# Infringement



## EvMetro

Which gun control laws do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?


----------



## Gdjjr

None.


----------



## Coyote

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.


----------



## EvMetro

This thread would be a great place for lefties to justify their anti constitutional stance.  C'mon lefties, start listing all the laws that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Coyote

EvMetro said:


> This thread would be a great place for lefties to justify their anti constitutional stance.  C'mon lefties, start listing all the laws that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.



Please explain which rights are unlimited.  I believe all have restrictions.

Why is the 2nd a special case?


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.


Are you saying that there are no laws that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?  You seem kinda slippery about giving a straight answer to the opening post.


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> Please explain which rights are unlimited.  I believe all have restrictions.
> 
> Why is the 2nd a special case?


This thread is not about which rights are unlimited, it simply asks which gun control laws do not limit the right to keep and bear arms.  Can you list some of them?


----------



## Coyote

EvMetro said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread would be a great place for lefties to justify their anti constitutional stance.  C'mon lefties, start listing all the laws that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain which rights are unlimited.  I believe all have restrictions.
> 
> Why is the 2nd a special case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread is not about which rights are unlimited, it simply asks which gun control laws do not limit the right to keep and bear arms.  Candle you list some of them?
Click to expand...


Can't "candle" anything at the moment.

However, you can't examine rights in a vacuum much as you would like to.  No rights are unlimited.  You aren't allowed to own a nuke.  You can't use your right to free speech to provoke a riot or slander or libel.  Your right of assembly doesn't allow you to assemble a riot or take down the government.  Your religious freedom does not allow you to keep slaves or conduct human sacrifices.


----------



## Coyote

EvMetro said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that there are no laws that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?  You seem kinda slippery about giving a straight answer to the opening post.
Click to expand...


Opening post is pure bait.

Should a right have limitations?


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread would be a great place for lefties to justify their anti constitutional stance.  C'mon lefties, start listing all the laws that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain which rights are unlimited.  I believe all have restrictions.
> 
> Why is the 2nd a special case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread is not about which rights are unlimited, it simply asks which gun control laws do not limit the right to keep and bear arms.  Candle you list some of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't "candle" anything at the moment.
> 
> However, you can't examine rights in a vacuum much as you would like to.  No rights are unlimited.  You aren't allowed to own a nuke.  You can't use your right to free speech to provoke a riot or slander or libel.  Your right of assembly doesn't allow you to assemble a riot or take down the government.  Your religious freedom does not allow you to keep slaves or conduct human sacrifices.
Click to expand...

You should start a thread about how no rights are unlimited, if that is what you want to talk about.  This thread is meant for discussing all the gun control laws that don't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.  Can you even name a single one?


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> Opening post is pure bait.



Sounds like you are considering using administrative action to silence this discussion and force a lefty win.  If this is the case, just delete the thread.  I already have it saved elsewhere.


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> Should a right have limitations?



Why don't you start a thread about this?  In the meantime, you are evading the opening post like a cat evades being shoved into a toilet.  You can't name a single law that does not infringe, and you can't admit that you cant.


----------



## Coyote

EvMetro said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should a right have limitations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you start a thread about this?  In the meantime, you are evading the opening post like a cat evades being shoved into a toilet.  You can't name a single law that does not infringe, and you can't admit that you cant.
Click to expand...


So, do you think a right is unlimited?

Clearly, the law preventing you from having nukes infringes on your "right" to "keep and bear arms".  Happy now?

Good.

Glad that right is infringed on.


----------



## Coyote

EvMetro said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opening post is pure bait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are considering using administrative action to silence this discussion and force a lefty win.  If this is the case, just delete the thread.  I already have it saved elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Not at all.  I'm just giving my opinion - troll bait.


----------



## sparky

Coyote said:


> Should a right have limitations?



Do fat babies fart?.....~S~


----------



## pismoe

second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS  carried by individual  soldiers [combat soldiers]  for military and other legal and lawful purposes .   Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .


----------



## sparky

pismoe said:


> second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS carried by individual soldiers [combat soldiers] for military and other legal and lawful purposes



and how is that _not _redefining the 2nd?



pismoe said:


> Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .



ok, i'll play

here's a start for you>>

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia

~S~


----------



## EvMetro

pismoe said:


> second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS  carried by individual  soldiers [combat soldiers]  for military and other legal and lawful purposes .   Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .


