I'd like to hear some opinions on how this works (actually doesn't work).
Let's use Rowe vs. Wade for an example. That's a Supreme Court ruling that allows every woman in the US to murder her unborn human baby,with impunity (exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action). This is the "law of the land", am I correct?
Doesn't every human that lives in AmeriKa, including cops and goverment, have to uphold and obey ALL these "laws of the land?. Does not this Federal Law trump all local/city, county, and state laws?
Because this is (supposedly) a woman's right, therefore, no woman would need a license (because it's her right and not a privilege) to do the deed and she'll never get into any trouble with "the law" for doing this. Am I correct here? I believe I am.
Now onto the next example. In AmeriKa, there is what is know as The Bill of Rights. These rights are what all human beings supposedly have, that can never be taken away, as they are rights and not privileges granted by The State.
The 2nd item in this Bill of Rights says that all human beings have the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right shall not be infringed.
Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary defines "infringe" as
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]
Notice in the first example,
A prince (or goverment in our case) infringes an agreement by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
Now back to the "Law of the Land" and "Rule of Law". Since the US Gov says that Supreme Court rulings are "the Law of the Land" and must be strictly adhered to, Supreme Court ruling
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense ...................
The Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT to possess a firearm for self defense. That becomes "Law of the Land", just as Rowe vs. Wade is, right ? Can ya only defend the life of yourself and your family (and your property), inside your home? WRONG.
The 2nd Amendment does not specify how you can bear this arm (concealed or openly), therefore, both are acceptable
A human being has a right to life, liberty and property (5th Amendment) not in his home only, but every single place he travels.
Now look at the next Supreme Court ruling, which is the Law of the Land
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
“If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”
So, going by the United States of AmeriKa, Inc. own laws, someone tell me, without contradicting yourself or contradicting the laws of the US, why I need to get a "license" to bear arms for self defense? Remember, 2nd Amendment gives me that RIGHT, UNINFRINGED; Shuttlesworth vs, Birmingham guarentes it as being a never overturned "Law of the Land". Forcing one to PAY to exercise their rights are an infridgement to their rights and 2nd Amendment says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Comments please..............................................................................
Let's use Rowe vs. Wade for an example. That's a Supreme Court ruling that allows every woman in the US to murder her unborn human baby,with impunity (exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action). This is the "law of the land", am I correct?
Doesn't every human that lives in AmeriKa, including cops and goverment, have to uphold and obey ALL these "laws of the land?. Does not this Federal Law trump all local/city, county, and state laws?
Because this is (supposedly) a woman's right, therefore, no woman would need a license (because it's her right and not a privilege) to do the deed and she'll never get into any trouble with "the law" for doing this. Am I correct here? I believe I am.
Now onto the next example. In AmeriKa, there is what is know as The Bill of Rights. These rights are what all human beings supposedly have, that can never be taken away, as they are rights and not privileges granted by The State.
The 2nd item in this Bill of Rights says that all human beings have the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right shall not be infringed.
Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary defines "infringe" as
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]
Notice in the first example,
A prince (or goverment in our case) infringes an agreement by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
Now back to the "Law of the Land" and "Rule of Law". Since the US Gov says that Supreme Court rulings are "the Law of the Land" and must be strictly adhered to, Supreme Court ruling
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense ...................
The Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT to possess a firearm for self defense. That becomes "Law of the Land", just as Rowe vs. Wade is, right ? Can ya only defend the life of yourself and your family (and your property), inside your home? WRONG.
The 2nd Amendment does not specify how you can bear this arm (concealed or openly), therefore, both are acceptable
A human being has a right to life, liberty and property (5th Amendment) not in his home only, but every single place he travels.
Now look at the next Supreme Court ruling, which is the Law of the Land
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
“If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”
So, going by the United States of AmeriKa, Inc. own laws, someone tell me, without contradicting yourself or contradicting the laws of the US, why I need to get a "license" to bear arms for self defense? Remember, 2nd Amendment gives me that RIGHT, UNINFRINGED; Shuttlesworth vs, Birmingham guarentes it as being a never overturned "Law of the Land". Forcing one to PAY to exercise their rights are an infridgement to their rights and 2nd Amendment says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Comments please..............................................................................