Highlander

Portland, OR

#2351 May 17, 2011
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument is puerile and invalid.
.
Since those in jail have had their liberty due processed, they no longer have their rights.
.
American Dictionary Of The English Language, Noah Webster, 1828:
—————
Liberty n.
1. Freedom from 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.
—————
So you think that 'shall not be infringed' is out the window as long as some kind of made up due process is committed.

It only takes a tap to send you right off your pedestal.

So, obviously, as long as some kind of due process is committed then the government can certainly take your guns away for any made up reason whatsoever.
Highlander

Portland, OR

#2352 May 17, 2011
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a long way back to go in order to condemn the whole idea of 'corporation,' inasmuch as the idea was conceived several hundred years ago.
"For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court's decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court's attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people's message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies."

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_acc...
legaleagle45

Portland, OR

#2353 May 17, 2011
B2b wrote: "Then you must agree that to be "under arms" is to have portable weapons on your head."

Actually the eptomology of that phrase is rather interesting. Its origin relates to the initial postion from which standard training of revolutions and drills begins, so that the militia can become "well regulated"... The butt of the musket was held tigtly against the hip so that is rested "under the arm". It then evolved into a colloquial expression meaning basically "armed and ready for battle".

Or it could mean, the place where one applies their deodorant.

OK, I replied, yet you did not bother to reply to anything I stated about right duty... thus the tacit agreement from you is reinforced and established.

B2b wrote:" To bear arms:- "to serve as a soldier, do MILITARY SERVICE, fight."

Ho hum

To Bear arms: "To wear, carry upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person."

So seriously Bob, how does this collective people decide when to sue? Do they vote or sumpin? Who gets to be the plaintiff? And most important, who pays the collective's legal fees?

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#2354 May 17, 2011
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think that 'shall not be infringed' is out the window as long as some kind of made up due process is committed.
It only takes a tap to send you right off your pedestal.
So, obviously, as long as some kind of due process is committed then the government can certainly take your guns away for any made up reason whatsoever.
LIfe, Liberty, and Property are the ONLY things which may be due processed.
.
And the '(S)hall not be infringed' applies to everyone at liberty, i.e., not confined. Re.: 13th AoA.
.
So then, if the government 'due processes' your life, your dead.
.
If it 'due processes' your liberty, you're in prison.
.
If it 'due processes' your property, then one of two things happens:
.
[1] You are justly compensated for the taking
.
[2] Your property was taken as just compensation for a wrong done.
.
Any further questions?

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#2355 May 17, 2011
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
"For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.
In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court's decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court's attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people's message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies."
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_acc...
Yeah, and ...?
Highlander

Portland, OR

#2356 May 17, 2011
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
LIfe, Liberty, and Property are the ONLY things which may be due processed.
.
And the '(S)hall not be infringed' applies to everyone at liberty, i.e., not confined. Re.: 13th AoA.
.
So then, if the government 'due processes' your life, your dead.
.
If it 'due processes' your liberty, you're in prison.
.
If it 'due processes' your property, then one of two things happens:
.
[1] You are justly compensated for the taking
.
[2] Your property was taken as just compensation for a wrong done.
.
Any further questions?
Therefore, under your reasoning using the 13th amendment (why - what happened before that) your guns are duly processed out of your hands. The government has every right, according to you, to take them out of your hands whenever it makes up the laws to do so.

What are you arguing for the 2nd amendment then?

Having a wrong done? What is that? That is also a made up idea.

See, you rightwingers are all the same. You want freedoms for yourself and crap for everyone else.
Highlander

Portland, OR

#2357 May 17, 2011
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and ...?
The idea of a corporation, silly, may be old but so is the idea of slavery. Doesn't make it right or useful or appropriate.

