[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: 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.

A PR document?!? LOL

Yes, a PR document that could be used again, in any similar situation, as could the precedent it set.

Sonart said: 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.

And what was used to free the slaves? What platform of logic was put forth as the PRESIDING argument?

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

I have started multiple threads, and listed multiple arguments to support my side of that argument, and most of those deal with the steps OUR GOVERNMENT led by the bi-partisan monopoly on power for the last 157 years has been making regular practice at usurping, subverting and evading Constitutional limitations.

Yes, that is grounds for revolt if no other actions can achieve the goal peacefully. Shouldn't that be obvious.

What else do you suggest when the government, the police, the three branches make a habit of not policing themselves, nor recognizing peoples GROSS dissatisfaction. (have you checked their "approval ratings" lately?)

Seems most people are quite dissatisfied, yet there is still inaction by government to rectify it.... could it be no threat of being "replaced" by another party, another "uncorrupted" group of people?

Please....

Sonart said: 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?

Gun owners attempting to be tolerant as long as their rights were basicly respected, in order to prevent bloodshed and needless killing maybe??

People valuing society?

I think it should be obvious by the amount of treason the people have allowed, they are more than willing to work within the system if the system would recognize the peoples rights to do so.

The fact is, its obvious fact we have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Shall I send you a gun catalog? You can review their shipping policy if you want.

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

Not all rights are enumerated, or isn't that obvious? In fact, just to clarify that fact, to make it so obvious even the most OBLIVIOUS could see it, they wrote a SPECIFIC AMENDMENT for it.

Can you guess which one? (this is a 5pt question, and if you miss it, you can't get into double jeapordy)

Sonart said: 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.

I call you to the carpet sir...

Show me where I said it was ever "ok to steal".

Sonart said: You're calling me a fool while evading my point.

I didn't call you a fool, I said don't be a fool.

IF you don't want to be a fool, don't play the fool. Accusing me of saying something I didn't say, is foolish. Is that what you've done?

Sonart said: Unconstitutional according to whom?

Anyone can oppose a standing law, and there are prescribed processes to do it.

You, yes YOU can have an opinion, and attempt to change a law. You CAN NOT however change the fact that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms. Law is changeable, rights are unalienable. Entitlements can be withdrawn, rights are unalienable. Governments can be removed, and have been, because rights are unalienable.

What would you do if tomorrow the entire government revoked all standing rights in the BOR? No more free press, no more right to free speech, no more right to property, no right to private free-will mutual conscent contracts, no right to defense or privacy..... What would your reaction be sir?

Sonart said: 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.

Ok, you have the "A" side of the equation.... now for the closer....

The "B" side of the equation is the FACT that without conscent of the people, the government has no authority.

So I ask you Sonart.... in order, what methods can the people "change their conscent"? List their choices for doing so please.

Sonart said: {{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.

Hypocrisy is so priceless, but owning a gun is not a privlidge, its a right.

Sonart said: the government has placed a great deal of restrictions on the privilege of owning firearms.

They have put many needless restrictions on peoples liberty, and abused the Constitution and BOR as most people do toilet paper, but I see in no way where you derive the "Constitutionality" of such nonsense.

They have every right to regulate the use of, as in, its unlawful to shoot in the "public square" unless assaulted with deadly force, as well as they have the right to punish people for unlawful use as a tool to remove rights from innocent people. They don't have the authority to ban firearms, ban ownership, or ban lawful use of firearms for defense, or to so limit firearms access through pricing or applicability to prevent them from adequate protection from tyranny.