[Sonart]

.

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

Where in the Constitution does it say UNALIENABLE?

Quote by: Osborn Also try to understand that the forefathers have published works, as is much of their discussion and debate on why rights are unalienable.

Indeed. The Court refered to a great number of them in arriving at their decision in Miller. You can read them yourself.

**That doesn't change one bit the fact that the Constitution made the Supreme Court the arbiter of what is or isn't constitutional in U.S. law, and the Supreme Court has declared that the 2nd Amendment does NOT guarantee you an individual right to bare arms.

Quote by: Osborn 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.

I didn't choose anything, brien did, and I responded to his post, and I'd appreciate it if you'd quit making up lies about how I respond to other posters. Thank you.

Quote by: Osborn 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.

See answer 2 -- **That doesn't change one bit the fact that the Constitution made the Supreme Court the arbiter of what is or isn't constitutional in U.S. law, and the Supreme Court has declared that the 2nd Amendment does NOT guarantee you an individual right to bare arms.

Quote by: Osborn 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.

Rights to what? Travel? Again, Mr. Constructionist, where does it say that?

Quote by: Osborn 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.

LOL!! Right, you can steal food at gunpoint if necessary to feed yourself and your family, but not cross a sovereign border to do the same thing.

Quote by: Osborn Obviously it refers specifically to firearms possession by INDIVIDUALS. Funny (or sad) how you can comprehend one portion, but not the other.

See answer 2 -- **That doesn't change one bit the fact that the Constitution made the Supreme Court the arbiter of what is or isn't constitutional in U.S. law, and the Supreme Court has declared that the 2nd Amendment does NOT guarantee you an individual right to bare arms.

Quote by: Osborn What is to deny? What is to acknowledge? Where is proven cause and effect? POINT?

Point being that we are the most violent civilized nations on earth, specifically BECAUSE we're a culture that worships firearms and the mythology that surrounds them.

Quote by: Osborn 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.

The first step in being civilized is to realize we are social creatures who rely on each other to maintain a cooperative and harmonious society. And in this society, at this time in history, the unrestricted, individual possession of firearms is destructive towards that cooperation and harmony.

Quote by: Osborn In civillized countries, reasonable men are the norm, and law is respected.

Indeed, and specifically, gun control laws that restrict the personal ownership of firearms. The U.S. is in a distinct minority among "civilized countries" in claiming an individual right to do so.

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

That when you say, "I have no desire to shoot anyone, period, ever. I have no desire to kill, to maim, to use force against anyone, in any measure, AT ALL!", you're a liar. You clearly DO have that desire, or at least the desire for someone to kill others on your behalf.

Sure, you qualify it by saying you'd "prefer" the revolution were peaceful, but peaceful or bloody, you still advocate it taking place... "long overdue" in your words. Peaceful or bloody, you clearly "desire" for a revolution to happen, and if people are killed and maimed, so be it, that's your desire.

.