The constitution - A lesson and debate

[Truth Detector]

Those are included in the Bill of Rights which are guarantees to all residents.

They are not describing rights. They are describing how the Government must act when prosecuting a citizen. THINK dullard, THINK!

They are just as much rights as the 1st and 2nd amendments which "instructs" the government not to abridge speech, press, religion.

No they aren't. The 1st and 2nd amendments do not describe someone's rights. They are presumed inherent. The 1st and 2nd prevent Government from abridging those inherent rights.

And no matter how hard you pound your tiny fists on the table, you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Truth Detector]

Why is the word "Militia" in the 2nd Amendment, dumbass?

This isn't an argument. Try to learn how to argue and debate before you continue making yourself look like a brain dead, uneducated. thread trolling dumbass.

Again, of the uneducated, uninformed and stupid, the 2nd doesn't give anyone rights. It prevents Government from infringing on them.

 

[AProudLefty]

This isn't an argument. Try to learn how to argue and debate before you continue making yourself look like a brain dead, uneducated. thread trolling dumbass.

Again, of the uneducated, uninformed and stupid, the 2nd doesn't give anyone rights. It prevents Government from infringing on them.

I told you many times that I already know that, dumbass. Instead of being triggered and whining, listen.

 

[Truth Detector]

stop using biased editing websites. in order to understand what the framers believed when they ratified the Constitution and the BoR, you MUST read the writings of the framers..........so, according to the framers, WHO is the militia?

Predictable response from an uneducated, uninformed, low IQ, thread trolling moron. Here's what our framers believed and why "militia"
appears in the second.

the framers of the Constitution explicitly invoked the importance of a well-regulated militia because they abhorred the idea of a standing army. A professional military was completely anathema to most Americans at the end of the 18th century. Even James Madison, one of the most stalwart proponents of a strong federal government, noted in a speech before the Constitutional Convention that, “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”

This American dislike and distrust of standing armies was nothing new. It had its roots in English military history. However, even more notable was the colonists’ own experience with the British standing army. In the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, they had begun to view the British army as little more than the enforcers of tyranny. In fact, the Second and Third Amendments to the US Constitution can be understood as having been written in direct response to the conduct of the British soldiers.

Now try to be less stupid and uninformed.

https://truthout.org/articles/how-the-second-amendments-militia-became-part-of-todays-standing-army/

 

[Truth Detector]

stop using biased editing websites. in order to understand what the framers believed when they ratified the Constitution and the BoR, you MUST read the writings of the framers..........so, according to the framers, WHO is the militia?

Uh that goes without saying. It's the reason for the militia!!!

then why did YOU say 'trained to defend the state'?????

Read the 2nd again. It answers your question.

stop gaslighting, wordsmithing, and lying. you said 'defend THE state'...........not a FREE state. you have been very particular about my specific words and what they mean, so now i'm calling you on it. why did you say THE state and not FREE state?

Sighs. Okay free state. Happy now? You can drop your balls now.

^This is why you cannot argue with dishonest, uneducated, thread trolling morons like AProudLefty.

 

[Truth Detector]

I told you many times that I already know that, dumbass. Instead of being triggered and whining, listen.

Translation; you're just here to gaslight, lie, troll and look like a repugnant dumbass. Got it. Carry on.

 

[AProudLefty]

Translation; you're just here to gaslight, lie, troll and look like a repugnant dumbass. Got it. Carry on.

Wow you truly are retarded.

 

[AProudLefty]

Predictable response from an uneducated, uninformed, low IQ, thread trolling moron. Here's what our framers believed and why "militia"
appears in the second.

the framers of the Constitution explicitly invoked the importance of a well-regulated militia because they abhorred the idea of a standing army. A professional military was completely anathema to most Americans at the end of the 18th century. Even James Madison, one of the most stalwart proponents of a strong federal government, noted in a speech before the Constitutional Convention that, “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”

This American dislike and distrust of standing armies was nothing new. It had its roots in English military history. However, even more notable was the colonists’ own experience with the British standing army. In the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, they had begun to view the British army as little more than the enforcers of tyranny. In fact, the Second and Third Amendments to the US Constitution can be understood as having been written in direct response to the conduct of the British soldiers.

