Members banned from this thread: Mister D and The Booman


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 163

Thread: Biden.....No Amendment to the Constitution is Absolute.

  1. #21

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,242, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 56.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200770
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,925
    Points
    473,242
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,063
    Thanked 46,040x in 24,874 Posts
    Mentioned
    887 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Uhm Richard tried to use Scalia and his quote using the word limited. I have already shown the full quote and what else he said. No Biden is not correct saying no amendment is absolute. Which again he was talking about the 2nd and not any other amendments. As Cletus just pointed out what else Scalia stated. The 2nd is absolute. The intended scope and reach are binding forever. Absolute means total and complete. Not diminished in anyway. Read it and pause with the Commas. The meaning is clear. Do not limit or undermine the Right to bear arms.
    Well established case law and the legal principle of Stare decisis says differently.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    Standing Wolf (04-09-2021)

  3. #22

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 74,315, Level: 66
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 1,135
    Overall activity: 14.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    195694
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    32,312
    Points
    74,315
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    3,680
    Thanked 27,379x in 15,848 Posts
    Mentioned
    412 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Well established case law and the legal principle of Stare decisis says differently.
    That doesn't really mean anything. That just means that judges and lawyers decided to usurp the Constitution. It is doesn't change its meaning.
    “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” - Barry Goldwater

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (04-09-2021),MMC (04-09-2021)

  5. #23
    Original Ranter
    Points: 388,252, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    70166
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    89,892
    Points
    388,252
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    54,131
    Thanked 39,163x in 27,727 Posts
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Well established case law and the legal principle of Stare decisis says differently.
    Not according to a Former District Judge and now Sheriff. James Albert Greensburg. Nor others.



    Sovereignty 101: Why the Second Amendment is absolute (the short version).....


    the Founders of this country defeated abuse of process as much as they defeated an army and a single person as the Sovereign. They learned from misery and tyranny what NOT to do. One thing was within their power, and that was to make certain things absolute. All they need do was declare it at the nation's inception, and they did; It rests in the words of art 'shall not be infringed.' How's that for Original intent?


    Shall not are words d'art, and in law, when interpreting what the founders made for themselves and for posterity in original intent, we summon the language in framing-era terms. Shall is itself a legal term of some generations of Black Letter law. We do not interpret the law of the nation's inception in 2009 terms to suit political correctness or change, but in the wisdom of the framing-era experience and what they defeated, what they foresaw would recur in every coming generation, and how to prevent it. The Founders learned a lot, and the hard way. This is the purpose of the Second Amendment: to be independent of the foibles of our servants. Servants are hired to serve the sovereign in a nation of self-rule, not pure rule by the servants.


    Today, we say that the Second Amendment protects all our other rights. I have said for years that in every generation, the health of the Second Amendment reflects the overall health of the nation, because it is either respected for its language of shall not be infringed, or it is not, and subtle infringements by the thousands mean that it is not. It is no wonder that government becomes more daring, more hostile to our way of life, more vicious to patriotism and matches it all with more gun control measures.


    As gun control goes, so goes the nation. Or haven't you noticed the collateral procession of the two over time?


    The Founders met this very same kind of abuses of due process in warrants and other abuses in need of citizen oversight. When they crafted the nation, when they finally debated everything out and arrived at what they would declare and pledge of themselves, it was that the citizen was to be the sovereign and that, as such, only the sovereign would have the monopoly on all lethal force. This was as it should be. Every nation's sovereign has the monopoly on lethal force. Other nations do not have the Constitution and its first ten amendments we have.
    As gun control goes, so goes the nation.


    The Second Amendment is absolute because it is the everyman lethal force which backs the totality of our sovereign authority in this country, and, short of another amendment, it is impervious to ordinary due process. Until that very hour it is replaced, the Second Amendment is absolute, because it must be. It is not open to debate, and just because it is debated doesn’t change the truth of the framing-era original intent. It merely proves how it is genuinely necessary to the security of a free state always, and on whose say so, namely ours.



    But the absoluteness of the Second Amendment can and does serve freedom and justice for all. 2A was written to be absolute by the Founders who experienced precisely what we are experiencing today and every generation. The real problem some have with the existence of an armed citizenry is in accepting that things have come to this. Whose fault is that?


