Why The Attacks on the 2nd Amendment?

[palani]

“TITLE 4 – FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES”

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to regulate militia. The right to bear arms is a right to FLAGS AND SEALS AND COATS OF ARMS. This right comes to us from the feudal period and these devices are regulated by a Heraldic College in England and largely unregulated in the U.S and the several States. Most people mistake the 2nd amendment right as a right to bear firearms. The right to bear firearms is a natural right that derives from your right to self-defense.

Perhaps then according to title 4 the right to form a state involves the right to FLAGS AND SEALS. They (those who wish to monkey with the internal works) want to abolish the 2nd amendment and they want to use needless senseless violence to do it when perhaps the true motive is to eliminate these three devices from the arsenal of the state (FLAGS, SEALS and COATS OF ARMS).

Ask yourself: When has the government ever denied themselves an excuse to kill people? They do it overseas all the time without even the formality of a declaration of war. They did it at Waco on the pretext of saving the children. This government has absolutely no qualms about allowing guns to be exported to Mexico (Fast & Furious). So if the 2nd amendment is about guns then more would seem to be better.

Ask yourself ... Where do you derive a right to use a seal? Or where do you have a right to design and fabricate a flag? If not for the 2nd amendment there would be no flags or seals. Militias would go about largely unregulated.

[palani]

Do yourself a favor. Read this book.

http://books.google.com/books?id=CcQrAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=right+to+bear+arms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d2krUf-OK8aiqQHay4H4Ag&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=right%20to%20bear%20arms&f=false

It is a free google download but if you search for the title and author independently or together you will not find this book. Perhaps google doesn't want it to be found?

[Glass]

do you know how to download it. I can never work google books out.

[palani]

do you know how to download it. I can never work google books out.

You can read it online or click the gear on the upper right. A drop down panel opens up and click DOWNLOAD PDF.

[Ponce]

Ok, downloading now.......lets see what is all about........thanks.

V

[Carl]

.
Legal Theory of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm)


Copyright © 1994 Constitution Society. Permission is granted to copy with attribution for noncommercial purposes.


There is considerable confusion about the legal theory underlying the "right to keep and bear arms". This is a brief outline for a clarification of the discussion of this issue.

(1) The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution establish any "natural" rights. They recognize such rights, but the repeal of such provisions would not end such rights. Such rights were considered by many of the Framers as obvious or "self-evident", but they were immersed in the prevailing republican thought of the day, as expressed in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and others, which discussed "natural rights" in some detail. Others argued that at least some of the rights needed to be made explicit in the Bill of Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding of republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. That has turned out to have been a good idea.

(2) The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of individuals under the theory of democratic government. This was clearly the understanding and intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and was a long-established principle of English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, which is considered to be a part of constitutional law for purposes of interpreting the written Constitution.

(3) What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia". While not well defined in modern terms, it is somewhat broader than just able-"bodied": implicit is also "able-minded" and "virtuous". In other words, persons might be excluded who were physically able to bear arms but who were mentally or morally defective. Defense of the "state" includes self-defense and defense of one's family and friends who are, after all, part of the state, but by establishing the defense of the state as primary a basis is laid for requiring a citizen to risk or sacrifice his life in defense of the state and is thus a qualification on the implicit right of self-defense, which is considered to prevail in situations in which self-sacrifice is not called for.

(4) The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

(5) The right to keep and bear arms does indeed extend to the states. As do the other rights recognized by other Amendments, and as reinforced by the Fourteenth Amendment. It is not just a restriction on the powers of the central government. On the other hand, the citizens of a state can adopt a constitution that might restrict the exercise of such rights by delegating the power to do so to the state government. However, if the restriction of natural rights is unduly burdensome on those rights, then such a provision would be incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, its guarantee of the rights, and its guarantee that all states have a "republican" form of government - which such restrictions would compromise.

(6) The legal basis for a government not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is not constitutional provisions like the Second Amendment, but that the power to do so is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the government, whether Union or State. That delegation must be explicit as pertains to arms. They can't be regulated on the basis of general powers to tax or to regulate commerce. Arms have a special status under constitutional law. Some State constitutions may delegate such powers to the State government. The U.S. Constitution does not delegate such powers to the Union government. No powers are delegated to government by the preamble to a constitution, which is only a statement of purpose, only by provisions in the body of the document and its amendments.

(7) The legal basis on which the states can regulate arms is in those situations in which they conflict with property rights. It is a fundamental principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon their entry. That includes public property. Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms -- on their own property or property they control -- but not on someone else's property without his permission.

(8) In other words, citizens have a right to keep and bear arms in those places and situations where they have a right to be, unless such rights are disabled by due process of law. Fundamental natural rights can never be lost, as contractual rights can be, only the exercise of those rights restricted or "disabled", to use the legal term. The distinction is very important. Natural rights are those which the individual brings with him when he enters into the social contract, and reclaims if the social contract is broken. The right to keep and bear arms is such a natural right, as is the right of free speech, religious belief, and privacy. The alternative is a contractual right created by a contract, such as the social contract. The right to vote or to be judged by a jury of one's peers are examples of rights created by the social contract, albeit important ones that are also constitutionally protected. Because they are constitutionally protected, it is only proper to speak of them as disabled, rather than lost, so long as the subject remains a citizen or natural person, depending on whether it is a right of citizenship or personhood.

(9) It is unconstitutional to "disable" any rights by statute except one set: the rights of majority. The disabilities of minority do not need to be established by a court trial or hearing. However, they can be removed sooner than they would be removed by constitution or statute, by reaching a certain age. This means it is unconstitutional to disable the right to keep and bear arms to a class of persons by statute, including those, such as felons, who have been the subject of due process on another issue, except through a proceeding in which the court is explicitly petitioned to disable them, the subject has an opportunity to argue to the contrary, the petitioner has the burden of proof that the subject if armed would be a threat to himself or others, and the court grants that petition. Merely being convicted of a crime, or declared mentally incompetent, is not sufficient if the language of the judgement does not also explicitly disable the right to keep and bear arms, or set restrictions on such right.

(10) "General police powers" is not a constitutional basis for states or localities to regulate arms. "General police powers" are the powers to use the means necessary and sufficient to stop someone who threatens to commit a major crime, or to arrest someone who has done so. All citizens have such power. They differ from regular, professional police only in that the regular police also have "special police powers" in matters such as minor offenses, and in that they outrank civilians. Since citizens have general police powers, they also have the right to such means as they require to exercise such powers in situations in which they may be called upon to do so. That includes arms.

