High Court Won't Review Ban on Assault Weapons [declared no individual constitutional right]

Findlaw ^ | Reuters

[robertpaulsen]

"All of our rights are inalienable in the sense that they exist"

No, inalienable means something. It's not just a catch-phrase.

Inalienable means "incapable of being surrendered (or transferred) to another".

[tpaine]

The more you babble on, the more evident it becomes.
You justify CA gun prohibition because you see it as a form of rebellion against 'the feds'..


How demented can you get?

[Dead Corpse]

The longer this conversation goes on, the more I am certain that your Ritalin is wearing off.

The Founders broke off from Britain because of the Crowns complete lack of respect for the basic rights of the colonists. Taxation, arms, religious expression, and an equitable system of laws and justice were the cornerstone issues.

The Founders did more than just repudiate this, they went through what they knew of history and came up with a system designed to restrict government to ensure freedom for "We the People".

Why you have a problem with people being free, I'd really like to know. Not that I am under any illusion that you can coherently describe your "there are no Rights" view. A=A boy. Cogito ergo sum. You own yourself and no one else can lay a claim to any part of your life without your consent.

There is an objective proof for "Rights" that you seem to hate so much. Our Constitution was written up to ensure that those Rights would never be trampled by human greed for power. Over the years, it has steadily been eroded by power mongers nibbling at the very basis for our Country. One minute spouting that some clause in the FedCon allows an action. The next minute that plain language means nothing. Same at the State level. Things that are clearly "common Rights" are allowed to be restricted although no such power exists at the State level, other things clearly written are distorted or ignored by pinheads like you.

Understanding? You understand NOTHING of my views, how the Constitution works, or why you are as stupid as you are displaying yourself to be. Some things are just "self evident".

[Dead Corpse]

Inalienable means "incapable of being surrendered (or transferred) to another".

And yet just a few short posts ago you claimed that the State has the power to restrict those Rights to a point that they become meaningless.

Which is it?

[tpaine]

All of our rights are inalienable in the sense that they exist, - regardless of how they are violated by irrational 'regulations'.

As to 'regulating' rights, Justice Harlan said it best:
  "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, .
. . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
______________________________________
But of course, speaking to 'states rightist' FReakers of rational continuums is an exercise in futility.
258

---

"All of our rights are inalienable in the sense that they exist, - regardless of how they are violated by irrational 'regulations'."

robertpaulsen wrote: No, inalienable means something. It's not just a catch-phrase.
Inalienable means "incapable of being surrendered (or transferred) to another".

---

As I said, it's futile to expect a rational response from you clowns. Belaboring the obvious definition of inalienable is a pitiful retort. Get lost.

[JohnGalt]

That is the complete opposite conclusion to my interpretation and Texas Federalist has a great post on just that.

The Federal AWB, which is up for renewal next year, is blatantly un-Constitutional on both question of vagueness and the 2nd Amendment that could not be any more clear.

Since I know nothing about the California Constitution which I am sure respects a right to bear arms just like our Massachusetts Constitution does, I was curious how the Supreme Court could justify taking the Lawrence case and ruling on it, but not this case.

So how did this situation come to be and what is the best remedy? Post empty threats that it is time to do something about it in anonymous cyberspace like Dead Corpse? who should he go after, the California Supreme Court, the federalis?

The conservative justices who refused to hear the case for fear of losing?

I realize when we are talking about institutions its more complicated then abstract rights and points of ideology, but I find it a metaphysical contradiction to expect the federalis to respect an institution (the right to keep and bear arms without restriction) when the DC tax regime does not respect the Constitution to begin with?

If the Court was going to rule in favor of this bill, as Texas Federalist suggested, than those Americans in states without a similar AWB would suddenly have lost a protection to their 2nd Amendment Rights-- does that make sense?

Thus I was willing to consider that it was best for the Supreme Court to not hear the bill.

[JohnGalt]

From this post, it seems you have no idea about how the country dumped the Articles of Confederation, despite Patrick Henry's warning, and "embraced" the Constitution without any legal justification for dumping the A of C.

Secondly, it seems you have little idea about why the Bill of Rights was included and why some thought the mere addition of the Bill of Rights would create a threat to protecting liberties (and who is to say the real anti-Federalists were wrong?)

Lastly, it seems you failed to grasp the cynical agreement between Hamilton and Jefferson in regards to nationalizing the debt in exchange for the capital being in DC rather than NY.

The Constitution has not been effective in preserving liberty because, as Patrick Henry and George Washington warned, the institutions became corrupt, mostly by Robespierre types like yourself who believe that politics can accomplish anything like 'ending Terrorism' or some other utopian end. Indeed, you even worked for the government in the same posts where you are excommunicating others for not agreeing with you.

It's not very compelling.

