• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

No Carry Permit

I believe the 9th amendment covers that.
The 9th amendment is different from the 2nd, in that the 2nd specifically list arms meaning firearms and States shall not be infringed. The 9th does not specify that your right to own a automobile could not be infringed
 
The 9th amendment is different from the 2nd, in that the 2nd specifically list arms meaning firearms and States shall not be infringed. The 9th does not specify that your right to own a automobile could not be infringed
Pointless argument. You said there was no right to drive. I said I believe the 9th covers it.

Now you appear to agree but that it can be infringed? Are you trying to argue just for the sake of it?
 
Pointless argument. You said there was no right to drive. I said I believe the 9th covers it


Now you appear to agree but that it can be infringed? Are you trying to argue just for the sake of it?

I agree in point about the 9th, but I am saying your right to own a firearm is greater than your right to drive. In every state you have to get permission in the form a drivers license to drive(it is not a right if you have to get petmission). You have to also pass a written test as well as a drive test. Most state don't require a license to own a firearm. Or a performance test. Pretty much you have a right to do anything that isn't forbid by law. That is not that same as a right spelled out specifically.
 
I agree in point about the 9th, but I am saying your right to own a firearm is greater than your right to drive. In every state you have to get permission in the form a drivers license to drive(it is not a right if you have to get petmission). You have to also pass a written test as well as a drive test. Most state don't require a license to own a firearm. Or a performance test. Pretty much you have a right to do anything that isn't forbid by law. That is not that same as a right spelled out specifically.

Liberty is an unalienable Right. Again, according to the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

The Bill of Rights is the codification of those unalienable Rights found in the Declaration of Independence.

Liberty, an unalienable Right is defined as follows:

LIBERTY. 1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral treedoni, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint. coercion, or control from other persons. See Booth v. Illinois, 134 U. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425. 46 L. Ed. 623; Munn v. Illinois. 94 U. S. 142, 24 L Ed. 77; People v. W;iiilen of City Prison, 157 N. Y. 110. 51 N. E. 1006, 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. ' Bcssette v. People. 193 I11. 334, 62 N.

iii‘ , E. 215. 56 L. R. A. 558; State v. Continental Tobacco Co., 177 Mo. 1, 75 S. W. 737; Kuhn 1.‘. Detroit City Council. 70 Mich. 531. 38 N. W. 470; People v. Judson, 11 Daily (N. Y.) 1.

"Liberty," as used in the proiision of the fouitcentli amendment to the federal constitution, forbidding the states to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, includes, it seems. not mcrely the right of a person to be free from physical restraint, but to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties in all lawful wa_ to liie and work where he vii ; to earn his litelihood by any lawful calling to pursue -iny livelihood or avocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper. necessary, ond essential to currving out the urposes above mentioned. Allgcycr v. State o Loiiisi- ana, 17 Sup. Ct. 427, 165 U. S. 578. 41 L Ed, 832.

2. The word also means a franchise or personal privilege, being some part of the sovereign power, vested in an individual. either by grant or prescription.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Black's_Law_Dictionary_(Second_Edition).djvu/730

Okay, I know, it's a lot to read, but it's worth it. If you accept the second definition, it means that your Rights are subject to a sovereign power. In this instance, that power would be that entity called government. Government grants you a personal privilege. Therefore, if the government grants you Liberty, then you are saying your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) had no hand in granting you your Liberty as per the Declaration of Independence. No man can serve two masters. If the government grants us our Rights, then the government can take them away. If those Rights are God given, inherent, natural, unalienable, absolute, irrevocable and above the power of government, then they must apply across the board equally. Where do YOUR Rights come from?
 
We the people have by consent given Government authority, i.e partial sovereignty ,our sovereignty that we may be judged by the Law. This is very much like the original Covenant of the Hebrews and Levitical Law.
Just as they learned long ago, the letter of the Law kills, the Spirit gives life. They cried out give us a King.
 
We the people have by consent given Government authority, i.e partial sovereignty ,our sovereignty that we may be judged by the Law. This is very much like the original Covenant of the Hebrews and Levitical Law.
Just as they learned long ago, the letter of the Law kills, the Spirit gives life. They cried out give us a King.

The only consent that the citizenry gave the government to violate their unalienable Rights is via the Socialist Surveillance Number aka a Social Security Number. That now serves as de facto proof that the holder of the SSN is a subject of the illegal / de facto government that requires you to obtain permission to do that which you already had a Right to do.
 
The only consent that the citizenry gave the government to violate their unalienable Rights is via the Socialist Surveillance Number aka a Social Security Number. That now serves as de facto proof that the holder of the SSN is a subject of the illegal / de facto government that requires you to obtain permission to do that which you already had a Right to do.
Unalienable right means just that. You cannot give it away, it belongs to you by right, your very existence is evidence of it. I know some will argue that we have signed away that right by contract. I know every argument regarding the God given rights of men, and women and how we/they have given away those rights. I have always found it interesting the people who believe those rights apply only to people born in a specific geographical location.
We choose to obey because the alternative is often too painful or difficult. Many wait for others to stand on their right to do one thing or another (misery loves company or strength in numbers) I for one have fallen on my sword for principle once, painful lesson. Pick your battles, some are more important than others. Social security is Voluntary and a minor child cannot enter into a contract even if the parents wish it to be so. You have until the age of majority (18) to rescind said contract, after that it is assumed valid by your silence/acceptance.
 
You always have a choice. Comply or not. Live or die. Slaves had a choice, unpopular view but true just the same. It does not make the choice of living vs dying the wrong choice, that is in the eyes of the beholder or the one making the choice. We can hate the facts but it does not change them.
There is an old saying. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees. Samuel Adams said it better, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams
Those chains weigh heavy indeed, yet here we are afraid to stand for what we know is right and good, content with the distractions we call life and freedom. Sad yet true.
 
Back
Top Bottom