(11) To be constitutional, state laws restricting the bearing of arms must distinguish between public property, private commercial property which serves the public and which therefore confers certain rights to the public, and other private property with no public access rights. It is reasonable and constitutional to prohibit persons from bearing arms onto purely private property without notifying the owner or manager and obtaining his or her permission, except over public easements, such as sidewalks or the walkway from the street to the front door. On the other hand, it would be an undue burden on the right to bear arms to forbid persons from traveling between places where they have a right to be, and to bear arms while they do so, along public pathways or private easements, and using their own or a public means of transportation. It may not, however, be an undue burden to prohibit the bearing of arms onto certain public property where persons do not have unrestricted access, such as office buildings and auditoriums, provided that authorities guarantee the safety of persons who enter unarmed. Owners of commercial property serving the public which confers some rights of access to the public may prohibit the bearing of arms by posting or giving a notice to that effect, but lacking such notice, bearing arms onto the premises would be permitted. The rule must be that laws must not burden the right to bear arms except to the extent that they would impose a greater burden on the right of property owners to exclude persons bearing arms.

(12) The law must presume that places of business that cater to arms, such as gun shops and shooting ranges, and events such as gun shows, offer presumptive permission to bear arms and that therefore it is not illegal to bear them there or to travel to and from them.

(13) A carry permit system essentially is a removal of restrictions against bearing arms on public and private property unless there is an express prohibition against doing so, either in the form of a posted sign or a directive from the owner or his agent. The rationale for issuing such permits is to equip persons of good character to more effectively function as militiamen or police in situations in which regular police are not available or insufficient. That also includes self-protection, but the key factor is the duty to perform police duties as necessary. There also needs to be explicit statutory protection of the state or other permit issuing authority against criminal or civil liability for any acts done by the permit holder. One kind of carry permit is that which is one of the "special police powers" of regular law-enforcement officers, which allows them to carry anywhere, even against the express wishes of a property owner.

(14) With the high levels of crime we now endure, the only effective way to extend police protection to a level that might deter crime is to recruit a substantial proportion of the public to go armed, by issuing them carry permits, offering them police training, and organizing them into a network of militia units closely coordinated with regular law enforcement agencies. It is likely that as many as 25% of the adult public could serve in this way on a regular basis, and another 25% on an occasional basis, and that if they did, we might expect it to have a significant positive impact on crime. Some such citizens might even be granted higher police rank, and perform regular police duties on a part-time basis. Such involvement of the public in law enforcement would also have other benefits: breaking down the social and psychological barriers that now separate the regular police from civilians, and deterring some of the abuses of authority that police have sometimes fallen into.

(15) That the militia should be "well-regulated" is not a basis for restricting the keeping or bearing of arms. The term originally meant "self-regulated" and militias could be independent of state or national authority if not called up by such authority. Militia members may be required to carry certain standard arms during formations, but they cannot be forbidden from carrying additional arms of their own unless doing so would impair normal militia operations. State-appointed officers may direct when, where and in what manner members of the militia are to train and perform their duties, but may not forbid them to meet on their own.

(16) The Union government has the power, under the U.S. Constitution, to regulate imports and interstate commerce in arms, but the Framers would not agree with how the "interstate commerce" clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8) of the Constitution has been broadly interpreted to include regulation of manufacture, possession, and local sales and use of items. A strict constitutional interpretation requires that the Union government has authority only over transactions that cross state lines, and not over actions or transactions that occur within state borders, even if they involve items that may someday cross state borders or may have once done so. If we want the Union government to have such authority, and a good case can be made for that, then the U.S. Constitution needs to be amended to delegate that authority to it.

(17) The Union government also has excise taxing power, but since arms have special status under the Constitution, no tax may be levied that imposes an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms. Rights are more fundamental than taxing powers, particularly since the right to keep and bear arms is recognized in an amendment which supersedes any prior provisions that conflict with it, which includes all taxing powers except the income tax (which does not provide a basis for taxing arms). Arms may be taxed as general merchandise is, such as with a sales tax, but any tax law which specifies arms for special taxes, other than reasonable use fees for public services related to them, must be considered unconstitutional. That would include taxes on ammunition and the ingredients to make it. The analogy is to taxes on newsprint, which may be taxed like other merchandise, but not in a way that would impose an undue burden on the right of a free press.

(18) This means that no government has the power, unless that power is specifically granted to it under its constitution, to prohibit any person from manufacturing or possessing any gun or ammunition for it on his own premises or where he has a right to be, or against using it in a safe and responsible manner, or against selling or giving it to another person within the borders of a state.

(19) Since the common law prevailing at the time the Constitution was adopted defined "militia" to consist of "able-bodied" citizens, including persons younger than the usual age of majority, any law restricting the possession, sale or gift of guns or ammunition to persons under the age of majority or any other particular age, or to minors (since persons under the age of majority may have their disabilities of minority removed by a court), is also unconstitutional, unless the constitution explicitly includes a disability of the right to keep and bear arms among the disabilities of minority. The proper test for being "able-bodied" must involve meeting certain standards that are independent of age, such as skill, judgement, and level of maturity. It is possible for persons to be "able-bodied" at quite a young age, and the law must recognize that competence where it exists. All citizens above the age of majority would have to be presumed able- bodied unless they or the state petitioned a court to rule otherwise and it granted the petition. However, it would be constitutional to require a reasonable test of competence to citizens below the age of majority, and to issue credentials to those qualifying which they would be required to show when answering calls of the militia or, if the right to keep and bear arms were included among the rights disabled by minority, when bearing arms. Early removal of the disabilities of minority would then also remove the disabilities of the right to keep and bear arms.

(20) The "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that persons issued a carry permit by one state must have that permit recognized in other states. This suggests a uniform standard for qualifying persons for issuance.

REFERENCE: Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man be Armed, available from The Independent Institute, 134 98th Av, Oakland, CA 94603, 510/568-6047.

2900 W. Anderson Lane #C-200-322 Austin, TX 78757 512-299-5001

[midnight rambler]

Take either instance -

1) wave a flag or seal at a bad guy and see if that stops 'em from doing you harm

or

2) point a long arm or sidearm at a bad guy and use it against 'em, see if that stops 'em from doing you harm

Gee, I wonder which is most effective at stopping a bad guy and which one a bad guy genuinely respects.

[Glass]

ok thanks. I don't get a download option. I can buy it or log in to add it to "my library".

I'll keep looking.

[Glass]

Take either instance -

1) wave a flag or seal at a bad guy and see if that stops 'em from doing you harm

or

2) point a long arm or sidearm at a bad guy and use it against 'em, see if that stops 'em from doing you harm

Gee, I wonder which is most effective at stopping a bad guy and which one a bad guy genuinely respects.

Heraldry as its roots going back a long long time. The literal interpretation that arms means firearms might be a distraction for extended discussion about something unrelated to actual bearing of arms. Regals usually marched under their banner/sign/signature/coat of arms.

When one regal is dominant over all others it generally requires that no one else marches with the intent of opposing the supreme regal or taking the lands of another sub or vice regal who is alleiged with the supreme regal.

