You must answer me now

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.

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

Duke did not pioneer guarding the border, Cesar Chavez was doing it in the late 60's and early 70's keeping migrants from coming over the border to take jobs in the wine and farm fields.

search.brave.com
Cesar chavez guarding the border
Cesar Chavez, a prominent labor leader and civil rights activist, had a complex history regarding immigration and border control. While he was a strong advocate for the rights of Latino farmworkers, he also took a hardline stance on illegal immigration. Early Stance In the early years of his...
search.brave.com search.brave.com

To hear a clown claim things about our country to fit his racial ideals by not knowing actual history says a lot. White supremacists were not leading the way in anything other than promoting racial hatred and division. To conflate the actions and motivations of White supremacists with broader labor and economic issues is both historically inaccurate and morally misleading. buttthatsjusme imjusayn

I am so glad that I took John's advice and put this individual on ignore on other social media sites.  She would almost be worth putting on ignore here, but not before addressing the above post at a personal level.  

Liquid Reigns contacted me via PM on a board called USM over a decade and a half ago.  At that time I was posting my experiences with immigration law and one case in particular.  I had been a Justice of the Peace and people would still come to me with unusual problems, knowing that I would resolve them with as little interference from the government as possible.  In this case, an elderly lady looked me up through neighborhood and said her neighbor had disappeared leaving a small baby with her.  The old lady was 79 years old, in this country without papers and not equipped to handle a child.  So, I took the boy in and he became a part of the family.  Weeks turned to months and after the first year or so I started looking into adopting him.  We also looked for family members in another country.  Those inquiries brought officials from Honduras to my door.  After a lengthy exchange with them and then telling them to get off my property or they could be hauled off by a garbage truck, they left.

The Hondurans left and a couple of hours later the county police showed up.  I surrendered the boy.  A few days or so went by and I got a summons to appear in court.  When I got there, a judge asked me why I didn't turn the boy over to Honduran officials.  I told them it was because the boy was born in the United States; the Hondurans had no jurisdiction in the United States; I could barely understand their legal documents (my Spanish is sparse when it gets too technical); neither of the boys parents were there; there were no government officials from the United States present and the boy was born in Georgia which, I contended made him a citizen of the United States.  Present in the courtroom was officials from Honduras (where the boy's mother was from), a U.S. immigration official representing the feds, a lawyer from the Dept. of Family and Children Services and a county child psychologist.  The judge declared the boy to be a citizen of the United States; a position that Liquid Reigns didn't like and that is what pissed her off.  If you're born in the United States, you are a citizen.  Liquid Reigns had to be schooled on that point.

She wanted to debate me on that point and she lost the debate as I had first hand experience in knowing what constitutes a citizen of the United States.  Since that time she had done everything humanly possible to force me into retracting what I said on that board.  She has trolled me, followed me from one board to another, lied to me, lied about me, doxed me, made false statements against me, sent viruses to screw up my computer, either participated in the killing of our family cat OR caused it to happen; she either shot thru my kitchen one night while we were at home and if she didn't do it, she is the sole proximate cause of it happening.  When someone endangers your life, they create a debt.  That needs to be paid.

I want to say one more thing before getting to the relevant part of this thread.  In the above case the little boy was put into my custody by the judge with the plan being, if the mother failed to qualify to get him back, I'd adopt him.  He had to come to my house and live and the county was coming out to inspect the place.  As fate would have it, my septic tank broke down.  I didn't have enough on hand to fix it and it was going to take weeks to get to my retirement money or a loan from the bank.  People that Liquid Reigns has called White supremacists showed up with heavy equipment, fixing the septic tank and they have never taken a single penny for their work.  So, when I see posts like the above and how that individual embarrasses herself by painting people with a racial view as "promoting racial hatred and division" I can tell you that the most hate filled, nasty, sorry excuse for a human being is none other than Liquid Reigns.   For her to attempt to judge anyone (and I don't know who she is ranting about in this instance) is hypocritical and dishonest.  When I took the position that even undocumented foreigners have unalienable Rights whereas citizens have unalienable Rights and the privileges of citizenship, she blew a cork.  Over at Political Hotwire I've watched her debate a liberal there and I checked out of the conversation when it went over 650 posts.  

Liquid Reigns will pick someone to argue with and argue against her own positions (if she has one) and contradict herself sometimes in the same threads.  I responded here because she is ranting about people not knowing history, being stupid, etc., etc., etc.  Here is the truth.  Liquid Reigns never starts a thread.  She never has.  She allows someone else to start the thread and then she Googles the Hell out of the subject, taking the opposite side of whatever poster she's up against.  If she isn't an agent provocateur, there isn't a cow in Texas.  For that piece of garbage to question the morals and honesty of ANYONE is a sick joke  and I'd give a thousand dollars just for the chance to spit in her face.  But, then I'd want to collect on a long overdue debt.  