[JohnGalt]

I think his point is that these rights of your are not inalienable. They can be taken away unless they are protected with violence of course, as Patrick Henry suggested. The whole concept of inalienable rights came from French liberals; conservatives, like Lord Acton, argued that virtue came before liberty.

tpaine has tried to make the claim that the rights exists even when they are not protected but I am not sure what practical value that has in the dogmatic sense.

But keep hoping the federalis will save us.

At some point you Statists will have to decide on whether to sign on with DC regime against those who love liberty or say good bye to all that once and for all and renounce any legitimacy to their rule.

[robertpaulsen]

To which inalienable right are you referring?

[Dead Corpse]

From this post, it seems you have no idea about how the country dumped the Articles of Confederation, despite Patrick Henry's warning, and "embraced" the Constitution without any legal justification for dumping the A of C.

Actually, since you asked my opinion so nicely, I've always thought that revising the Aritcles would have been more appropriate than forming a New Constitution. However, my statements on the Declaration that started it all stand despite your lack of comprehension of what I was talking about. The South should have been allowed to succeed as was its member States power to do so.

Secondly, it seems you have little idea about why the Bill of Rights was included and why some thought the mere addition of the Bill of Rights would create a threat to protecting liberties (and who is to say the real anti-Federalists were wrong?)

The Bill or Rights states in its pre-amble exactly why it was added. To prevent exactly the type of misconstruction that you advocate. IE; that the States have some power to abrogate Rights that clearly does not exist.

Lastly, it seems you failed to grasp the cynical agreement between Hamilton and Jefferson in regards to nationalizing the debt in exchange for the capital being in DC rather than NY.

Which has pert'near nothing to do with Rights as it relates to the topic at hand.

The Constitution has not been effective in preserving liberty because, as Patrick Henry and George Washington warned, the institutions became corrupt, mostly by Robespierre types like yourself who believe that politics can accomplish anything like 'ending Terrorism' or some other utopian end. Indeed, you even worked for the government in the same posts where you are excommunicating others for not agreeing with you.

Knock it off jackass. How many times do I need to state it that GOVERNMENT always causes these problems? That waffle heads like you, who have NO idea what your Rights really are, just keep blithely giving the local government more and more power to f%ck you in ways you'd scream bloody murder over should the Feds do the same thing.

I volunteered to serve in the military. Yes. And? What of it? Somehow you seem to connect this with some weird form of sympatico with Big Government Socialism or your pet tyrants down at the State Legislature. I fought to protect our Country and our Rights from those who would destroy us. I recieved a paycheck and training. I am drawing no other benefits from it. And? You think you can insult me by denigrating that? You can try, but you'll only make yourself look like the snivelling coward I've been calling you all along.

[tpaine]

Hmm, lessee, -- you support continuing the CA gun prohibition because Tex-Fed made the point that:

"They most likely refused to hear the case because neither the liberals nor the conservatives on the Court were sure how O'Connor would vote and would rather visit the issue at a later time. Moreover, I seem to remember that this case has a bad set of facts for gun rights advocates."
34 posted on 12/02/2003 1:58 PM PST by Texas Federalist

---

If the Court was going to rule in favor of this bill, as Texas Federalist suggested, than those Americans in states without a similar AWB would suddenly have lost a protection to their 2nd Amendment Rights-- does that make sense?
Thus I was willing to consider that it was best for the Supreme Court to not hear the bill.

---

No, you are not making sense. - If the USSC were stupid enough to 'rule' that we do not have an individual RKBA's, the crap would hit the fan and we would have a constitutional crisis..

One we ~need~, imo, to resolve not only the gun issue, but ~all~ of the prohibitive schemes ~all~ levels of our governments are hatching.

You are so blinded by your 'states rights' agenda and your precieved federal boggieman, that you are for appeasment on our basic rights.

It is time for you to take a stand to support our constitution.

[Dead Corpse]

To which inalienable right are you referring?

If you have to ask, you probably wouldn't even understand the answer. While my version of what our "Rights" are stem from an objectivist viewpoint, the writers of our Constitution ennumerated some of them in the BOR. Others were left to the States to define or to us, the people.

[Dead Corpse]

No, you are not making sense. - If the USSC were stupid enough to 'rule' that we do not have an individual RKBA's, the crap would hit the fan and we would have a constitutional crisis..

It wouldn't be a "constitutional crisis". It would be the Last Straw for many of us. Civil war would break out if they tried such a thing.

It isn't even so much, in my view, about protecting our Constution as it is preserving the Rights that we have let slip away due to malfeasance at all levels of government.

[JohnGalt]

So, tactically speaking, you were hoping for a Constitutional crisis or hoping for an essentially activist court to take up this case and rule that any state or federal regulation on firearms is un-Constitutional?

[JohnGalt]

The Bill or Rights states in its pre-amble exactly why it was added. To prevent exactly the type of misconstruction that you advocate. IE; that the States have some power to abrogate Rights that clearly does not exist.