Part of what makes lefties what they are is the ability to evade.  If you look at any lefty post that is a response to a a righty, you will see that it is one of the standard evasion techniques from my list:  Dodge, deflect, divert, invert, convert, ignore, redefine, or otherwise evade.  Coyote's evasion of the opening post reminds me of what a cat does when it is being shoved into a toilet.  I saw a big kid do that to a poor cat when I was in elementary school, and it is quite a fight.


----------



## progressive hunter

Coyote said:


> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.


prove it,,,


----------



## sparky

EvMetro said:


> Dodge, deflect, divert, invert, convert, ignore, redefine, or otherwise evade.



the only one doing that is you refusing  to accept straight answers

~S~


----------



## progressive hunter

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread would be a great place for lefties to justify their anti constitutional stance.  C'mon lefties, start listing all the laws that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain which rights are unlimited.  I believe all have restrictions.
> 
> Why is the 2nd a special case?
Click to expand...



because it says so right in the text of it,,,


----------



## sparky

progressive hunter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> prove it,,,
Click to expand...



the Patriot Act

~S~


----------



## pismoe

sparky said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS carried by individual soldiers [combat soldiers] for military and other legal and lawful purposes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and how is that _not _redefining the 2nd?
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok, i'll play
> 
> here's a start for you>>
> 
> National Firearms Act - Wikipedia
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

--------------------------------------------   main thing is that NUKES are unaffordable Sparky .


----------



## progressive hunter

sparky said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> prove it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the Patriot Act
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

doesnt mean its legal,,,and repubes have been pissing on the constitution almost as long as the dems have,,,


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> So, do you think a right is unlimited?
> 
> Clearly, the law preventing you from having nukes infringes on your "right" to "keep and bear arms".  Happy now?
> 
> Good.
> 
> Glad that right is infringed on.



You continue to evade answering the opening post by listing laws that do infringe.  The opening post requests gun control laws that do not.


----------



## EvMetro

sparky said:


> the only one doing that is you refusing  to accept straight answers
> 
> ~S~



Please quote an example of a straight answer that I refused to accept.  This should be an example of a gun control law that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Coyote said:


> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.



Government is strictly limited. That's what the constitution does. It limits government. Strictly. Limited for liberty!

Unfortunately, they function outside its restrictions. This is a consequence of a derelict congress and a complicit electorate.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

EvMetro said:


> Which gun control laws do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?


Any of them that don't completely eliminate the right for anyone, anywhere to own a gun.


----------



## sparky

Natural Citizen said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is strictly limited. That's what the constitution does. It limits government. Strictly. Limited for liberty!
> 
> Unfortunately, they function outside its restrictions. This is a consequence of a derelict congress and a complicit electorate.
Click to expand...



Thank you for_ eloquently_ making my point NC
~S~


----------



## sparky

EvMetro said:


> Which gun control laws* do not infringe* on the right to keep and bear arms?



They all '_infringe_'  , and have done so for almost a century

Firearm case law in the United States
Gun law in the United States
Gun politics in the United States
Uniform Firearms Act
~S~


----------



## EvMetro

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which gun control laws do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> 
> 
> Any of them that don't completely eliminate the right for anyone, anywhere to own a gun.
Click to expand...

Name one gun control law that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Infringe:  To act so as to limit or undermine


----------



## EvMetro

sparky said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> prove it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the Patriot Act
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Lol, the patriot act is an amazing violation of constitutional rights, especially in the hands of lefties.


----------



## sparky

pismoe said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS carried by individual soldiers [combat soldiers] for military and other legal and lawful purposes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and how is that _not _redefining the 2nd?
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok, i'll play
> 
> here's a start for you>>
> 
> National Firearms Act - Wikipedia
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------------------------   main thing is that NUKES are unaffordable Sparky .
Click to expand...