Now try to be less stupid and uninformed.

https://truthout.org/articles/how-the-second-amendments-militia-became-part-of-todays-standing-army/

Wow you're stating the obvious to us that already knew. Congratulations retard.

 

[archives]

Every time Biden opens his lying mouth, he illustrates his ignorance of what the constitution is. Every time Democrats open their lying mouths they illustrate their ignorance of what the constitution is.

This is a Constitutional lesson missed by our failed leftist educational establishment

The Constitution is not about rights. Our rights are presumed to be God given. The Constitution LIMITS the governments power to intrude on those rights.

That is why gun bans are unconstitutional. Inferring that marriage is a right within the Constitution is false. Inferring that abortion is a right within the Constitution is false.

The 2nd amendment prevents the government from infringing on a God given right. It doesn’t just mean hunting rifles. It doesn’t just mean militia. It is mostly about self defense and preventing tyranny.

When I see idiots like Biden and miscreants like Whoopi Goldberg rant stupidly and ignorantly that the AR15 is not needed to hunt with, they should be slapped until the stupid drops out of them.

The AR15 is the most effective, light weight, easy to operate self defense weapon ever made. Period. So do the planet a favor leftist dunces and STFU about a topic you absolutely know nothing about.

So now owning a gun is a God given right, beautiful, appears “copy and paste” never heard of the social contract. To put it in the simplest way so that even he can comprehend it, taking a shit is a God given right but that doesn’t mean one can do it anywhere they want when the want.

Amazing how little wingers who love to throw around the Constitution understand so little about the Constitution, no right in the Constitution is absolute, they never have been, they are all regulated, Second Amendment is no different, rights are not absolute, they are based upon reason, not desire

Abortion and marriage are not directly listed in the Constitution, nor is commercially sold bullets, so based on “copy’s” logic, selling bullets could be Constitutionally banned, and even Saclia’s sophomoric Originalism couldn’t refute that logic

And needing semiautomatic weapons to hunt is bullshit, let alone not what someone would call sport, their only purpose is to kill people, as many as they can and as quick as they can, there’s a reason the military employs them

 

[Truth Detector]

Wow you truly are retarded.

You misspelled "I'm"

mental case
noun
: a crazy person
That guy is a complete mental case.

 

[Truth Detector]

Wow you're stating the obvious to us that already knew. Congratulations retard.

Says thread trolling douchebag who can't remember what he said three posts ago. Run along. Life's too short trying to educated thread trolling mental cases.

 

[AProudLefty]

You misspelled "I'm"

mental case
noun
: a crazy person
That guy is a complete mental case.

 

[AProudLefty]

Says thread trolling douchebag who can't remember what he said three posts ago. Run along. Life's too short trying to educated thread trolling mental cases.

Keep going. I'm laughing.

 

[Truth Detector]

So now owning a gun is a God given right, beautiful, appears “copy and paste” never heard of the social contract.

It is presumed inherent as stated by our founders. Of course, I wouldn't expect a dishonest, low IQ, lying leftist hack like you to comprehend much of anything.

The Constitution isn't about a hypothetical construct like social contract moron. The 2nd states that I have a right to defend myself and my property from criminal thugs morons on the left protect, as well as, prevent tyranny from a government.

To put it in the simplest way so that even he can comprehend it, taking a shit is a God given right but that doesn’t mean one can do it anywhere they want when the want.

Nothing suggest ignorance better than a smarmy, yet moronic, response like this from a halfwit. I could be insulting halfwits calling you one.

Amazing how little wingers who love to throw around the Constitution understand so little about the Constitution, no right in the Constitution is absolute, they never have been, they are all regulated, Second Amendment is no different, rights are not absolute, they are based upon reason, not desire

Even more amazing when smarmy, uneducated, low IQ, lying leftist halfwits like you desperately avoid the topic and facts.

Abortion and marriage are not directly listed in the Constitution,

Bravo! First factual post I've seen from you. Yet, you probably believe in Roe V Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges. Kind of negates your claim here.

..nor is commercially sold bullets, so based on “copy’s” logic, selling bullets could be Constitutionally banned, and even Saclia’s sophomoric Originalism couldn’t refute that logic

Halfwit lacks in grammar as well as coherent logic. If selling bullets is not in the Constitution, how can they be "constitutionally" banned. See why you're a moron?