As it stands everyone in the west is operating under the Heraldry/Arms of the Sun Worshipers - commonly referred to as the Union Jack flag. The Cross on the union Jack represents the movement of the sun and key points of the equinox. There used to be a saying that the sun never sets on the empire. A lot of people consider this to be a literal expression based on the leangth and breadth of the empire being so vast that the Sun is risen over some part of it any time of the day (24hrs). It could also refer to the symbology of the flags Sun worshiping origins.

What commentary is available from any of the founding fathers specific to this amendment? That would be the go to reference IMO.

[7th trump]

Palani went off his meds again.
Yeah sure.....from the feudal period huh?

Hahahahahaha...... I'm sure the founding fathers just after a long war over freedom from a tyrannical country wrote the 2nd amendment for every American to make a shield....which is customary to the feudal era....800-1400?
Hahaha.......yeah sure they did.....over 300 years later from 1400........1776, they meant for a shield of coats huh...................hahahahahahaha.....!

First thing tomorrow morning palani get to the pharmacist to resupply your meds dude.

[Glass]

Palani went off his meds again.
Yeah sure.....from the feudal period huh?

Hahahahahaha...... I'm sure the founding fathers just after a long war over freedom from a tyrannical country wrote the 2nd amendment for every American to make a shield....which is customary to the feudal era....800-1400?
Hahaha.......yeah sure they did.....over 300 years later from 1400........1776, they meant for a shield of coats huh...................hahahahahahaha.....!

First thing tomorrow morning palani get to the pharmacist to resupply your meds dude.

I don't think you comprehend what a coat of arms is. Many people still use these in business. The Queen of England for one. The red shields for another. And do you get what coat of arms even means? It doesn't sound like it to me.

Ships can't sail unless under the flag of a nation. If they sail without an allegiance they are considered pirates. Anyway the concept is too difficult for some to grasp. A freeman might exist under his own coat of arms.

[Hatha Sunahara]

That makes about as much sense as saying the 2nd amendment keeps the government from preventing you from wearing short sleeve shirts. And most particularly if you join a militia. The government would have you think militias are gangs of armed anarchists and are dangerous. So they reorganized the language to relegate them to oblivion, and since the militias no longer exist, they would prefer that everyone wear long sleeve shirts, and dispense with the bare arms. (Wink, wink) We all know that the length of your sleeves has nothing to do with your ability to shoot people in self defense. A well regulated militia is one that doesn't exist. Americans should never give up their right to wear short sleeve shirts, especially in the summertime when it's hot.



Hatha

[jbeck57143]

ok thanks. I don't get a download option. I can buy it or log in to add it to "my library".

I'll keep looking.

Here it is at the Internet Archive:

http://archive.org/search.php?query=%22The%20Right%20To%20Bear%20Arms %22

[Glass]

Here it is at the Internet Archive:

http://archive.org/search.php?query=%22The%20Right%20To%20Bear%20Arms %22

thank you for that. I tried there earlier but ended up at the google link. Your link had several other options.

I used this link which I think is still the right book.
https://ia700305.us.archive.org/31/items/righttobeararms00foxdrich/righttobeararms00foxdrich.pdf

[7th trump]

I don't think you comprehend what a coat of arms is. Many people still use these in business. The Queen of England for one. The red shields for another. And do you get what coat of arms even means? It doesn't sound like it to me.

Ships can't sail unless under the flag of a nation. If they sail without an allegiance they are considered pirates. Anyway the concept is too difficult for some to grasp. A freeman might exist under his own coat of arms.

I'm well aware of what the 2nd amendment is about.....so does the federal government.
It certainly isn't about flags and bullshit on ships or a family symbol on your front door as palani is suggesting.....its about the right to openly carry a weapon on ones person for protection against an enemy foreign and domestic.
Its the basis of the Constitutional state militia's.
THATS WHY THERES PEOPLE CHALLENGING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON THE CONGRESSIONAL LEVEL IN THE GOVERNMENT WANTING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO EVEN HAVE OWN A FIREARM........THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS THE AMENDMENT WHEN THIS ISSUE IS CHALLENGED...HAS BEEN THAT WAY SINCE THE SIGNING OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Makes you wonder at times if palani doesn't work for the government as a disinfo agent?
After all he continues to inject some really stupid legal shit to this forum of people who I believe are smarter than your average Joe.
Is he sent here to dumb down this forum or is palani just that much of a conspiracy nut whacker?

I'm glad he brought this subject up.......now you people can see why I continually question him. You'd all be just as whacked as he is if nobody questioned his reasoning.

[palani]

Palani went off his meds

I see your arsenal is empty.

[palani]

its about the right to openly carry a weapon on ones person for protection against an enemy foreign and domestic.

The 2nd amendment is about regulating militia. Militia require regalia.

This discussion is about your own ability to define your world. If the 2nd amendment is about guns then you end up losing your right to defend yourself but in general government doesn't care about your defense one way or another and no matter the outcome. If the 2nd amendment is about regalia and heraldry then you lose something much greater ... the right to define yourself as a free man.

Consider this a beginning exercise on how to think for yourself.

[Glass]

I get what Americans are fighting over and that both sides agree it is about guns. I think the idea is an interesting perspective. The Constitution stipulates no titles of nobility and a disambiguation of bearing arms is nobility. I made comments on the things that I had heard or read elsewhere that related. There are some interesting questions. The book is an interesting read so far. It is a history book and easy enough to read. It has plenty of examples of how this version of arms works. Even today it's corporations doing it, maybe from the more successful families, logos and brands. Shields and Coats of Arms, seals.

[palani]

both sides agree it is about guns

As long as it is about guns and not the hidden meaning a Hegelian dialect is set up. When the real meaning is investigated you will find people being clubbed in alleys with seals and pierced by flagpoles.

The system only works with uncovering a problem, assigning a cause and establishing a solution.

[7th trump]

As long as it is about guns and not the hidden meaning a Hegelian dialect is set up. When the real meaning is investigated you will find people being clubbed in alleys with seals and pierced by flagpoles.

The system only works with uncovering a problem, assigning a cause and establishing a solution.

Anybody beleiving palani and his, yet another, fallacy/conspiracy that the 2nd amendment is about seals and flag poles.....theres a well known bridge in Brooklyn for sale.....real cheap that I will sell you.
Furthermore, these books that palani is getting these ridicules ideas from arent recognized in the legal field as having legal merit or standing....so take them with a grain of salt.
These books palani uses are equivalent to todays "Field and Stream" magazine.....total worthlessness.
Palani is just directing you down a primrose path of conspiracy and fallacy.

[palani]

Anybody beleiving palani and his, yet another, fallacy/conspiracy

Have you ever asked a blind guy to describe a rainbow? I wouldn't expect anyone who obeys statutes to have any imagination or vision.