Even though the idea of a corporation can be very useful the implementation of what it means to be a corporation currently sucks. You do understand the difference don't you between an idea and its reality.
Highlander

Portland, OR

#2358 May 17, 2011
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
LIfe, Liberty, and Property are the ONLY things which may be due processed.
.
And the '(S)hall not be infringed' applies to everyone at liberty, i.e., not confined. Re.: 13th AoA.
.
So then, if the government 'due processes' your life, your dead.
.
If it 'due processes' your liberty, you're in prison.
.
If it 'due processes' your property, then one of two things happens:
.
[1] You are justly compensated for the taking
.
[2] Your property was taken as just compensation for a wrong done.
.
Any further questions?
And the '(S)hall not be infringed' applies to everyone at liberty, i.e., not confined. Re.: 13th AoA.

Therefore, as I said, children and people with 'mental' problems or with other 'problems' that may prevent them from purchasing a gun should be able to buy whatever armaments they like.

They are currently having their right to bear arms unconstitutionally infringed according to YOU. As an aside, bear arms does not mean OWN ARMS.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#2359 May 17, 2011
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Therefore, under your reasoning using the 13th amendment (why - what happened before that) your guns are duly processed out of your hands. The government has every right, according to you, to take them out of your hands whenever it makes up the laws to do so.
What are you arguing for the 2nd amendment then?
Having a wrong done? What is that? That is also a made up idea.
See, you rightwingers are all the same. You want freedoms for yourself and crap for everyone else.
From Black's Law Dictionary, Deluxe Seventh Edition, page 516:
—————
due process. The conduct of legal proceedings according to established rules and principles for the protection and enforcement of private rights, including notice and the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal with the power to decide the case.— Also termed due process of law; due course of law.
——
Additional note:
.
"Due process of law in each particular case means, such an exertion of the powers of government as the settled maxims of law sanction, and under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one in question belongs." Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations 356 (1868).
—————
.
Now, then, you were saying ...?

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#2360 May 17, 2011
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
The idea of a corporation, silly, may be old but so is the idea of slavery. Doesn't make it right or useful or appropriate.
Even though the idea of a corporation can be very useful the implementation of what it means to be a corporation currently sucks. You do understand the difference don't you between an idea and its reality.
So, work to change the law.
.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't agree with the existence of corporations either.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#2361 May 17, 2011
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
And the '(S)hall not be infringed' applies to everyone at liberty, i.e., not confined. Re.: 13th AoA.
Therefore, as I said, children and people with 'mental' problems or with other 'problems' that may prevent them from purchasing a gun should be able to buy whatever armaments they like.
They are currently having their right to bear arms unconstitutionally infringed according to YOU. As an aside, bear arms does not mean OWN ARMS.
Such wasn't the case prior to the 1968 GCA, where just anyone and everyone could get his arms and ammo from anyone and everyone who sold them —with the exception of machine guns and sawn off shotguns— and that includes through the U.S. Postal Service, and from foreign vendors.
.
The violent crime rate back then was far and away lower than now. And just think: Even so-called 'crazy people' and ex-felons could get their arms without the bat of eyelash. Cash on the barrelhead and the gun was yours for the asking.
.
So then, what's your beef with me, one more time ...?
Highlander

Portland, OR

#2362 May 17, 2011
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
So, work to change the law.
.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't agree with the existence of corporations either.
I don't have a problem with the existence of corporations. I have a problem with how large, monopolistic, wealthy, powerful and untouchable their managements and sometimes their owners can become.

Since: Mar 08

Stockport, UK

#2363 May 17, 2011
I said
"You don't pay a fee to be excused from exercising a personal right to carry guns, do you?

legaleagle45 replied:
"Nope, but you do get excused from the governmental duty to carry a gun."

I said:
"So, to "bear arms" is a DUTY for ALL individuals to "carry guns" unconnected to military service? Show me where that's written."

