[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: You don't have an individual right to keep and bare arms because the standing precedents of the USSC and the majority of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal say you don't, which, according to the Constitution, means that's the law of the land.

Their "say-so" doesn't revoke something that is unalienable. That is why the word UNALIENABLE is in there.

Sonart said: Try to keep up, Osborn. Taking your fingers out of your ears would probably help.

Try to realize many individuals understand the difference between UNALIENABLE rights and "entitlements" that may be revoked at any time. Also try to understand that the forefathers have published works, as is much of their discussion and debate on why rights are unalienable. This means people can understand the truth, without having a court "spoon feed them" what the establishment wants them to believe.

Sonart said: I didn't. Brien did. "I see my right to keep and bear arms as an unalienable right endowed to me by my creator,"

My point was you chose to single out GOD instead of nature as the basis of your rebuttal, when both are clearly in the document, written as NATURES GOD.

This isn't about subjectivity, or one god, or one religion.... It is about the recognition of mans natural rights by a government, and the recorded limitations of that government to infringe those NATURAL rights.

Sonart said: Really? Where does it say that in the Constitution?

You don't have an explicitly stated constitutional right to travel within the country, but since you are not restricted from interstate travel, the 10th amendment says you have the right anyway. It could be reasonably argued that Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1, presumes the right to travel between states when it says that a citizen of one state shall have all the rights of a citizen of another state.

Sonart said: (but apparently not the right to cross a border, illegally if necessary, to feed your family.)

You don't have a right to violate national or individual sovereignty, and no law can be created and passed in one nation to be enforced against people in another sovereign nation.

Now, pay attention....

Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Anything there you don't understand?

Sonart said: Again, where's it say that in the Constitution? And, to drive myself, I'm required to qualify for the privilege of driving by getting a license, registering an automobile and insuring that automobile.

You have a right to travel between states, as well as within your state without obstruction. Travelling and DRIVING are not interchangeable words.

Sonart said: I'll keep it in mind, but I think even you would agree that the discussion of 2nd Amendment rights refers specifically to the possession of firearms.

Obviously it refers specifically to firearms possession by INDIVIDUALS.

Funny (or sad) how you can comprehend one portion, but not the other.

Sonart said: Because a pencil is innocuous, a tool. Tools are invented and designed to perform innocuous functions. Weapons, on the other hand, are not tools. They are invented and designed for one thing only, to harm or kill, and firearms specifically to kill from a distance. It's the only reason they exist.

Exactly, which is WHY WE RETAINED SPECIFICLY the UNALIENABLE right to that tool(the firearm), as opposed to the pencil. That tool has an equal ability to provide life as well as death, protect life as well as take it.... it is simply a tool that is required in a world that operates under nature.

Yes, you note the fine qualities of a firearm, which make it far greater than any pencil. A pencil can't provide food, protect your family and yourself, or overthrow a tyrannical government in the properly trained hands, while a firearm can. Reason can be reasoned with, force cannot, which is why ALL REASONABLE MEN RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, for when reasonable men are not in charge and refuse to step down.

Sonart said: And because it's so inherently dangerous, it's men and women who we specifically train and authorize, via the local, state or federal governments, with the duty of keeping that peace.

Almost correct.... they AID us in keeping that peace, but are not liable for failing when they do.

Can you sue the police for not protecting you? That should be more than enough to shred your entire argument.

Sonart said: Look at the chart I posted, Osborn. Deny that!

What is to deny? What is to acknowledge? Where is proven cause and effect?

POINT?

Sonart said: We don't simply hand that job over to anyone that wants to strut around with a gun... at least not in civilized countries.

In civillized countries, reasonable men are the norm, and law is respected. As our law grows less and less respectable due to its history of constitutional violations, rights abridgements, and failure to allow the people to control its system, our society becomes more and more unreasonable, and less and less civilized.

The first step to being "civillized" is being self-responsible. The first step to being responsible is understanding it is you who are responsible for the choices you make, your own well being, and your own SAFETY.

Sonart said: And yet you want Americans to rise up and overthrow the government by force of the arms you claim they have a right to possess, for the very purpose you claim they have that right. So how does that work, exactly? You expect people to kill, to maim, to use force at your behest, but your hands remain clean????

When the time comes, if the time comes, I will be at the forefront my friend. Until that time, I have always, and will always advocate peaceful revolution while the option exists. That option, or window of opprotunity for peaceful resistance is closing, and only the people who will suffer (all of us who are citizens) are to blame.

The only time I have ever used force, and will ever use force is to protect my life, my liberty and my property. Color it any way you want Sonart, I have every right to do so, and regardless on what court recognizes that right, I will not surrender that right while these lungs take air.

Sonart said: (list of quotes I have made) "I personally think its long overdue, the revolution or "dividing of the union" that is.-- --"If peaceful revolution is possible, violent revolution is not necessary. That is why we have a means of petition of redress, before the courts and Congress stopped "addressing them". A government of the people, must be kept in check by the people, and the means of doing this are relevant to the means being used to subvert the system in which the people have a right to shrug off, or remove. As force is used more and more to subvert the Constitution and rule of law, the people will use force relevant to achieve their goals, and hopefully all that is necessary, not more or less."-- --"Not at all. Honor killings, or duels used to be fairly common-place, but then again, much higher regard was placed on integrity, honor and respect."--

Yes, I made every one of those quotes, and stand behind each one today as the day I posted them. POINT?