And needing semiautomatic weapons to hunt is bullshit,

STRAWMAN! Who claimed they were to hunt with? I haven't seen such a dumb claim. In fact, many states have limitations on hunting with a.22 caliber weapon for certain types of game because it would only wound the animal thus causing suffering.

However, the AR15 is an incredible self-defense weapon. You do believe in self defense don't you?

...let alone not what someone would call sport, their only purpose is to kill people, as many as they can and as quick as they can,

You appear to prefer gibberish to facts and coherent debate don't you snowflake. See above.

....there’s a reason the military employs them

This is why I don't like argueing with uninformed, low IQ leftist liars. You don't even have basic facts. The military does not employ the AR15. They prefer the M16 with it's selective fire and greater fire power.

Do some research before you spam the thread with more of your blatant ignorance and stupidity snowflake.

 

[Flash]

They are not describing rights. They are describing how the Government must act when prosecuting a citizen. THINK dullard, THINK!

No they aren't. The 1st and 2nd amendments do not describe someone's rights. They are presumed inherent. The 1st and 2nd prevent Government from abridging those inherent rights.

That was my point from the beginning. The procedural rights (4th-8th) describe how the government must act when prosecuting a citizen (or NONCITIZEN). They also prevent government from abridging rights (illegal search and seizure).

If any rights were inherent then the Bill of Rights were not necessary. The only rights the government cannot infringe upon are those specifically enumerated. The courts have not struck down any laws that protect inherent rights from the Bill of Rights

The exceptions are those protected by the right to privacy: abortion, travel, parental rights to send kids to private/parochial schools, interracial marriage, consensual sex.....

Some poster said "rights do not come from government" (because they are inherent) but that is not true because government is the only entity which can guarantee trial by jury or a speedy trial or compulsory witnesses.

Those claiming the Constitution contains "God given rights" don't have a clue.

The Co

 

[Truth Detector]

That was my point from the beginning. The procedural rights (4th-8th) describe how the government must act when prosecuting a citizen (or NONCITIZEN). They also prevent government from abridging rights (illegal search and seizure).

Go back and read the beginning premise of this thread as it relates to the 1st and 2nd amendment. It's apparent that you missed the premise and the entire argument and instead, want to beat a strawman about semantics.

If any rights were inherent then the Bill of Rights were not necessary.

Apparently the point is beyond your comprehension level. The Constitution doesn't confer rights to the citizens. It contains language ensuring that those "inherent" rights are not abridged by government. The "Bill of Rights" are not a list of our rights. But rather, instructions to Government on how NOT to abridge them. Perhaps they should have called them a "List of Instructions."

The only rights the government cannot infringe upon are those specifically enumerated. The courts have not struck down any laws that protect inherent rights from the Bill of Rights

The Constitution does not specifically enumerate our rights. It's obvious you are just bloviating gibberish now.

Some poster said "rights do not come from government" (because they are inherent) but that is not true because government is the only entity which can guarantee trial by jury or a speedy trial or compulsory witnesses.

More uneducated gibberish. The Government does not guarantee anything. Separation of powers and an armed populace ensure that. They are required to abide by the Constitution and all laws that come out of the legislature must also meet that test.

It was I who stated that our rights do not come from the Constitution. But that the Constitution limits governments ability to abridge those rights. They are inherent. That is, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are facts. I know you don't appear to like facts, but those are the facts.

Here, read and become informed:

[Our Rights Grounded in Human Nature

I would suggest that the founding principles of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” can only be properly understood from the perspective of natural law. The natural law insists that rights are grounded in the reality of human nature. Human nature is a universal and unchanging reality which remains the same all over the world and throughout history. It is therefore an objective referent that can be discovered by reason anytime and anywhere. Only if we define rights as they are understood by the natural law can we be confident that there is reasoned agreement between citizens. Furthermore, we can also know that we are in agreement with the Founders who wrote the Declaration as well as all those generations who will inherit this nation from us. Thus, only through a natural law argument can an objective notion of rights be delineated. One may object that the founders were not directly influenced by St. Thomas and the Catholic natural law tradition; nevertheless, it is clear that the natural law permeated their thinking indirectly through the shared Christian culture and the heritage of British common law.
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/life-liberty-pursuit-happiness

Wrong. Claiming that the Constitution grants rights suggest that you are the clueless one. Now run along. It's obvious you don't have a clue of what you bloviate about.