Yes . but it's the _concept _that is relevant

True story , wife (somewhat beaten at that) calls 911, husband making 'bomb's in the house' 

So the PD pulls out all the stops , we've local, sheriffs ,staties, along w/ NG activation  all descending on some inebriated redneck playing with substances he shouldn't _lawfully_ have had

Who all _knew_ that they could elevate it to domestic terrorism

All i could think of standing by in the meatwagon was i was somehow in some '_Barney Fife's gone wild_' action flick

Turns out the dude wasn't out to blow anyone up, just _felt_ like making a few bombs

I have no idea what his _political_ ideology is/was, but i am sure the official response could care less

Objectively , the 2nd (as well as 4th) were thrown under the bus that day, and i learned that i was, (_along with the attending pack_) no more than a *tool* for those in power who would interpret constitutional law _any way they desired, no matter how wrong it may appear
_
This would not have happened at all pre-PA





~S~


----------



## sparky

EvMetro said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> prove it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the Patriot Act
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, the patriot act is an amazing violation of constitutional rights, especially in the hands of lefties.
Click to expand...



Yet it was the left who _howled blue bloody murder _at its debut 

~S~


----------



## Coyote

pismoe said:


> second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS  carried by individual  soldiers [combat soldiers]  for military and other legal and lawful purposes .   Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .



Where in the Constitution does it say that?   The Constitution is very vague on the 2nd, and the idea that it means what we think it does today is a relatively modern interpretation.  

Politics Changed the Reading of the Second Amendment—and Can Change It Again
_For about two hundred years, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear and mostly undisputed, despite the gnarled syntax of the text itself: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Generations of Supreme Court and academic opinion held that the amendment did not confer on individuals a right “to keep and bear Arms” but, rather, referred only to the privileges belonging to state militias. This was not a controversial view._​
Frankly, not being allowed to have a nuke is a clear infringement and I think we ought to do something about it.  I demand my right to have a suitcase nuke for self defense.


----------



## Coyote

progressive hunter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> prove it,,,
Click to expand...


Already did.

There are laws on slander and libel.

There are laws on instigating riots.

You can't own a nuke.

You can't sacrifice virgins.


----------



## Natural Citizen

sparky said:


> Thank you for_ eloquently_ making my point NC
> ~S~



Sadly, I think it's a waste of time, sparky. The best days of what was once a great nation are in the rear view now. And it's only going to get worse. The congress is not only derelict of its responsibility, those who occupy it are clueless of what the oath they took actually means. They do not understand the constitution. The office of the President has basically become a throne for a king. And the electorate, for the most part, is an intellectual embarassment and not fit to be involved in the process, assuming the process was actually functioning correctly.

Both parties are big government, big spending, anti-constitution, thugs.

My only satisfaction in all of it is that I know how it will end. They'll get precisely what it is that they want. I just hope they get it nice and good.


----------



## Coyote

Natural Citizen said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is strictly limited. That's what the constitution does. It limits government. Strictly. Limited for liberty!
> 
> Unfortunately, they function outside its restrictions. This is a consequence of a derelict congress and a complicit electorate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for_ eloquently_ making my point NC
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, I think it's a waste of time, sparky. The best days of what was once a great country are in the rear view now. And it's only going to get worse. The congress is not only derelict of its responsibility, those who occupy it are clueless of the what the oath they took actually means. They do not understand the constitution. The office of the President has basically become a throne for a king. And the electorate, for the most part, is an embarassment and not fit to be involved in the process, assuming the process was actually functioning correctly.
> 
> Both parties are big government, big spending, anti-constitution, thugs.
> 
> My only satisfaction in all of it is that I know how it will end. They'll get precisely what it is that they want. I just hope they get it nice and good.
Click to expand...


Get big money out of politics.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Coyote said:


> Get big money out of politics.



It's too late to do anything, coyote.

Freedom in America is dead. Our system of checks and balances is dead. And few care.

The last straw for me was watching my so-called conservative peers literally worship a king who now has the power to wage war anywhere in the world he pleases for any arbitrary reason he wants without any constitutional congressional approval. Our derelict congress, btw, gave him that power.

Making America great again, they call it. But my democratic friends agree, after all they just funded it all. But their policies are no different.

Our king can also put the electorate in cages indefinitely without any charge or change of trial should he just feel like it. And they love him for it.

We're 24 trillion in debt. Our dollar is collapsing.

I could keep going all afternoon. But what's to be had?