[palani]

these books that palani is getting these ridicules ideas from arent recognized in the legal field as having legal merit or standing....so take them with a grain of salt.

Lawful comes from God. Legal comes from government. Government says abortion is legal. Government says homosexuals can marry. Citizenship is an agreement to obey government. You obey government yet spout bible. People who straddle fences get barbed wire up the crack.

[7th trump]

Lawful comes from God. Legal comes from government. Government says abortion is legal. Government says homosexuals can marry. Citizenship is an agreement to obey government. You obey government yet spout bible. People who straddle fences get barbed wire up the crack.

Whats ever palani............those books (the authors opinion) arent recognized by the legal field to have legal merit.
Basically they are someones fallacy because they dont agree with the US Constitution....and hence why they arent ever cited in any court room....they are junk!

Funny how you cite the Articles and yet disregard the reason the for Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) before the Constitution was ratified.
The Articles allowed for gun ownership and the founding Fathers wouldnt ratify the US Constitution until it was amended with the Bill of Rights....the second amendment being the right to bear arms.
And now you are saying the 2nd amendment isnt about guns..................how foolish are you?
You contradict yourself......
Seriously do you ever read what you say or ever remember anything you read...or is it what ever conspiracy is the juiciest for being a drama queen nut whacker?

[7th trump]

Have you ever asked a blind guy to describe a rainbow? I wouldn't expect anyone who obeys statutes to have any imagination or vision.

So why are you using books not recognized by the legal field then?

[palani]

Whats ever palani............those books (the authors opinion) arent recognized by the legal field to have legal merit.

Anything PUBLISHED is notice to the PUBLIC. I would build a water tank yet would not expect a non-thirsty horse to drink there.

[palani]

So why are you using books not recognized by the legal field then?

The legal field is your forte not mine. I prefer sticking with the lawful field. Much clearer rules. Less subject to change. But I can understand people wanting to abort their kids and marrying like kind. Just not my thing. Neither is reading statutes for direction. If I read either case cites or statutes it is for amusement and entertainment rather than seriously.

[Glass]

I agree the statutes are the fictional works of government. Unless they are using them against you I would counsel they are for entertainment purposes only. Nothing they write can change the laws of nature, the laws of the jungle, the laws of survival. People can either read them and marvel at their bizareness (of stupidity) or they can adopt them and develop a belief in them that they follow religiously.

It's clear you've not read the book or what I wrote. I said it was a history book. It contains full citations of actual presentments of letters, patent and otherwise for the purposes of bestowing the right of arms or the augmentation of arms. Some of them related to historical battle events in the US of A.

Augmentation means the adding of a symbol to an existing coat of arms to mark a significant occurence, either victory at battle or some other significant duty. Recalling of course that people who carry arms (of the coat variety) bestowed upon them by the King are subject to be called to muster. To muster as a militia for the King.

Anyway I don't need a bridge but you might find it handy. Perhaps you can eventually get over it.

[7th trump]

The legal field is your forte not mine. I prefer sticking with the lawful field. Much clearer rules. Less subject to change. But I can understand people wanting to abort their kids and marrying like kind. Just not my thing. Neither is reading statutes for direction. If I read either case cites or statutes it is for amusement and entertainment rather than seriously.
hahahaha....as if those junk books of yours have anything lawful about them.
They don't hold up to the Constitution which is lawful nor do they hold up to the statutes which are "legal".....they are junk!
Well you can put words in my mouth all you want palani...its just one of many of your method of operations.

I'll tell you again.....I read the statutes to understand how they get attached to people like you.
I'm not attached to Title 26 like you are........that's why you go down the road of stupidity to believe if you don't deal in money the IRS cant reach you.....much like if you believe you put your head in the sand nobody can see you.....kind of mentality.

I know what causes the federal income tax to be imposed....and its still imposed on you.
Trust me when the IRS catches up with you...you will not be able to defend yourself for you do not understand HOW the statutes still apply to you....your lawful money buddies over at planet merrill are NOW finding that out the hard way.
Like I say palani when the IRS catches up with your being paid under the table...they will not be nice....they never are!

[7th trump]

I agree the statutes are the fictional works of government. Unless they are using them against you I would counsel they are for entertainment purposes only. Nothing they write can change the laws of nature, the laws of the jungle, the laws of survival. People can either read them and marvel at their bizareness (of stupidity) or they can adopt them and develop a belief in them that they follow religiously.

It's clear you've not read the book or what I wrote. I said it was a history book. It contains full citations of actual presentments of letters, patent and otherwise for the purposes of bestowing the right of arms or the augmentation of arms. Some of them related to historical battle events in the US of A.

Augmentation means the adding of a symbol to an existing coat of arms to mark a significant occurence, either victory at battle or some other significant duty. Recalling of course that people who carry arms (of the coat variety) bestowed upon them by the King are subject to be called to muster. To muster as a militia for the King.

Anyway I don't need a bridge but you might find it handy. Perhaps you can eventually get over it.
Funny you bring up "king" and all that mumbo jumbo relating to a kingdom...show me were in the US Constitution America is a kingdom?

The second amendment is not about a coat of arms or flag poles or anything of that nature, if it was, the supreme court and congress would have made that perfectly clear hundreds of years ago.

[palani]

when the IRS catches up with you

Nothing on topic about this post.

[7th trump]

Anything PUBLISHED is notice to the PUBLIC. I would build a water tank yet would not expect a non-thirsty horse to drink there.

So the book "Cat in the hat" and Penthouse magazines are a public notice?
Who knew!

[7th trump]

Nothing on topic about this post.
Nice deflection palani!

[Glass]

Funny you bring up "king" and all that mumbo jumbo relating to a kingdom...show me were in the US Constitution America is a kingdom?

The second amendment is not about a coat of arms or flag poles or anything of that nature, if it was, the supreme court and congress would have made that perfectly clear hundreds of years ago.

I've not denied/decried or argued that the 2nd amendment fights in court and in public opinion are about guns. As I said earlier, both sides agree their argument is about guns.

I am talking about the context of the book not the context of the 2nd amendment. And I pointed out that the King gave people Letters Patent and the Right to Bear Arms for their victories against the Colonies. Documented in the book from historical record. I thought that in itself was interesting because US folk lore says the Colonies defeated the British yet the King gave alms for victories against the colonies.

There is/was also a topical discussion, I think on an earlier GIM as to the manouverings at the end of the "War of Independence" where the King simply made a territorial agreement with the Govt of Canada as to the new boundaries of the US. Basically they just side stepped the situation and created a new plane of US over the old one. This is a sleight manouver that takes some thinking on but as we have seen the literal reading of something seems to be the only way to read something that is acceptable to some people. They don't get the smoke and mirrors of things political. It is too oblique for them. The investigation of this caused me to realise that it is very possible that the US of A has not ever been an independent country but has remained a colony of UK Inc. And they just let the people come up with their own narrative. So long as there is some form of peace and the people diligently pay their taxes (To a non US Govt entity I might add) who cares what they think?

