they are authoritative on given subjects due to their many years of "experience", that can't even comprehend basic English. LMFAO SMFH As the new administrator of this board your posts belong in the humor forum because they are hilarious. You seem to want to follow the one poster on this board all over the Internet and you cannot give one good reason for this kind of behavior. The stalking and the gaslighting have not proven effective for you in what appears to be about 15 years. We have talked about the effect this must have on the family you claim to have. Why do you allow one man to live as he has posted rent free in your head? What are you accomplishing by trying to prevent him from posting? Is it your way of helping? I am not touting my years of experience. Your posts mean nothing to me personally. It only takes a dedicated person a few hours of research to figure out that your bloviating is a word salad with no meaning. This is what my own research shows to me at least. As for the posts on this board the legal community has dropped the word unalienable from the legal lexicon. It was replaced by the word inalienable. It was shown on this board that the words unalienable and inalienable have been interpreted differently by the courts. Those are facts that you cannot overcome no matter the length of your posts. More people are swayed by facts and reason than by meaningless attacks that are personal not educational. It is therefore time to educate you on unalienable rights as it appears to be the focus of this board and the mainstay of Resisters Discussion Board. Peter Berkowitz was the director of the State Department Policy Planning Staff under President Donald Trump. At that time Berkowitz was quoted as having said, "Unalienable rights are considered “inherent in all persons and roughly what we mean today when we say human rights,” - and "In the Declaration of Independence, America’s founders defined unalienable rights as including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These rights are considered “inherent in all persons and roughly what we mean today when we say human rights,” editorials.voa.gov/a/unalienable-rights-and-why-they-matter/5575563.htmlIn your ramblings you have admitted that unalienable rights are preexisting and inherent. Then you appear to deny that they exist simply because the verbiage was not included in the Bill of Rights. How can you deny unalienable rights when there are so many court cases that mention them and define them? This is an article on the subject that clears it up. legaldictionary.net/inalienable-rights/The position taken on this board is that the difference between an inalienable right and an unalienable right is in how the courts treat the words. Unalienable rights were presupposed to be given by a Creator. That position is consistent with the Declaration of Independence. Inalienable rights became important rights but were ruled to be generated by government as contrasted to unalienable rights given by a creator. Virtually every source researched acknowledges rights that are above positive rights whether you call them inalienable or unalienable. You do not have a monopoly on understanding the subject and it is past time for someone other than the Resister to point that out to you. The Assize of Arms to which you refer did not address any inalienable or unalienable right. It was a proclamation requiring all freemen to have arms in service to the king. Our Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not some mandate that we arm ourselves in defense of a king. Neither is anything in the English laws mandatory law for U.S. citizens since our Constitution and Bill of Rights superseded all of the laws we were formerly subject to. Additionally you make claims about the militia and even suggest that militias are illegal. Private armies and the people being armed are not the same thing. The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people not the government. While the Constitution does not mention a lot of things you like to harp on it has been the courts that have cleared it up. You have never given any sources to document your weird take on the American system of justice so we can close this out by saying that if there is a fuknclwn among the people that read these exchanges you take the crown off the heads of everyone. You have wasted your life and your time chasing something you cannot stop. You appear to have a personal issue with one person and it just does not amuse them. You should know that I am as committed to holding you up to ridicule as you are to being a nuisance and a distraction to productive exchanges on these discussion boards. Put simply you are creating enemies and not doing any harm to this board or its participants.
|
|