The next nation to fall will be this one. And now I just don't care. There's too many other nice places in the world to live. I just hope that wall keeps the electorate in and contained. I've had enough of em already. But they have militarized police, facial recognition, and eventually rfid national identification database, so they likely won't be getting out without heavy scrutiny, I don't think.


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is strictly limited. That's what the constitution does. It limits government. Strictly. Limited for liberty!
> 
> Unfortunately, they function outside its restrictions. This is a consequence of a derelict congress and a complicit electorate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for_ eloquently_ making my point NC
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, I think it's a waste of time, sparky. The best days of what was once a great country are in the rear view now. And it's only going to get worse. The congress is not only derelict of its responsibility, those who occupy it are clueless of the what the oath they took actually means. They do not understand the constitution. The office of the President has basically become a throne for a king. And the electorate, for the most part, is an embarassment and not fit to be involved in the process, assuming the process was actually functioning correctly.
> 
> Both parties are big government, big spending, anti-constitution, thugs.
> 
> My only satisfaction in all of it is that I know how it will end. They'll get precisely what it is that they want. I just hope they get it nice and good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get big money out of politics.
Click to expand...

Can you list a single gun control law that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS  carried by individual  soldiers [combat soldiers]  for military and other legal and lawful purposes .   Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it say that?   The Constitution is very vague on the 2nd, and the idea that it means what we think it does today is a relatively modern interpretation.
> 
> Politics Changed the Reading of the Second Amendment—and Can Change It Again
> _For about two hundred years, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear and mostly undisputed, despite the gnarled syntax of the text itself: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Generations of Supreme Court and academic opinion held that the amendment did not confer on individuals a right “to keep and bear Arms” but, rather, referred only to the privileges belonging to state militias. This was not a controversial view._​
> Frankly, not being allowed to have a nuke is a clear infringement and I think we ought to do something about it.  I demand my right to have a suitcase nuke for self defense.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the second amendment is specifically about self defense?


----------



## progressive hunter

Coyote said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> prove it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already did.
> 
> There are laws on slander and libel.
> 
> There are laws on instigating riots.
> 
> You can't own a nuke.
> 
> You can't sacrifice virgins.
Click to expand...

correct me if I'm wrong but libel and slander are civil not criminal, and cant be adjudicated if no harm is done,,,and riots are actions not words,,,

and I have sacrificed many virgins

as for nukes,, I say the people that do have them shouldnt,,,


----------



## EvMetro

Natural Citizen said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get big money out of politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's late to do anything, coyote.
> 
> Freedom in America is dead. Our system of checks and balances is dead. And few care.
> 
> The last straw for me was watching my so-called conservative peers literally worship a king who now has the power to wage war anywhere in the world he pleases for any arbitrary reason he wants without any constitutional congressional approval. Our derelict congress, btw, gave him that power.
> 
> Making America great again, they call it. But my democratic friends agree, after all they just funded it all. But their policies are no different.
> 
> Our king can also put the electorate in cages indefinitely without any charge or change of trial should he just feel like it. And they love him for it.
> 
> We're 24 trillion in debt. Our dollar is collapsing.
> 
> I could keep going all afternoon. But what's to be had?
> 
> The next nation to fall will be this one. And now I just don't care. There's too many other nice places in the world to live.
Click to expand...

Conservative peers?  I sure hope you are not claiming to be a righty.  I can no longer believe people when they claim to be conservative or republican, since commies have been claiming these political identifiers.  Commies don't like being called commies, so they claim to be conservatives, repubs, dems, socialists, libertarians, righties, you name it.  Why not just admit to being a commie?


----------



## TNHarley

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread would be a great place for lefties to justify their anti constitutional stance.  C'mon lefties, start listing all the laws that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain which rights are unlimited.  I believe all have restrictions.
> 
> Why is the 2nd a special case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread is not about which rights are unlimited, it simply asks which gun control laws do not limit the right to keep and bear arms.  Candle you list some of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't "candle" anything at the moment.
> 
> However, you can't examine rights in a vacuum much as you would like to.  No rights are unlimited.  You aren't allowed to own a nuke.  You can't use your right to free speech to provoke a riot or slander or libel.  Your right of assembly doesn't allow you to assemble a riot or take down the government.  Your religious freedom does not allow you to keep slaves or conduct human sacrifices.
Click to expand...

