I did not ask for demonstration of how easily Words and Law are construed to disparage liberty. There is no free right to harm or defraud or unduly threaten others; at least not within my own dominion.
liberty is innocent until proven guilty Words might also intend to mean governance through well-regulated pursuit of peace.
Please prove beyond a reasonable doubt that well-regulated pursuit of peace is not a self-retained right.
ItS
peace
rwjefferson
**
my native language is heartland american
my native tongue is in the spirit
can you decipher gibberish
**
Seriously, rw, you’re putting words together but the lines aren’t making any sense.
“Liberty is innocent until proven guilty”
“My native language is heartland american my native tongue is in the spirit”
“The spirit of liberty and justice and equality for all does not change because Word and Law are construed to deny or disparage or infringe the inalienable and self retained right of well regulated peaceful pursuits.”
“Does government have the right to construe law to deny or disparage or infringe the inalienable and self-retained right of liberty?”
“Everything is a question of tyranny vs well regulated right”
I have no idea what you’re talking about when you write things like this.
We’ve refuted this several times before, and yet it keeps getting reasserted by those who want to dismiss any notion that the Second Amendment refers to a personal right to keep firearms. National Guard != militia. And post #15 contains a glaring error: National Guard members don’t have any right to personally own their weapons: their service arms are issued to them while on active duty and returned to the armory when they’re done. So either you have to toss out the Second Amendment altogether as referring to an institution that became extinct in 1903, or you have to concede that it refers to an individual right.
Please feel free to respond in a way intended to enlighten reasoned discussion and debate. Please feel free to cite the first word or phrase that departs simple understanding. Please feel free to offer best guess of what my cryptic words might intend to mean.
well-reasoned responses are always greatly appreciated
Further objections are duly noted. I hold DoI precedent over whatever after might be constituted as better-regulated governance. I stand and hold even for the following. Liberty is on trial with each and every defendant; liberty fulfills her only call and duty with the simple plea innocent. Obligation now turns to prosecution to expeditiously state and prove their case.
Prove government holds the right to deny or disparage the self-retained right of well-regulated peaceful pursuit.
Prove just government is not instituted to secure this inalienable right of liberty equal for all.
ItS
rw~
** the spirit of liberty cannot be bound by Word or Law **
I’m guessing from the context that what you’re saying is that you think Chicago’s gun control laws are an unconstitutional restriction on fire-arm ownership.
I have no idea what this means.
You keep issuing these challenges. Explain why any of us are obligated to prove anything to you. This is a discussion; you’re not the judge. You are as obligated to defend your views as everyone else is.
What is the spirit of liberty? What is Word of Law? How does one bind the other? What are you talking about?