Liquid Reigns you ought to sue your brain for non support.  True, unalienable Rights, according to the Declaration of Independence include Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  Those Rights do NOT have anything to do with a 'right to migrate."  Shall we consider the facts:

The Declaration of Independence could not refer to a relationship between government and the citizens.  There were no such thing as U.S. citizens when the Declaration of Independence was ratified.  

Virtually every person that Thomas Jefferson knew was an arrival from a foreign country and / or a child / grandchild of a foreigner, NONE of which asked permission to enter the United States.  

The first dictionary ever published in the United States was the American Dictionary of the English Language of 1828 by Noah Webster.  Google him so that you understand the value of his words.  In that dictionary, the word Liberty is:

"Freedom of restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind.  The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled.  A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions."

You want to tell us about unalienable Rights when you've spent so much time on other boards denying that such Rights exist?  What a freaking troll!  Let's move on.  You wrote:

"These laws are designed to manage resources, protect jobs, and maintain social cohesion, all of which are vital to a nation’s stability and prosperity"

Yeah, and the gun control you support is designed to make us safe. You're posting nothing but socialist B.S.  America was designed to operate as a free market nation where the laws of supply and demand manage resources.  When the government controls things like jobs, goods, services, etc.  then you have socialism.  If you maintain social cohesion you are now talking racial integrity.  Where did you steal this shit from?  Hitler?  It is textbook National Socialism.  Protect jobs?  Damn you're almost funny.  When the government owns the jobs, you have socialism.  I'm going to tell you this one more time and we're done with this.  I'll refer people back to this exchange in the future so they can see how screwed up you really are.

The current immigration laws (primarily those passed in1965) were passed for the sole reason of changing the "ethnic" landscape of America (or more accurately the racial composition of America).  An article from the Center for Immigration Studies says this:

"The 1965 legislation was named the Hart-Celler Act for its principal sponsors in the Senate and House of Representatives. It abolished the quota system, which critics condemned as a racist contradiction of fundamental American values. By liberalizing the rules for immigration, especially by prioritizing family reunification, it also stimulated rapid growth of immigration numbers. Once immigrants had naturalized, they were able to sponsor relatives in their native lands in an ever-lengthening migratory process called chain migration. That unintended consequence is Hart-Celler's enduring legacy.


"The 1965 immigration law quickly transformed the ethnic portrait of the United States,"2 scholars have noted. At first the new immigration came largely from southern Europe, especially Italy. But that stream played out in about a decade. Meanwhile, immigration from Eastern Europe was limited by repressive communist governments.

By 1980, most immigrants were coming from Latin America, Asia, and Africa — in numbers far greater than the annual average of 300,000 that had prevailed during the 1960s. Despite assurances by Hart-Celler advocates that the bill would add little to the immigrant stream, more than seven million newcomers entered the country legally during the 1980s. That trend has continued. Meanwhile, illegal immigration also began a decades-long surge."

cis.org/Report/HartCeller-Immigration-Act-1965?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwx-CyBhAqEiwAeOcTdaGNC-2hd9LAPY1KHvdcQbP5WfVO4OngYAWfJ2PnhptJ0nWwQA4UiRoC6GsQAvD_BwE

Whites only made up  a bit under 15 percent of the world's population.  By opening the door to all other nations, we discriminated against the predominant race in the United States.  Somewhere, between 1789 and 1965 the United States adopted the ONE WORLD / ONE RACE / ONE RELIGION utopia of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  Liquid Reigns supports that, but today has been schooled.  

What makes you think Jefferson had to acknowledge God without offending one of the other denominations? They were living in the enlightened period, Jefferson recognized that inalienable/unalienable rights were natural rights in nature, that is why he used the word "endowed" and not bestowed like you use. I don't think you know the very documents you claim to be the scholar of, you've demonstrated your stupidity in every comment in not comprehending them or their purpose.

Your claims are not factual, nor are you the arbiter of what are or aren't facts. You may have your beliefs, but that is all they are, your beliefs. Problem is they go against academia and reality.

You put people on ignore because you can't refute the reality of you being unable to rebut claims that make your "facts" irrelevant. None are insecure in their positions, you ignoring them shows you are insecure because you have no viable argument against reality. Anybody that reads these forums and comments are able to make up their own mind, the overwhelming majority disagree with your inanity, as witnessed by you only having 4 people commenting on this board, there are 3 clowns and 1 mush head.

The only person "deluded" here, seems to be you. urafuknclwn

The only person being dishonest is you. You put people on ignore because they show your claims to be inept, and that chip on your shoulder doesn't allow you the humility of recognizing your own ignorance. Disagreeing with someone is one thing, what you do is not disagreement, you try to claim a position of authority over everybody that points out your stupidity, then you whine like a bitch. Claiming that others lack the balls to say stuff to your face only shows just how ignorant you truly are. Please let me know when you come to California. SMFH