Legaleagle45 replied:
"Posse comitatus is the common law authority of a county sheriff or other law officer to conscript any able-bodied males to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon. Sample statute:

"Every person in a county shall be ready and apparelled at the command of the sheriff and at the cry of the country to arrest a felon whether within a franchise or without, and in default shall on conviction be liable to a fine, and if default be found in the lord of the franchise he shall forfeit the franchise to the Queen, and if in the bailiff he shall be liable besides the fine to imprisonment for not more than one year, or if he have not whereof to pay the fine, than two years." Section 8, Sheriffs Act 1887

----------
You're trying to claim that "bear arms" in "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" isn't talking about the right, it's talking about paying to be excused from the "duty" to "carry" the "arms" that AREN'T even mentioned in this ENGLISH statute from 1887.
You've lost.
Highlander

Portland, OR

#2364 May 17, 2011
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Such wasn't the case prior to the 1968 GCA, where just anyone and everyone could get his arms and ammo from anyone and everyone who sold them —with the exception of machine guns and sawn off shotguns— and that includes through the U.S. Postal Service, and from foreign vendors.
.
The violent crime rate back then was far and away lower than now. And just think: Even so-called 'crazy people' and ex-felons could get their arms without the bat of eyelash. Cash on the barrelhead and the gun was yours for the asking.
.
So then, what's your beef with me, one more time ...?
I have no problem with those who say the 2nd amendment is absolute if they also say that EVERYONE can have whatever armaments they like. It still doesn't work for prison for the reason I stated above.

If you are saying it is absolutely absolute for all human beings in the USA then at least you would be consistent in your incorrect interpretation.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#2365 May 18, 2011
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have a problem with the existence of corporations. I have a problem with how large, monopolistic, wealthy, powerful and untouchable their managements and sometimes their owners can become.
So, to you, they're not unlike women: Can't live with'em, can't live without'em.
.
I say go back to mere companies, and at the very best, LLC's (Limited Liability Companies).
.
Get rid of banks too. Go with credit unions only.
.
Further, no person may may own or have controlling interest in more than one company, nor may any combination of individuals be possessing of interest in more than one company.
.
If you mean to kill the hydra, then don't play games with it.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#2366 May 18, 2011
Bob2bob wrote:
I said
"You don't pay a fee to be excused from exercising a personal right to carry guns, do you?
legaleagle45 replied:
"Nope, but you do get excused from the governmental duty to carry a gun."
I said:
"So, to "bear arms" is a DUTY for ALL individuals to "carry guns" unconnected to military service? Show me where that's written."
Legaleagle45 replied:
"Posse comitatus is the common law authority of a county sheriff or other law officer to conscript any able-bodied males to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon. Sample statute:
"Every person in a county shall be ready and apparelled at the command of the sheriff and at the cry of the country to arrest a felon whether within a franchise or without, and in default shall on conviction be liable to a fine, and if default be found in the lord of the franchise he shall forfeit the franchise to the Queen, and if in the bailiff he shall be liable besides the fine to imprisonment for not more than one year, or if he have not whereof to pay the fine, than two years." Section 8, Sheriffs Act 1887
----------
You're trying to claim that "bear arms" in "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" isn't talking about the right, it's talking about paying to be excused from the "duty" to "carry" the "arms" that AREN'T even mentioned in this ENGLISH statute from 1887.
You've lost.
No, YOU'VE lost.

—————
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."

~ Thomas Jefferson
———
.
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

- Tenche Coxe,'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' using the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

Mr. Coxe was a prominent Philadelphian and political economist who was named assistant secretary of the treasury in 1790, commissioner of revenue in 1792, and purveyor of public supplies in 1803. Whose series of newspaper articles were very much approved by both Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Madison.
—————

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#2367 May 18, 2011
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no problem with those who say the 2nd amendment is absolute if they also say that EVERYONE can have whatever armaments they like. It still doesn't work for prison for the reason I stated above.
If you are saying it is absolutely absolute for all human beings in the USA then at least you would be consistent in your incorrect interpretation.
An absolute right exists only for freemen.
.
Anyone whom has harmed another with ill intent and for no valid purpose, cannot be said to be worthy of his own liberty.
.
Since liberty connotes possessing of all human rights, i.e., negative rights, then the violation of that code by harming another, negates the idea of the one possessing of said rights.
.
It is the code of balance: What you break, you must seek to mend.
.
If you would think it proper to provide arms to incarcerated men, then you are truly foolish.
.
Otherwise, arm yourself as you will, and with whatever pleases you. If you seek to harm no other without just cause, I could give bloody damned less what you might acquire.
.
Only problem: The local hardware store doesn't sell nukes, biological or chemical warfare items, or other devices along that line.
.
Do be advised: Fighter jets, bombers, tanks, missile launchers and a whole slew of other militaria are indeed available for purchase at the right price, and are entirely legal to possess.
.
Knock yourself out!
legaleagle45