You can own a nuke.
The second says shall not be infringed. What do you mean it can be limited?


----------



## Natural Citizen

EvMetro said:


> Sounds like you are considering using administrative action to silence this discussion and force a lefty win.  If this is the case, just delete the thread.  I already have it saved elsewhere.



I would have already deleted it if it were me. It's clutter. Your postings thus far demonstrate that 1 - you're not interested in discussion and 2 - that you are not capable of any kind of elevated discussion. Clearly.

You seem like just another one of those low IQ political football junkies to me who can't think beyond the letters D and R.

You certainly aren't qualified to lead discussion.


----------



## EvMetro

Natural Citizen said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are considering using administrative action to silence this discussion and force a lefty win.  If this is the case, just delete the thread.  I already have it saved elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have already deleted it if it were me. It's clutter. You're postings thus far demonstrate that 1 - you're not interested in discussion and 2 - that you are not capable of any kind of elevated discussion. Clearly.
> 
> You seem like just another one of those low IQ political football junkies to me who can't think beyond the letters D and R.
Click to expand...

Lefties like to delete and censor,  so it is natural that you would have done that.  At least you didn't deny being a commie.


----------



## Natural Citizen

EvMetro said:


> Lefties like to delete and censor



Your arbitrary victim status card means this much to me.


----------



## EvMetro

Natural Citizen said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties like to delete and censor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your arbitrary victim status card means this much to me.
Click to expand...

You hijacked the victim thing from real righties.  Typical commie behavior.


----------



## buttercup

EvMetro said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get big money out of politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's late to do anything, coyote.
> 
> Freedom in America is dead. Our system of checks and balances is dead. And few care.
> 
> The last straw for me was watching my so-called conservative peers literally worship a king who now has the power to wage war anywhere in the world he pleases for any arbitrary reason he wants without any constitutional congressional approval. Our derelict congress, btw, gave him that power.
> 
> Making America great again, they call it. But my democratic friends agree, after all they just funded it all. But their policies are no different.
> 
> Our king can also put the electorate in cages indefinitely without any charge or change of trial should he just feel like it. And they love him for it.
> 
> We're 24 trillion dollar in debt. Our dollar is collapsing.
> 
> I could keep going all afternoon. But what's to be had?
> 
> The next nation to fall will be this one. And now I just don't care. There's too many other nice places in the world to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservative peers?  I sure hope you are not claiming to be a righty.  I can no longer believe people when they claim to be conservative or republican, since commies have been claiming these political identifiers.  Commies don't like being called commies, so they claim to be conservatives, repubs, dems, socialists, libertarians, righties, you name it.  Why not just admit to being a commie?
Click to expand...


Pointing out the 24 trillion debt is "commie"?  Pointing out that both parties couldn't care less about the constitution is "commie"?    Pointing out that people only care about the letter by a president's name as opposed to things that actually matter is "commie"?

Please point out anything specific he said that is, in your mind, "commie."    This should be good for a laugh.


----------



## Natural Citizen

EvMetro said:


> You hijacked the victim thing from real righties.  Typical commie behavior.



Heh heh. You're so smart. Hey, say lefties, too. In the same sentence. Show us all how smart you really are.


----------



## Natural Citizen

buttercup said:


> Pointing out the 24 trillion debt is "commie"?  Pointing out that both parties couldn't care less about the constitution is "commie"?    Pointing out that people only care about the letter by a president's name as opposed to things that actually matter is "commie"?
> 
> Please point out anything specific he said that is, in your mind, "commie."    This should be good for a laugh.



I was just having fun with him. You know how I do. Heh.