Do you see? Do you remember that GWB said the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper. He said that because reality is not reflected in that document. I have said just because it is written on a piece of paper doesn't mean it is truth or fact or anything. The fact that people blindly follow and trust pieces of paper says more about them than the people who write on the pieces of paper. We have also seen the subservience of US presidents to the royal clan. Bowing and scraping in public. We also know that most US presidents are in some way related to the royal clan by blood. Or at least that has been claimed in the past. So what is the truth about the legal status of the USofA. I think it is a colony. I think it has been mentioned in Government records on both sides of the atlantic that the US is part of the commonwealth. Not the louisiana one or any other one but the UK one. If that were true it would be interesting but only if everyone found out about it and came to accept it. Won't happen I know but I like what if's.

In a world where black is white and lies are truth and freedom is slavery how can anyone trust anything at face value.

[palani]

So the book "Cat in the hat" and Penthouse magazines are a public notice?
Who knew!
Public notice is where the public is invited to take notice and not where the public is required to pay for that notice.

I don't pay for google books and they offer 100 year old documents and older free of charge.

Did you think only West is permitted to write of the law?

[palani]

Nice deflection palani!
Why? Because I choose to not call you out for your unfounded character assassination? You give testimony all the time about things you have no knowledge of. I figure this is a flaw in your character.

[palani]

it is very possible that the US of A has not ever been an independent country but has remained a colony of UK Inc.
For the purposes of commerce England and the U.S. have been inseparable. For the purposes of religion the Pope has assumed the entire world. These are separate planes or overlays, a case where reality is just an illusion only more persistent. I might theorize and define a plane where politics is non-existent or where the 2nd amendment comprehends only heraldic devices. 7th_trump would likely theorize and define a plane where Penthouse displays ideal women and the Cat in the Hat is read on Sunday in church or where West is the only source of law.



In a world where black is white and lies are truth and freedom is slavery how can anyone trust anything at face value.
Laches and estoppel is a good start. Conditional acceptance is a good practice. Designing experiments to separate truth from fiction is also good practice.

[7th trump]

I've not denied/decried or argued that the 2nd amendment fights in court and in public opinion are about guns. As I said earlier, both sides agree their argument is about guns.

I am talking about the context of the book not the context of the 2nd amendment. And I pointed out that the King gave people Letters Patent and the Right to Bear Arms for their victories against the Colonies. Documented in the book from historical record. I thought that in itself was interesting because US folk lore says the Colonies defeated the British yet the King gave alms for victories against the colonies.

There is/was also a topical discussion, I think on an earlier GIM as to the manouverings at the end of the "War of Independence" where the King simply made a territorial agreement with the Govt of Canada as to the new boundaries of the US. Basically they just side stepped the situation and created a new plane of US over the old one. This is a sleight manouver that takes some thinking on but as we have seen the literal reading of something seems to be the only way to read something that is acceptable to some people. They don't get the smoke and mirrors of things political. It is too oblique for them. The investigation of this caused me to realise that it is very possible that the US of A has not ever been an independent country but has remained a colony of UK Inc. And they just let the people come up with their own narrative. So long as there is some form of peace and the people diligently pay their taxes (To a non US Govt entity I might add) who cares what they think?

Do you see? Do you remember that GWB said the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper. He said that because reality is not reflected in that document. I have said just because it is written on a piece of paper doesn't mean it is truth or fact or anything. The fact that people blindly follow and trust pieces of paper says more about them than the people who write on the pieces of paper. We have also seen the subservience of US presidents to the royal clan. Bowing and scraping in public. We also know that most US presidents are in some way related to the royal clan by blood. Or at least that has been claimed in the past. So what is the truth about the legal status of the USofA. I think it is a colony. I think it has been mentioned in Government records on both sides of the atlantic that the US is part of the commonwealth. Not the louisiana one or any other one but the UK one. If that were true it would be interesting but only if everyone found out about it and came to accept it. Won't happen I know but I like what if's.

In a world where black is white and lies are truth and freedom is slavery how can anyone trust anything at face value.

I absolutely love the hypocrisy some members have.
The Constitution is a piece of paper and you prefer not to believe it over yet another piece of paper which are...........junk books that aren't recognized by the legal or lawful foundations of the USofA.
Absolutely amazing!
Funny........are we a colony of Rome?
The USofA's legal system is mainly mirrored to that of Rome.
We have senators, governors and states just as ancient Rome did.....are we also a colony of Rome?
Under your current reasoning one might ask you if the president is Ceasar himself?

You're confused Glass...and you allowed yourself to be confused with junk books and junk reasoning promoted by people who are lost within the law.
Ask yourself has palani helped in anyone becoming The People?
How can palani be successful if he absolutely refuses to recognize the current laws that enslave you?
Answer is....he cant and he doesnt
No, he hasnt because he doesnt understand the "lawful" or "legal" difference between the The People from a US citizen....he yaps his jaw and bedazzlles the hell out of people with elementary shit we all already know....he just repackages the same ole shit. And when he doesnt understand something he throws in a conspiracy....thats the only way he can sell it.
And "NO" this isnt the Wizard of Oz either, as much as palani wants you to think it is. You just dont tap your ruby red shoes and the government no longer has jurisdiction over you. You have to understand how the government gets jurisdiction over its subjects....and that is studying the statutes to see what you have done (consent) to allow the government to control you.
And heres the kicker....palani goes to extremes to keep you from studying the statutes...he distracts you away from the truth with junk books and conspiracy theories.

[palani]

You're confused...
http://i61.tinypic.com/ra2j2c.jpg

[Glass]

I think you could be mistaken for thinking there is any difference between the UK and Rome bodies. One is temporal and one is spiritual. Don't read the book to get the perspective. It contains citations and transcripts of actual royal presents (presentments) of the right to bear arms. It also describes the agencies that were set up to record the arrangements and make sure there were no clashes.

or this interesting tale: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/united_states_british_colony.htm

In the commonwealth we are preparing to have our constitutions re-written. The reason is because no catholic can be king or queen. UK Settlement act 1701. This is the "royal family's" employment contract. This is happening in NZ, CAN, AUS, UK and I believe on a few carribean islands that are under British control. So why does it need changing?

They leaked here that not only are they going to change the constitutions to allow a catholic king. Lets assume it's George. They are also going to change the Federation, in place since 1901 for AUS. I expect it will be a less free and more oppressive federation in the future.

I don't think there is any separation between crown and pontiff. History records that the empire was pledged to the pontiff. There is more than meets the eye with these power structure and how they are arranged.

I meant to post this yesterday but I went looking for the reference to statement I made in bold. It seems to have been memory holed. One of the rare times I didn't PDF. Ran out of time.

