[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Osborn Yes, I said Constitution when I should have said Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights, my apologies.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it mention "unalienable rights". That phrase only exists in the Declaration of Independence, which, despite your defining it as one of the "Charters of Freedom", is not a legal document. It's simply a list of grievances published as a PR document to justify our rebellion to the world. They do, in fact, contradict each other, as when the Declaration declares that all men are created equal, while the Constitution recognises the institution of slavery declares their specific value at 3/5s of a person.

Quote by: Osborn Now see, thats an allegation that demands proof, showing cause and effect, using logic, measuring up to the "objective standard" on a legal basis.

LIke your allegation that we're overdue for an armed rebellion against the government?

Quote by: Osborn Indeed, they do, WHILE and ONLY with the sanction and conscent of the people. Sanction and conscent are a hot topic, if you haven't noticed..... We reserve the right to remove sanction, and remove conscent.

And as I keep pointing out, the gun lobby gun rights activists have had more than ample opportunity --- almost 70 years now --- to argue the "sanction and consent" before the Court, yet have clearly chosen not to.

So why is that?

Quote by: Osborn Point being, not all 2nd amendment or rights respecting people use the argument of "creator" or "god", which is all I was trying to make clear.

I don't care. Brien brought it up, I responded to brien's point, that's it. Why do you keep bringing it up if its not worth arguing?

Quote by: Osborn Tell me what part of this you don't understand!

Where in the Constitution it says, in clear language, that I have the 'Right' to travel freely? Not commerce... travel.

Quote by: Osborn Don't be a fool. You have the right to hunt for food using a firearm, and you have the right to use that same firearm for defense of life, liberty or property.

And, according to you, to use that firearm to steal food necessary to feed myself and my family, but not the right to cross a sovereign border to feed myself and my family. You're calling me a fool while evading my point.

Quote by: Osborn So, you should have no problem finding a more suitable nation to live in, since our right bear arms is non-negotiable, and you find it so "distasteful" to your principals?

But we DO have gun control laws in the U.S., and I agree with the Supreme Court precedent on owning firearms.

In fact, quite to the contrary, it is YOU who is currently advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and is vehemently opposed to the current Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution.

I daresay it's YOU that needs to decide whether, given the current laws of the land, you can live here or not.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. -- 16 Am. Jur. Sec. 177 late 2d, Sec 256

Unconstitutional according to whom?

Quote by: Osborn Regardless, in the United States the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms, which is unalienable.

Not according to the Supreme Court, which, according to the Constitution of the United States, decides what rights the Constitution does or does not give you.

Quote by: Osborn Now, I have no problem respecting your right NOT to own arms. You should have no problem respecting my right to own arms.

{{SIGH}} What right is that? I've stated that I own a firearm. I've availed myself of that privilege, and I respect your privilege to do likewise.

I should also point out the overwhelmingly obvious fact Sonart.

{{SIGH}} The fact that people own firearms does not make it a 'Constitutional Right' any more than the fact that people own automobiles makes it their 'Constitutional Right'. To point out the equally overwhelmingly obvious, the government has placed a great deal of restrictions on the privilege of owning firearms.

.