    The only way that all other rights are even protected at all is by dint of the truth that the Second Amendment is not supposed to be infringed. But then, it is infringed, and as gun control goes, so goes the nation.


    Just as important is the one truth that as gun rights and our sovereign authority go, so also goes the nation.....snip~


    Sovereignty 101: Why the Second Amendment is absolute (the short version) | Buckeye Firearms Association
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MMC For This Useful Post:

    Cletus (04-09-2021),MisterVeritis (04-09-2021)

  7. #24
    Original Ranter
    Points: 388,252, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    70166
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    89,892
    Points
    388,252
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    54,131
    Thanked 39,163x in 27,727 Posts
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court struck down a similar handgun ban at the state level, again by a 5–4 vote. Four Justices relied on judicial precedents under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Justice Thomas rejected those precedents in favor of reliance on the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but all five members of the majority concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement of the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment......snip~
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to MMC For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (04-09-2021)

  9. #25

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,242, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 56.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200770
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,925
    Points
    473,242
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,063
    Thanked 46,040x in 24,874 Posts
    Mentioned
    887 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It is never ever as black and white as you guys think. Your sheriff is wrong. Courts will follow well-established case law - whether we like it or not. Our job is to push back and try to move the needle - not to stomp our feet and scream "unfair".
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    Standing Wolf (04-09-2021)

  11. #26
    Points: 264,380, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 83.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteranTagger First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307875
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern Alabama
    Posts
    104,545
    Points
    264,380
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    94,661
    Thanked 39,249x in 27,870 Posts
    Mentioned
    385 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Well established case law and the legal principle of Stare decisis says differently.
    Unconstitutionally...
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.


    I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.

  12. #27
    Points: 264,380, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 83.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteranTagger First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307875
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern Alabama
    Posts
    104,545
    Points
    264,380
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    94,661
    Thanked 39,249x in 27,870 Posts
    Mentioned
    385 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    It is never ever as black and white as you guys think. Your sheriff is wrong. Courts will follow well-established case law - whether we like it or not. Our job is to push back and try to move the needle - not to stomp our feet and scream "unfair".
    Why not do both?
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.


    I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to MisterVeritis For This Useful Post:

    DGUtley (04-09-2021)

  14. #28
    Points: 74,636, Level: 66
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 814
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314972
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,625
    Points
    74,636
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,717
    Thanked 21,089x in 12,284 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Some are simply melting down over the words President Biden spoke because it was President Biden who spoke them. Again, what he said was not wrong - even though the measures he intends to try to force may be wrong-headed.

    The Second Amendment speaks of keeping and bearing arms - or we might say owning and carrying, without affecting the meaning. Yet there are many good and necessary limits on that right in the law - any one of which would logically negate the Second Amendment's being considered to be "absolute". Having said that, any proposal to add to those laws needs to be reasonable and to relate in some rational manner to the problem or condition it purports to address.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  15. #29
    Original Ranter
    Points: 388,252, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    70166
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    89,892
    Points
    388,252
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    54,131
    Thanked 39,163x in 27,727 Posts
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    It is never ever as black and white as you guys think. Your sheriff is wrong. Courts will follow well-established case law - whether we like it or not. Our job is to push back and try to move the needle - not to stomp our feet and scream "unfair".
    but all five members of the majority concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement of the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment......snip~


    There wont be any stomping of the feet. The sheriff former District Judge isnt wrong. The 2nd is Absolute. They may change what type of weapons. But they wont be getting rid of the 2nd until they rip up the Constitution and Change the type of Government the Country has.
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  16. #30
    Original Ranter
    Points: 388,252, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    70166
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    89,892
    Points
    388,252
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    54,131
    Thanked 39,163x in 27,727 Posts
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Some are simply melting down over the words President Biden spoke because it was President Biden who spoke them. Again, what he said was not wrong - even though the measures he intends to try to force may be wrong-headed.

    The Second Amendment speaks of keeping and bearing arms - or we might say owning and carrying, without affecting the meaning. Yet there are many good and necessary limits on that right in the law - any one of which would logically negate the Second Amendment's being considered to be "absolute". Having said that, any proposal to add to those laws needs to be reasonable and to relate in some rational manner to the problem or condition it purports to address.
    No one here is melting down. Assumption is the mother of all $#@! ups. Would you like that Trophy in Gold or Silver?
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts