testtest

I know it's there, but I can't find it! The 2nd amendment that is.

jumpinjoe

jumpinjoe

Hellcat
A few nights ago I posted either the complete debates as recorded regarding the 2nd amendment by the founders, or a link to those debates at a 'Constitutional' site. I would like to find that post but simply have had no luck in doing so. Unfortunately I don't even remember what thread it was in, but I'm hoping somebody thought it valuable enough to mark it or save it somehow.

I've mentioned several times how my computer skills leave a lot to be desired, and that includes 'searches'. Anybody remember it, saved it, or somehow marked it? I sure would be appreciative if you did.
 
Found it here:

www.thearmorylife.com

Skills Check: CCW Qualification

Guys, I'm going to post my opinion to several previous posts all here in just one so bear with me. 1st - Any requirement, restriction, fee, or anything else that is 'REQUIRED' in order to exercise a right, is an "Infringement" on that right. That's exactly the difference between a 'RIGHT' and a...
www.thearmorylife.com www.thearmorylife.com

Don't know how, I just fell over it! But it makes a good read for Legal Immigrant to help him understand just how the 2nd amendment came to have the exact wording it has.

Take a look here 'Legal Immigrant' and see how it happened.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ooops, wrong link, but still a good one. Look here for the wording of the 2nd:
en.wikipedia.org

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dang it, still doesn't come across correctly.
 
It's msg #25 in the thread
Skills Check: CCW Qualification
Hope it works this way ..... I'd really like for Legal Immigrant to read it. It sheds a whole lot of light on why/how the 2nd became worded as it is.
 
SATRP said:
The most dangerous institution to We the People is the US supreme court. It lacked and lacks constitutional authority to infringe upon any right of We the People. It has absolutely no constitutional authority to create law.
Click to expand...
If I read your post correctly you’re saying it’s bad that the Supreme Court can’t create laws??? That’s not what the Supreme Court is there to do!!
The Supreme Court was established to be the final authority in interpreting the law in regards to law suits that start at the individual level and then escalate to them through the state level on up through appeals.
 
Keystone19250 said:
If I read your post correctly you’re saying it’s bad that the Supreme Court can’t create laws??? That’s not what the Supreme Court is there to do!!
The Supreme Court was established to be the final authority in interpreting the law in regards to law suits that start at the individual level and then escalate to them through the state level on up through appeals.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how you could interpret his post that way. The last sentence pretty clearly states that SCOTUS "ABSOLUTELY" has no authority to create law.
 
Hi Keystone,

Attached is a link to Article III of the United States Constitution:

www.law.cornell.edu

Article III

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

As you'll find, no court has authority to create law. Only Article I has constitutional authority to create law.

Every single law created by the supreme court is unconstitutional, for it lacks constitutional authority to create law.

We've been conditioned to accept unconstitutional opinions of the supreme court as binding. But then again, Americans are the easiest people on Earth to dupe with propaganda.

If we become an oligarchy followed by a dictatorship, which is the historical degeneration of democracies, it'll be legitimized by the supreme court.

That's why we do not have a democratic government. Out brilliant Founding Fathers knew that democracies destroy themselves. They gave us a republic. Too bad we couldn't keep it.

Democracy and republic are not synonymous constructs.

There's a sinister reason Americans have been conditioned to believe the USA is a democracy.
 
SATRP said:
Hi Keystone,

Attached is a link to Article III of the United States Constitution:

www.law.cornell.edu

Article III

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

As you'll find, no court has authority to create law. Only Article I has constitutional authority to create law.

Every single law created by the supreme court is unconstitutional, for it lacks constitutional authority to create law.

We've been conditioned to accept unconstitutional opinions of the supreme court as binding. But then again, Americans are the easiest people on Earth to dupe with propaganda.

If we become an oligarchy followed by a dictatorship, which is the historical degeneration of democracies, it'll be legitimized by the supreme court.

That's why we do not have a democratic government. Out brilliant Founding Fathers knew that democracies destroy themselves. They gave us a republic. Too bad we couldn't keep it.

Democracy and republic are not synonymous constructs.

There's a sinister reason Americans have been conditioned to believe the USA is a democracy.
Click to expand...
I understand that completely. I read your post thinking you were thinking that the Supreme Court could write laws. If That was my confusion I stand corrected.
After reading your post again. My bad.
 
BTW, Keystone, Article III restricts courts' authority.

Another massive lie is that our Founding Fathers created three equal branches of government. They absolutely did not. Article I was to be superior to Articles II & III. Article I has oversight in the form of impeachment over Articles II & III. Article I is directly responsible to We the People.

Elementary logic expressed in simple reason reveals that no government would be viable if one branch could nullify actions of the other two. For instance, the court has zero authority to hear any petition arising from congress's constitutional authority to declare war. Under a system of three equal branches, a court could invalidate congress's declaration of war.

BTW, Marbury v Madison did not create judicial review. It created an illusion within a haze of dense smoke reflected from fun house mirrors.

Treasonous operatives have unconstitutionally ceded law making authority to the court in effort to circumvent Article I.

Our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutional republic in which We the People were supposed to be sovereign, not the government our constitution created. Sovereignty has been stolen from We the People by compromised politicians.

Please indulge me a very simple question: how do you KNOW that the USA is not a satellite state of a one-world-government? Years ago, when I was asked that question, after considerable thought that included searching for proof that the USA was a sovereign and independent nation, I replied, "I don't know it. I want to believe we're a sovereign and independent country, but I don't know it."

Biden isn't the only politician who's sold out the USA. The Bush Family Cartel were major brokers of America's sovereignty. Bush 41 lied us in to Operation Desert Storm. Sacrificing American soldiers' lives was an insignificant cost to that traitor. Not to be outdone, Bush 43 told ever bigger whoppers to lie us in to Afghanistan and Iraq.

There's a reason that Democrats and neocons fear President Trump. They don't hate him. They fear him. He wasn't indoctrinated by our ruling elite. He's not a member of their club. He can expose and prosecute politicians and bureaucrats who've auctioned America's sovereignty on the international marketplace.

BTW, if you know neocons, you'll realize that they're America's gravest threat. Irvine Kristol, godfather to America's neocons, endeavored to dupe Americans in to voting to enslave themselves. It's very possible that neocons have effected their diabolical agenda. Charles Krauthammer, a treasonous neocon, advocated for the transfer of America's sovereignty to an omnipotent one-world-government.
 
Last edited:
Keystone19250 said:
I understand that completely. I read your post thinking you were thinking that the Supreme Court could write laws. If That was my confusion I stand corrected.
After reading your post again. My bad.
Click to expand...
Hi Keystone.

No problem. Sometimes I get the notion that I exist in a state of confusion. That sentiment usually appears after listening to liberals' lies.
 
Conveniently ironic:

"Propaganda is vital in times of war because it is absolutely imperative that the people, who often need to make the greatest sacrifices and suffer the most, believe that such a war is justified and that such a war will provide them security. To the degree that they believe this to be true, the greater the degree of sacrifice and suffering they are willing to submit themselves for said “promised security."

Source: Why Propaganda is Vital In Upholding The Illusion of a Democracy
 
Keystone19250 said:
I interpreted it the way it was written and I don’t see his post mentioning anything about SCOTUS.
Click to expand...


So when he typed US Supreme Court, which is right there in his post what did you think he was referring to?

Supreme Court Of the United States. i.e. SCOTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top