Portland, OR

#2368 May 18, 2011
B2b wrote: "You're trying to claim that "bear arms" in "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" isn't talking about the right, it's talking about paying to be excused from the "duty" to "carry" the "arms" that AREN'T even mentioned in this ENGLISH statute from 1887."
You've lost.

Ho hum...

What do you think the portion of the statute which requires the person to be "ready and apparelled" means? That they have a good pair of Nike Air Jordans to chase down the crooks? Well, no need to specualte, because unlike your collective borg thesis, I actually have real authority to support my assertion... and we do not have to look far to find out. First look at what the words "posse comitatus" means...

The term "posse comitatus" is derived from the latin and means: "to have the right to an armed retinue".

Now we can look at some case law:

"It is merely the reenactment of the common law .... It has always been the duty of magistrates and peace officers to preserve the public peace, even to the extent of calling to their aid every person within their jurisdiction .... That the force thus called out should be armed in some way would seem to go without saying. Chapin v. Ferry, 28 P. 754, 756 (Wash. 1891)."

Now lets see what the academic scholars have to say:

"In the absence of a police, the American legal tradition was for responsible, law abiding citizens to be armed and to see to their own defense, and for most military age males to chase down criminals in response to the hue and cry and to perform the more formal police duties associated with their membership in the posse comitatus and the militia. It was the possession of arms in these contexts which the second amendment constitutionalized." Don B. Kates, Jr., The Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self-Protection, 9 Const. Comm. 87, 89 (1992).

Guess what? You've lost.

So seriously Bob, how does this collective people decide when to sue? Do they vote or sumpin? Who gets to be the plaintiff? And most important, who pays the collective's legal fees?

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#2369 May 18, 2011
Bob2bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You say that a fifteen year old was caught and discharged. He was able to carry a gun, but he wasn't "able to bear arms." In the quote below, "able to bear arms" means- to make "able bodied soldiers."
"But if there should be among such rejected drafts or recruits, youths of above fifteen years of age, healthy, robust, and likely to make able bodied soldiers when of sufficient age, the Officers may agree to take such of them as will enlist during the war as part of the quota of the State, and they may, and shall be marched to the army, and employed until able to bear arms, as drummers, fifers and officers servants..." - A report from the Board of War, Journals of the Continental Congress vol. 16, p. 249, March 11, 1780.
Able to bear arms while in the military, ie "gov property".

This has zero application on "non government property".

Just like militia has no bearing on citizens bearing arms.

Hope that is not to hard to understand.

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#2370 May 18, 2011
Bob2bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, we were talking about collective rights, not the definition of "people."
."
Correct, the people have a collective right to bear arms.

They also have an individual right, as shown in the 2nd Amendment.

And if you get enough individuals together, their collective right beats the heck out of your opinion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
National Recprocity !! 12 hr Tory II 2
Local Jews upset by Holocaust references in cam... (Jun '12) Mon swedenforever 99
AK-47s, Now Made in AmericaBy Cliff Schecter Jan 24 Here Is One 5
Women Continue To Line Up For Concealed Carry P... Jan 24 Here Is One 1
ILLEGALS-Unions AGAINST AMERICANS Jan 23 ILLEGALS-UNIONS-v... 1
Illinois Cops: Concealed Carry Law A 'Non-Event... Jan 23 SSG MP American Joe 3
Kahr PM40 problems (Apr '06) Jan 22 mike_lance 187
More from around the web