I think the proposition is an entertaining one. To consider, what if it were true and the whole 2nd amendment shit fight was misguided. OR what if the claims that only militias had been bestowed that right. I've heard that claim made in the past. I think that is similar for swizterland and israel. I guess they are reservists. There's probably other countries.

Let me be clear. I think the right is a right or a claim you guys don't want to be giving up. Someone said here today that they should just make every one have one. A good idea but there will always be people who don't want one. Don't trust themselves. I'd rather have more relaxed laws here too. We have this new registry thing starting soon. The one the Canadians fought. No such discussion down here. They seem to be politely asking people to tell them how many guns they have. So it seems they have no idea who has what or how many.

[7th trump]

I think you could be mistaken for thinking there is any difference between the UK and Rome bodies. One is temporal and one is spiritual. Don't read the book to get the perspective. It contains citations and transcripts of actual royal presents (presentments) of the right to bear arms. It also describes the agencies that were set up to record the arrangements and make sure there were no clashes.

or this interesting tale: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/united_states_british_colony.htm

In the commonwealth we are preparing to have our constitutions re-written. The reason is because no catholic can be king or queen. UK Settlement act 1701. This is the "royal family's" employment contract. This is happening in NZ, CAN, AUS, UK and I believe on a few carribean islands that are under British control. So why does it need changing?

They leaked here that not only are they going to change the constitutions to allow a catholic king. Lets assume it's George. They are also going to change the Federation, in place since 1901 for AUS. I expect it will be a less free and more oppressive federation in the future.

I don't think there is any separation between crown and pontiff. History records that the empire was pledged to the pontiff. There is more than meets the eye with these power structure and how they are arranged.

I meant to post this yesterday but I went looking for the reference to statement I made in bold. It seems to have been memory holed. One of the rare times I didn't PDF. Ran out of time.

I think the proposition is an entertaining one. To consider, what if it were true and the whole 2nd amendment shit fight was misguided. OR what if the claims that only militias had been bestowed that right. I've heard that claim made in the past. I think that is similar for swizterland and israel. I guess they are reservists. There's probably other countries.

Let me be clear. I think the right is a right or a claim you guys don't want to be giving up. Someone said here today that they should just make every one have one. A good idea but there will always be people who don't want one. Don't trust themselves. I'd rather have more relaxed laws here too. We have this new registry thing starting soon. The one the Canadians fought. No such discussion down here. They seem to be politely asking people to tell them how many guns they have. So it seems they have no idea who has what or how many.

So do you beleive in the same principles as palani. A priciple that if a spit wad landed next to you then you are the one who must have thrown it?
Are we or are we not an extention of Rome?
Palani gives examples of different planes over lapping each other.....last I read about the founding fathers was they booted the crown out of having any jurisdiction within the boundaries of the continental USA.
Do you see any crown representation here in the USA dictating laws?
I dont....do you?


Heres an idea....search the internet for conspiracy theories and list them on a sheet of paper.
Then as time goes by check them off as palani addresses each and every one of them.
You'll surprised as just how much conspiracy palani injects into his nonsense.
And what I mean by conspiracy is........anything in the "legal" or "lawful" field that cant be proven.

An example is "lawful money". Palani is under the beleif that gold and silver coin money is not taxable.
The law and some historical facts say something completely different.

Another example is "statutes". Palani is under the belief that statutes dont apply to him and that anything statutoried doesnt apply to him.

[Glass]

well lets see, GWB is a cousin of the queen, clinton is also a half brother, I guess that's what it is. Nearly all the presidents it's claimed were related to the royals so it's not always going to be the queen they are related to. A couple of kings since the founding of the colonies. It was claimed prior to obama there was only one who wasn't.

It looks like, based on treaty's that the King merely side stepped the battles for independence and renegotiated the boundaries and obligations of the US to him.

The crown pledged it's lands to the pope in lieu of paying debts. The foreclosure happened. US is part of those lands. So I'd say it looks like it.

[7th trump]

well lets see, GWB is a cousin of the queen, clinton is also a half brother, I guess that's what it is. Nearly all the presidents it's claimed were related to the royals so it's not always going to be the queen they are related to. A couple of kings since the founding of the colonies. It was claimed prior to obama there was only one who wasn't.

It looks like, based on treaty's that the King merely side stepped the battles for independence and renegotiated the boundaries and obligations of the US to him.

The crown pledged it's lands to the pope in lieu of paying debts. The foreclosure happened. US is part of those lands. So I'd say it looks like it.

I'm absolutely astonished by some peoples reasoning, or lack thereof.
Perfect example of......well I cant really say.........I'll get banned if I say it!


Side stepped the battles huh?
I don't think there was any negotiating boundaries either....the king got an ass kicking is what it was.
Men died...there was no negotiating period.

The pope?
Wow this conspiracy is a juicy one.
Why not throw in the kitchen sink while your at it!

[palani]

the king got an ass kicking is what it was.

The only battle won by the continentals was Yorktown.

Cromwell never relinquished his sword as is customary.

[7th trump]

The only battle won by the continentals was Yorktown.

Cromwell never relinquished his sword as is customary.
As usual palani, not being the trustworthy person he is, always convolutes.
Didn't need to relinquish his sword.
The British signed the Treaty of Paris (1783) ending the war. Here is the key factors of this relinquishment.

Ten Articles: key points



Signature page of the Treaty of Paris courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration.
Preface. Declares the treaty to be "in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity", states the bona fides of the signatories, and declares the intention of both parties to "forget all past misunderstandings and differences" and "secure to both perpetual peace and harmony".

1.Acknowledging the United States (viz. the Colonies) to be free, sovereign and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;

You lose again in your quest to convolute the truth.
Keep opening your mouth palani....and I'll keep putting your dirty untrustworthy feet in your mouth.

[palani]

The only battle won by the continentals was Yorktown.

Cromwell never relinquished his sword as is customary.

Unrebutted.

[Glass]

We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated.

We hereby command all Japanese forces wherever situated and the Japanese people to cease hostilities forthwith, to preserve and save from damage all ships, aircraft, and military and civil property, and to comply with all requirements which may be imposed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by agencies of the Japanese Government at his direction.
We hereby command the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters to issue at once orders to the commanders of all Japanese forces and all forces under Japanese control wherever situated to surrender unconditionally themselves and all forces under their control.
We hereby command all civil, military, and naval officials to obey and enforce all proclamations, orders, and directives deemed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to be proper to effectuate this surrender and issued by him or under his authority; and we direct all such officials to remain at their posts and to continue to perform their non-combatant duties unless specifically relieved by him or under his authority.
We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government, and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever action may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that declaration.
We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters at once to liberate all Allied Prisoners of War and civilian internees now under Japanese control and to provide for their protection, care, maintenance, and immediate transportation to places as directed.
The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the State shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender.
Signed at TOKYO BAY, JAPAN at 09.04 on the SECOND day of SEPTEMBER, 1945



Japanese instrument of Surrender link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Instrument_of_Surrender)

I think that's how you win a war. But maybe you just want to suspend hostilities on the battlefield.

