Shocking, another mass murder, they've become as American as apple pie

[Abatis]

I wonder where that douchnozzle Abate thinks his mental masterbation is taking him, or has he forgotten his purpose as it appears?

I know what my positions are.

It seems as though the misdirections and evasions of your political brethren has seriously confused you.

Personally I think he is just attempting to establish worth by breaking out his favorite Rush Limbaugh pimped Regnery Press bastardized Con Law book for Nazis and quoting random passages.

You are quite welcome to quote specific statements and prove me wrong.

Without even a quote your empty condemnations appear to be just the musings of an abusive know-nothing (just like a typical leftist).

Your whirling dervish act, while amusing is a poor proxy for actual debate (which you were complaining doesn't exist).

Now you will call me a couple more names, make a couple more snide comments and declare victory and abandon this thread.

 

[Micawber]

My understanding is there are about 4 or five attorneys who post here, so....
posting a bit of con law 101 refresher bullshit isn't going to get you anything by way of cred.

 

[Sailor]

My understanding is there are about 4 or five attorneys who post here, so....
posting a bit of con law 101 refresher bullshit isn't going to get you anything by way of cred.

And we all know that does not include you.

 

[domer76]

What person gave you the right to speak? And who can take it away?

You don’t know how the BofR came about? Pathetic.

 

[domer76]

The "question" is in your court, you're the one arguing against the principle.

I know where I stand



I know now that you don't have a clue about how LGBTQ rights or abortion came to be recognized and secured.

I know where I stand, too. The concept of “inalienable” or “inherent” rights is bullshit. It has no value except as a philosophical argument. Try to invoke that concept in court, pally boy, when you believe your heretofore unidentified “inherent” right has been violated. See how far that gets you.

Yeah, I do know the constitutional basis of both abortion and the LGBTQ issues. They were based on two separate amendments. But you knew that, didn’t you?

 

[Abatis]

My understanding is there are about 4 or five attorneys who post here, so....
posting a bit of con law 101 refresher bullshit isn't going to get you anything by way of cred.

You're the one who complained that no gun rights supporter cites cases or speaks to the actual law.

I do it and you ignore it.

I challenge you to a simple debate and you ignore it.

You celebrate the scholarship here without any evidence.

You are a typical anti-gun leftist with nothing to offer but insults.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Typical big mouthed pussy hiding behind the internet and a bunch of empty bluster about his big, bad guns.

It's likely I won't have to "do anything" about you anyway, because some home invader will likely do society a favor by ridding it of you at some point.

You'll come home from a pro-Trump Klan rally some day, completely unsuspecting that anything is amiss, only to find one or more intruders have broken into your home and gotten ahold of one or more your guns. After overpowering you and pistol whipping you with your own handgun to force you into telling them where the rest of your guns, money and valuables are, and before they leave, as you're lying trussed up and gagged on the floor, one of them will use one of your precious guns to pump a couple of your own bullets into the back of your head and you will no longer be part of America's problem.

So have fun running your big, fat mouth while you can.

Is this part of your manifesto??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

ARE CHILDERN ALLOWED TO BUY GUNS??????



no

that is a gun restriction idiot

But they can still OWN them, HUH!!

In 30 states, a child can still legally own a rifle or shotgun

 

[USFREEDOM911]

it is a gun restriction that is NOT enumerated in the 2nd amendment lterally.

so your saying we can just assmume they meant "well not children"


"the right of a citizen to own arms shall not be infringed"


are children citizens?

In a sense, no; because "children" are not allowed to enter into contracts, among other restrictions.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I mentioned nothing about LGBTQ rights or abortion, which were secured under the exercise of completely different rights. But you knew that, didn’t you?

ROFL you might want to check just where the right to an abortion came from, moron. This is what I was talking about. you know jack shit about the constitution or it's purpose. the sad thing about it is that you don't really care, you just need big government to tell you what you can and cannot do. the mindset of a liberal who can't think for themselves.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I know where I stand, too. The concept of “inalienable” or “inherent” rights is bullshit. It has no value except as a philosophical argument. Try to invoke that concept in court, pally boy, when you believe your heretofore unidentified “inherent” right has been violate. See how far that gets you.

says the dipshit slave who doesn't know what rights are unless black robed tyrants tell her what they are.

 

[Abatis]

I know where I stand, too. The concept of “inalienable” or “inherent” rights is bullshit.

That's fine but you need to stop saying that your personal opinion is represented in the Constitution and US law because it is one of the first blocks laid in the foundation of the Constitution. It is an inseparable principle.

It has no value except as a philosophical argument.

Except when it is cited as a legal doctrine / truth / maxim / tenet.

Try to invoke that concept in court, pally boy, when you believe your heretofore unidentified “inherent” right has been violate. See how far that gets you.