 

[Flash]

The Constitution does not specifically enumerate our rights. It's obvious you are just bloviating gibberish now.

Sure it does. When it prohibits government from infringing any of our rights it enumerates those rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

These are some of the rights government cannot abridge and they are specifically enumerated so we know what they are.

Claiming "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are "inherent" rights are so broad and vague they would not stand up to constitutional validity. The Declaration does not have any legally binding provisions. Claiming using heroin is a liberty and pursuing my happiness would never pass muster.

They are describing how the Government must act when prosecuting a citizen.

It does more than describe how government must act, it prohibits government from infringing on any of these rights. Citizens (and NONCITIZENS) have the right to an attorney. Government cannot prohibit that "right."

And, the government certainly does guarantee those rights. If provides an attorney, jurors, subpoenas witnesses. If it fails to do so they have no conviction.

It was I who stated that our rights do not come from the Constitution.

Your procedural rights come from the Constitution--there is nothing inherent about grand jury indictment, self-incrimination....These are more than just instructions about procedures but rights the government cannot deny.

 

[archives]

It is presumed inherent as stated by our founders. Of course, I wouldn't expect a dishonest, low IQ, lying leftist hack like you to comprehend much of anything.

The Constitution isn't about a hypothetical construct like social contract moron. The 2nd states that I have a right to defend myself and my property from criminal thugs morons on the left protect, as well as, prevent tyranny from a government.



Nothing suggest ignorance better than a smarmy, yet moronic, response like this from a halfwit. I could be insulting halfwits calling you one.



Even more amazing when smarmy, uneducated, low IQ, lying leftist halfwits like you desperately avoid the topic and facts.



Bravo! First factual post I've seen from you. Yet, you probably believe in Roe V Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges. Kind of negates your claim here.



Halfwit lacks in grammar as well as coherent logic. If selling bullets is not in the Constitution, how can they be "constitutionally" banned. See why you're a moron?



STRAWMAN! Who claimed they were to hunt with? I haven't seen such a dumb claim. In fact, many states have limitations on hunting with a.22 caliber weapon for certain types of game because it would only wound the animal thus causing suffering.

However, the AR15 is an incredible self-defense weapon. You do believe in self defense don't you?



You appear to prefer gibberish to facts and coherent debate don't you snowflake. See above.



This is why I don't like argueing with uninformed, low IQ leftist liars. You don't even have basic facts. The military does not employ the AR15. They prefer the M16 with it's selective fire and greater fire power.

Do some research before you spam the thread with more of your blatant ignorance and stupidity snowflake.

“Presumed inherent,”not present, but “presumed, you just blew your whole “argument,” as I said it is comical how they are quick to throw around the Constitution but understand little regarding the Constitution

All democracies/republics are based on the social contract, otherwise they wouldn’t be possible, and I guess you missed the part of no Constitutional right being absolute, appears “copy” is as ignorant on history as he is the Constitution

And the rest of your bloviating is pure radio rhetoric

 

[SmarterthanYou]

it's obvious that some of you idiots, like flash and archives, went to the rocco clubbo school for constitutional meanings........

I gotta ask, did you morons even READ the Constitution, along with the numerous writings by the framers that explain very clearly what they meant by every fucking article and amendment? because if you didn't read them, READ THEM!!!!!!!!!

if you did read them and that's what you got out of it, go back to fucking school

 

[Flash]

it's obvious that some of you idiots, like flash and archives, went to the rocco clubbo school for constitutional meanings........

I gotta ask, did you morons even READ the Constitution, along with the numerous writings by the framers that explain very clearly what they meant by every fucking article and amendment? because if you didn't read them, READ THEM!!!!!!!!!

if you did read them and that's what you got out of it, go back to fucking school

I've read them plus many court cases shaping the interpretation. Flash and Archive do not have the contorted view of the Constitution a few JPP posters have which is not based on any historical, factual, or court interpretation.