[Dogman]

You have not a clue of the hate, we had for them at the time, one of my older friends fought them. He hated them to the day he died at 80.

If you had slant eyes, he went crazy!

Did not matter of what country, they were gooks, he was very vocal!



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum Runner

[Glass]

You have not a clue of the hate, we had for them at the time, one of my older friends fought them. He hated them to the day he died at 80.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum Runner

you're talking the japanese right? but seriously I get it. Human nature needs to hate something before it can destroy it. My grandfather wanted to fight them. Joined the airforce but they didn't deploy him over seas. Skilled tradesman. Somehow left the AF and joined the army and was shipped to New Guinnea where he saw out the war as an engineer..... building airstrips for the air force ironically enough. He never spoke of the war. I think his outfit saw a couple of attacks. That's all I know about it.

[Dogman]

you're talking the japanese right? but seriously I get it. Human nature needs to hate something before it can destroy it. My grandfather wanted to fight them. Joined the airforce but they didn't deploy him over seas. Skilled tradesman. Somehow left the AF and joined the army and was shipped to New Guinnea where he saw out the war as an engineer..... building airstrips for the air force ironically enough. He never spoke of the war. I think his outfit saw a couple of attacks. That's all I know about it.

Yes

Japs

Most old vets will not speak of it, they do not want to remember the pain/hell times.

Glass, his skills probably saved him from the front lines!

My friend was a navy radial engine mechanic on the carriers, not a ground pounder.

I have never seen the hate he had towards them before or since!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum Runner

[7th trump]

Unrebutted.

You act like you are correct........but you're not.
After capturing over 7000 british troops the crown was no longer willing to fight. Their spirit was broken.
Cromwell didn't have to relinquish his sword....the king sign a treaty in that-


Acknowledging the United States (viz. the Colonies) to be free, sovereign and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;

Cromwell took his orders from the king to return home.

Only a retard would think an ememy didn't get its ass kicked (as if capturing 7000 enemy troops isn't an ass kicking) just because its general didn't relinquish his sword when the king trump that tradition with signing a treaty.
Those 7000 could have been executed...if that's your idea of an ass kicking?
Either way 7000 troops captured or killed back then is a huge defeat.
You lose again palani!.....just keep believing in those conspiracy theories...its fun proving you wrong time and time again.

[palani]

You act like you are correct........but you're not.
After capturing over 7000 british troops the crown was no longer willing to fight. Their spirit was broken.
Cromwell didn't have to relinquish his sword....the king sign a treaty in that-



Cromwell took his orders from the king to return home.

Only a retard would think an ememy didn't get its ass kicked (as if capturing 7000 enemy troops isn't an ass kicking) just because its general didn't relinquish his sword when the king trump that tradition with signing a treaty.
Those 7000 could have been executed...if that's your idea of an ass kicking?
Either way 7000 troops captured or killed back then is a huge defeat.
I see a slot of rhetoric here but nothing substantial.



You lose again
While you keep proclaiming this you have nothing other than your proclamation. What have I lost? What have you won? What is your goal? Or do you even have a goal?

[7th trump]

I see a slot of rhetoric here but nothing substantial.



While you keep proclaiming this you have nothing other than your proclamation. What have I lost? What have you won? What is your goal? Or do you even have a goal?

So you think the king signing the treaty of Paris thus ending the Revolutionary war is rhetoric over cronwell relinquishing his sword in defeat?
Hahahahahaha........!
I suppose using your mentality your one of those guys that believes if your dirty underwear doesn't make in the dirty clothes they still must be clean....because that's exactly what your saying with this relinquishing the sword "tradition"...you absolutely don't have any common sense what so ever.

What you lose every time with this these retarded semantic games of yours is your credibility.

[palani]

So you think the king signing the treaty of Paris thus ending the Revolutionary war is rhetoric over cronwell relinquishing his sword in defeat?

Would you provide your evidence that King George III ever signed this peace treaty?

[7th trump]

Would you provide your evidence that King George III ever signed this peace treaty?

Nice try at convoluting. King George didnt sign it....his two deligates he sent to sign it did.
Just keep playing the games palani.....it always fun and a pleasure at exposing you for the childish fool that you are.

Lost again...even at your own game!

[palani]

Nice try at convoluting. King George didnt sign it.

But you stated that King George did sign this treaty.

Now you are stating he didn't.

Which one of us is a liar?

[7th trump]

But you stated that King George did sign this treaty.

Now you are stating he didn't.

Which one of us is a liar?
You're just trying to save your ass now palani. Stop playing these childish games and you wont need to dig yourself out of the holes you keep digging yourself.
The king signed it through his delegates.
Just what do you think "delegate" means palani?


Delegate 
1. a person designated to act for or represent another or others; deputy; representative, as in a political convention.


You're not wise enough to pull this bullshit off!
Just be honest from the begining palani...and your problems will cease.

[palani]

You're just trying to save your ass

You made a statement that was false. If you cannot admit this and apologize then you have lost all credibility.

[7th trump]

You made a statement that was false. If you cannot admit this and apologize then you have lost all credibility.

What statement was that palani?

And do you think its wise for a king to personally go to France and sign the treaty himself or use a delegate in his place?

Either way the british were handed their ass and the king signed a treaty through his delegate officially ending the revolutionary war........the relinquishing of a sword is just what YOU said it was...... a "tradition".....its not official.
And "traditions" dont measure up to treaty's.
Only fools beleive relinquishing a sword is final say over a king signing a peace treaty.

Its all about damage control for you isnt it palani.
Cant win an arguement that you instigate...so you revert to damage control....a political move most sorry ass lawyers employ.

[palani]

What statement was that?

And now you decide that you cannot read? The record is here in this thread.

[7th trump]

And now you decide that you cannot read? The record is here in this thread.
Another game employed by palani.......hey imagine that!
You made a statement and now you want me to prove it huh?
I Dont think so!
Either prove I said it........or for the record your lack of proof says I didnt say it.
Follow through palani or just shut up!

[palani]

Another game

Prove your statement that King George actually SIGNED the peace treaty or abandon the field as a liar. You choice.

[equineluvr]

.
Legal Theory of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm)


Copyright © 1994 Constitution Society. Permission is granted to copy with attribution for noncommercial purposes.


There is considerable confusion about the legal theory underlying the "right to keep and bear arms". This is a brief outline for a clarification of the discussion of this issue.