Fascinating. I have never read such an interpretation. The Bill of Rights places limits on the powers of the Federal Government to emphasize what the federalis could not do. Many said that the mere inclusion of the Bill of Rights would give the federalis and future generations that not only were those the only things the federalis could not do, but they were very concerned that the Judicial Branch would have too much power for interpretation.

Can you link me to the 'folks' you draw your ideas from? I would like to grab a better understanding of this point of view?

You worked for the State, therefore you are inclined to defend the state, that's all. You even claim to have fought to protect these rights but it would seem from your own post that you fought to defend an ineffectual government, no?

I am an anti-Statist and believe all taxation is theft which places me significantly to the Right of you, even at the expense of marginalizing the popularity of my world view.

Wow, reduced to calling me a coward in anonymous cyberspace? LOL

You advocate a policy that involves sending teenage girls from West Virginia to act as human bait for terrorists and you call me a coward?

What is up is down, what is down is up.

One thing is for sure, we both can't be libertarians.

[Dead Corpse]

So, tactically speaking, you were hoping for a Constitutional crisis or hoping for an essentially activist court to take up this case and rule that any state or federal regulation on firearms is un-Constitutional?

How is it activist to get our Government back to working the way it is supposed to work by striking down horribly bad and un-Constitutional Law? Or are you still going to argue about plain english again?

[JohnGalt]

That is filed under the standard cliche: two wrongs don't make a right.

It not that I necesarily disagree with the tactic, but patriots should consider the consquences.

Our government is working just fine, that is the problem. The government exists to employ folks who secured enough power to become bribeable.

Tar and feather them all I say, and lets try again.

Those who keep looking to the same government to some how correct itself, are hopelessly naive.

[Dead Corpse]

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.

It's called the US Constution. I'm sure you can finally locate a copy and read it for yourself one of these days.

Also, you ignorant jackass, I am most certainly NOT defending the "State" as you put it. If anything, I am against both the Federal "state", as well as the "State" tyrannies you would have us live under. A dictator a hundred miles away is just as dangerous as one a thousand miles away. You seem to be too stupid to figure this out.

I fought for the People of this Nation and for our Rights. Not for our government. Sending "girls from West Virginia" is completely up to said girls. They volunteer, they agree to follow orders for the length of their contract just like I did. This isn't cowardice. Not volunteering to fight for our Freedom is the REAL cowardice.

You certainly are no libertarian. You come across more like a anarcho-socialist.

[Dead Corpse]

That is filed under the standard cliche: two wrongs don't make a right.

No. Moron. that would be the USSC finally getting off their black robed butts and doing their job by being the "check and balance" against legislative tyranny.

Our government is working just fine, that is the problem. The government exists to employ folks who secured enough power to become bribeable.

If our government was "working just fine", we wouldn't be having this conversation as they never would have tried to abrogate our Rights at either the State, or the Federal level.

Tar and feather them all I say, and lets try again.

I prefer a firing squad as I feel their incompetance and negligence rises to the level of "aiding and abetting" freedoms enemies.

Those who keep looking to the same government to some how correct itself, are hopelessly naive.

I don't. That is one of the reasons why I support venues like Free Republic. You are "hopelessly naive" if you think that by dismantaling the Federal Constution, you'd be any safer from the tyrants down at the State capital. They are every bit as dangerous as those in Washington DC.

[JohnGalt]

Can you name one position I have that is socialist?

I am a radical localist or a paleolibertarian as defined by Rothbard.

I am a gold standard, free market libertarian on economics, and yet, funny if not surprising, I don't recall your name on a single gold standard thread.

You state that you are not defending the state, but you expect the state to protect your rights?

Talk about metaphysical contradictions.

Robespierre believed in a large centralized state to protect "rights." That is perverted twist on Hamiltonian logic, but nonetheless, many post 1970 left libertarians liked the concept. That is why folks like 'tpaine' don't see a contradiction between libertarianism and his support for "Americorps", or like yourself, believe one can actually go abroad to defend the liberty at home.

You are a statist, but you don't even have the intellectual courage to admit it. There is no shame in it, really.

I am a radical localist, or rightwing libertarian. I don't hide it and never have.

I wish to live in a community of my choosing; a community that respects and jealously guards the right of its citizens to bear arms; a community that allows its citizens to purchase whatever drugs they want or need over the Internet without a doctor signing a note, even; I believe all taxation should be voluntary.

You believe its okay to make a living with money stolen from your neighbor so long as you volunteer and are fighting for 'rights' rights that you argue we are losing so does that mean I get a refund because you failed?

You on the other hand favor a state large enough to afford a standing army and go into deficit to fight foreign wars, thus you are a statist, at least compared to me.

You are a left-libertarian, I am a rightwing libertarian. It really should not cause so much trauma.