No need to argue that today; the Supreme Court has long ago spoken on the origin of rights and how the federal government must recognize and treat them as inherent / pre-existing.

Yeah, I do know the constitutional basis of both abortion and the LGBTQ issues. They were based on two separate amendments. But you knew that, didn’t you?

I mean I thought I knew . . . . I've read Griswold and Roe and PP v Casey and Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges and I thought Harlan's dissent in Poe v Ullman was a wonderful explanation and I thought I understood why O'Connor quoted it and elevated it to the opinion of the Court but maybe I should open my mind to new and unique explanations.

I would love for you to explain the process and history to me.

Please do!

 

[Micawber]

In a sense, no; because "children" are not allowed to enter into contracts, among other restrictions.

That is a matter of interpretation. As to capacity and children the argument is semantic. Such contract are voidable at the option of the child, not void.

 

[Micawber]

You're the one who complained that no gun rights supporter cites cases or speaks to the actual law.

I do it and you ignore it.

I challenge you to a simple debate and you ignore it.

You celebrate the scholarship here without any evidence.

You are a typical anti-gun leftist with nothing to offer but insults.

Basically because I saw how you handled yourself and immediately placed you on my ignore list. You have to give respect FIRST to get ANY from me. I see a new name and a right wing trope followed by an insult towards anyone and the block is policy.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

That is a matter of interpretation. As to capacity and children the argument is semantic. Such contract are voidable at the option of the child, not void.

So is it your contention that a child can sign a contract to buy a home or a car??

 

[Abatis]

Basically because I saw how you handled yourself and immediately placed you on my ignore list.

And yet you are still reading my posts and replying to me. Is there anything you leftists don't lie about?

You have to give respect FIRST to get ANY from me.

And you are on JPP? If you are interested in complete elimination of personal attacks and rigid on topic posting I can give you some suggestions for boards where decorum is enforced, that make APP look like a free-for-all.

As I said earlier, I look in on 30+ boards a week hoping to find reasoned debate on gun control. When I read your post #120 I had some hope that some could be had here with you. My first post to you #218, was very respectful to you, trying to engage and lay out an enjoyable exchange of ideas. I cited the decisions that I drew my reasoning from for the statements I made. I made statements about SCOTUS precedent that you could have used to begin the respectful debate that you say you miss. And then nothing but insults from you.

I see a new name and a right wing trope followed by an insult towards anyone and the block is policy.

That's funny, a guy who registered 11 months ago is calling someone who's been here for 8 years that they are a new name.

You are a fraud and a faker and your act is not fooling anyone.

The only way you make $300 is as a bottom in gay midget bestiality porn.

 

[domer76]

ROFL you might want to check just where the right to an abortion came from, moron. This is what I was talking about. you know jack shit about the constitution or it's purpose. the sad thing about it is that you don't really care, you just need big government to tell you what you can and cannot do. the mindset of a liberal who can't think for themselves.

I know EXACTLY what Roe v Wade was based upon. And it wasn’t the same as the LGBTQ issues are, you fucking moron.

How’s that courthouse thing going, pussy?

 

[domer76]

says the dipshit slave who doesn't know what rights are unless black robed tyrants tell her what they are.

Still waiting on you to identify a single “inalienable” right, dumbfuck. Still a no show.

 

[Abatis]

I know EXACTLY what Roe v Wade was based upon. And it wasn’t the same as the LGBTQ issues are,

You tell 'em! (facepalm)

If the ignorance weren't so sad it would be funny.

If the left is good for one thing it is compartmentalizing, separating, dividing and extinguishing rights, even ones you claim to support.

 

[domer76]

That's fine but you need to stop saying that your personal opinion is represented in the Constitution and US law because it is one of the first blocks laid in the foundation of the Constitution. It is an inseparable principle.



Except when it is cited as a legal doctrine / truth / maxim / tenet.



No need to argue that today; the Supreme Court has long ago spoken on the origin of rights and how the federal government must recognize and treat them as inherent / pre-existing.



I mean I thought I knew . . . . I've read Griswold and Roe and PP v Casey and Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges and I thought Harlan's dissent in Poe v Ullman was a wonderful explanation and I thought I understood why O'Connor quoted it and elevated it to the opinion of the Court but maybe I should open my mind to new and unique explanations.

I would love for you to explain the process and history to me.

Please do!

You'll not find "inherent" nor "inalienable" in the BofR or Constitution. You'll also not find any SCOTUS decisions based on natural rights.

Cite your philosophy all you want. It has no weight in a court of law.

No, the federal government doesn't have to recognize them as pre-existing. Pre-existing to what, by the way?

Perhaps you should review the difference between the right to privacy and the 14th Amendment. Get back to me when that's clear to you.