(1) The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution establish any "natural" rights. They recognize such rights, but the repeal of such provisions would not end such rights. Such rights were considered by many of the Framers as obvious or "self-evident", but they were immersed in the prevailing republican thought of the day, as expressed in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and others, which discussed "natural rights" in some detail. Others argued that at least some of the rights needed to be made explicit in the Bill of Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding of republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. That has turned out to have been a good idea.

(2) The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of individuals under the theory of democratic government. This was clearly the understanding and intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and was a long-established principle of English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, which is considered to be a part of constitutional law for purposes of interpreting the written Constitution.

(3) What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia". While not well defined in modern terms, it is somewhat broader than just able-"bodied": implicit is also "able-minded" and "virtuous". In other words, persons might be excluded who were physically able to bear arms but who were mentally or morally defective. Defense of the "state" includes self-defense and defense of one's family and friends who are, after all, part of the state, but by establishing the defense of the state as primary a basis is laid for requiring a citizen to risk or sacrifice his life in defense of the state and is thus a qualification on the implicit right of self-defense, which is considered to prevail in situations in which self-sacrifice is not called for.

(4) The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

<snipped>




It appears to me that you are making two different points here.

In the OP, you declared that "arms" in the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with
any type of weapon and everything to do with heraldry and its associated regalia.
(That looks like quite the interesting book; thank you!)

Now you are stating that it IS about guns.

So, which is it?

BTW, for the record I am 100% pro 2nd-Amendment.

[palani]

It appears to me that you are making two different points here.

In the OP, you declared that "arms" in the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with
any type of weapon and everything to do with heraldry and its associated regalia.
(That looks like quite the interesting book; thank you!)

In this thread the 2nd amendment is about heraldry.

You might have me confused with Carl ... [REVOLTING IDEA]

[7th trump]

In this thread the 2nd amendment is about heraldry.

You might have me confused with Carl ... [REVOLTING IDEA]

To which palani cannot procure one shred of evidence the second amendment is about what he claims it is.

[palani]

To which palani cannot procure one shred of evidence the second amendment is about what he claims it is.

A book written about ARMS is not sufficient? I need provide no evidence at all to members who make deliberately false statements.

[7th trump]

A book written about ARMS is not sufficient? I need provide no evidence at all to members who make deliberately false statements.

That's just a cop out, because like I said in my previous post, you haven't any evidence otherwise you'd come forth with the evidence.


Haha....what does a book about arms have to do with a constitutional right?
Why are you using a book describing arms to define the 2nd amendment in the first place?
Logic says find a book about the amendment itself?

The equivalent of what you are doing is attempting to describe what an apple looks like by describing its flavor.
Doesn't make a damn bit of sense!!

You play the devil quite well!

[palani]

Haha....what does a book about arms have to do with a constitutional right?

How do you explain a rainbow to a blind person?

[7th trump]

How do you explain a rainbow to a blind person?

So why do you?

[palani]

So why do you?

I don't.

[7th trump]

I don't.

Don't lie palani.....!
Why then are you using a book describing arms and not describing the amendment itself?
Why do you continue describing what an apple looks like by describing its taste....its an impossibility!

[palani]

Why then are you using a book describing arms and not describing the amendment itself?
Go back and read the 2nd amendment again while keeping the material in the book in mind. Until you can define words and phrases using all the information available you are just a puppet. But then we all already knew that didn't we?

[7th trump]

Go back and read the 2nd amendment again while keeping the material in the book in mind. Until you can define words and phrases using all the information available you are just a puppet. But then we all already knew that didn't we?

Again...why do you persist in what an apple looks like by describing its taste?
Doesn't make any logical sense....but we all know this about you from past illogical threads.

[palani]

we all know this

If you are blind why not just admit it? Or are you planning on being a liar the rest of your life?

[7th trump]

If you are blind why not just admit it? Or are you planning on being a liar the rest of your life?

Why do you attack the 2nd amendment?

[palani]

Why do you attack the 2nd amendment?
In interpretation is an attack? Why do you believe the 2nd amendment is about firearms? Do you believe the constitution is your source of a natural right to defend yourself? Do you believe you have no right to breath the air despite the fact that this right is not expressed?

I am free to interpret any word or phrase as I like.

You seem to be less free.

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Rabbit-Eating-Lettuce.gif

[7th trump]

In interpretation is an attack? Why do you believe the 2nd amendment is about firearms? Do you believe the constitution is your source of a natural right to defend yourself? Do you believe you have no right to breath the air despite the fact that this right is not expressed?

I am free to interpret any word or phrase as I like.

You seem to be less free.

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Rabbit-Eating-Lettuce.gif

Sure you have the right to interpret any word or phrase you like....but remember your interpretation, how ever goofy and outlandish it is, is just hear-say in the legal field.
Has no legal merit and is deemed frivolous.
This is why the courts, have and will not, allow any hear-say in the legal plane.

I would love to sit in a court room and watch you try your bullshit on a judge......fucking hilarious!

[palani]

Sure you have the right to interpret any word or phrase you like....but remember your interpretation, how ever goofy and outlandish it is, is just hear-say in the legal field.

FRCP: Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.


Besides ... the Law of THIS thread is that the 2nd amendment is about heraldry and heraldry ONLY.

[7th trump]

FRCP: Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.


Besides ... the Law of THIS thread is that the 2nd amendment is about heraldry and heraldry ONLY.

Blacks Law dictionary....!
Read and weep palani!!
Pay particularly close to what is bolded and underlined!

http://thelawdictionary.org/arms/

What is ARMS?


Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another. Co. Litt. 1616, 162a; State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18. This term, as it Is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siegegun, and mortar, with side arms. The term, in this connection, cannot be made to cover such weapons as dirks, daggers, slung-shots, sword- canes, brass knuckles, and bowieknives. These are not military arms. English v. State, 35 Tex. 476, 14 Am. Rep. 374; Hill v. State, 53 Ga. 472; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am. Rep. 556; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 170, 8 Am. Rep. 8; Aymette v. State, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 154. Arms, or coat of arms, signifies insignia, i. e., ensigns of honor, such as were formerly assumed by soldiers of fortune, and painted on their shields to distinguish them; or nearly the same as armorial bearings, (q. v.)

Law Dictionary: What is ARMS? definition of ARMS (Black's Law Dictionary)

YOU LOSE AGAIN PALANI!!!!!

[palani]

Blacks Law dictionary....!
Read and weep
Black's law dictionary has no jurisdiction in this thread.
Sorry, loser!!!!!

[7th trump]

Black's law dictionary has no jurisdiction in this thread.
Sorry, loser!!!!!

Like your theory has any standing or merit in legal land.
Try your crap theories in court and watch yourself get laughed out the door after being sanctioned...if they even find any merit to listen to your dementia.

[palani]

Like your theory has any standing or merit in legal land.

Legal land? You mean the land of fruits and nuts? Do you ask the inmates for permission on how to run the asylum?