----------



## EvMetro

buttercup said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get big money out of politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's late to do anything, coyote.
> 
> Freedom in America is dead. Our system of checks and balances is dead. And few care.
> 
> The last straw for me was watching my so-called conservative peers literally worship a king who now has the power to wage war anywhere in the world he pleases for any arbitrary reason he wants without any constitutional congressional approval. Our derelict congress, btw, gave him that power.
> 
> Making America great again, they call it. But my democratic friends agree, after all they just funded it all. But their policies are no different.
> 
> Our king can also put the electorate in cages indefinitely without any charge or change of trial should he just feel like it. And they love him for it.
> 
> We're 24 trillion dollar in debt. Our dollar is collapsing.
> 
> I could keep going all afternoon. But what's to be had?
> 
> The next nation to fall will be this one. And now I just don't care. There's too many other nice places in the world to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservative peers?  I sure hope you are not claiming to be a righty.  I can no longer believe people when they claim to be conservative or republican, since commies have been claiming these political identifiers.  Commies don't like being called commies, so they claim to be conservatives, repubs, dems, socialists, libertarians, righties, you name it.  Why not just admit to being a commie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointing out the 24 trillion debt is "commie"?  Pointing out that both parties couldn't care less about the constitution is "commie"?    Pointing out that people only care about the letter by a president's name as opposed to things that actually matter is "commie"?
> 
> Please point out anything specific he said that is, in your mind, "commie."    This should be good for a laugh.
Click to expand...

It's funny how commies can't see how easy they are to spot.


----------



## buttercup

EvMetro said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get big money out of politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's late to do anything, coyote.
> 
> Freedom in America is dead. Our system of checks and balances is dead. And few care.
> 
> The last straw for me was watching my so-called conservative peers literally worship a king who now has the power to wage war anywhere in the world he pleases for any arbitrary reason he wants without any constitutional congressional approval. Our derelict congress, btw, gave him that power.
> 
> Making America great again, they call it. But my democratic friends agree, after all they just funded it all. But their policies are no different.
> 
> Our king can also put the electorate in cages indefinitely without any charge or change of trial should he just feel like it. And they love him for it.
> 
> We're 24 trillion dollar in debt. Our dollar is collapsing.
> 
> I could keep going all afternoon. But what's to be had?
> 
> The next nation to fall will be this one. And now I just don't care. There's too many other nice places in the world to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservative peers?  I sure hope you are not claiming to be a righty.  I can no longer believe people when they claim to be conservative or republican, since commies have been claiming these political identifiers.  Commies don't like being called commies, so they claim to be conservatives, repubs, dems, socialists, libertarians, righties, you name it.  Why not just admit to being a commie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointing out the 24 trillion debt is "commie"?  Pointing out that both parties couldn't care less about the constitution is "commie"?    Pointing out that people only care about the letter by a president's name as opposed to things that actually matter is "commie"?
> 
> Please point out anything specific he said that is, in your mind, "commie."    This should be good for a laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's funny how commies can't see how easy they are to spot.
Click to expand...


Ok, then it should be easy for you. Point out anything he said that was commie. I'm waiting.


----------



## EvMetro

buttercup said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get big money out of politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's late to do anything, coyote.
> 
> Freedom in America is dead. Our system of checks and balances is dead. And few care.
> 
> The last straw for me was watching my so-called conservative peers literally worship a king who now has the power to wage war anywhere in the world he pleases for any arbitrary reason he wants without any constitutional congressional approval. Our derelict congress, btw, gave him that power.
> 
> Making America great again, they call it. But my democratic friends agree, after all they just funded it all. But their policies are no different.
> 
> Our king can also put the electorate in cages indefinitely without any charge or change of trial should he just feel like it. And they love him for it.
> 
> We're 24 trillion dollar in debt. Our dollar is collapsing.
> 
> I could keep going all afternoon. But what's to be had?
> 
> The next nation to fall will be this one. And now I just don't care. There's too many other nice places in the world to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservative peers?  I sure hope you are not claiming to be a righty.  I can no longer believe people when they claim to be conservative or republican, since commies have been claiming these political identifiers.  Commies don't like being called commies, so they claim to be conservatives, repubs, dems, socialists, libertarians, righties, you name it.  Why not just admit to being a commie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointing out the 24 trillion debt is "commie"?  Pointing out that both parties couldn't care less about the constitution is "commie"?    Pointing out that people only care about the letter by a president's name as opposed to things that actually matter is "commie"?
> 
> Please point out anything specific he said that is, in your mind, "commie."    This should be good for a laugh.
Click to expand...

The first clue is how many gun control laws he listed that don't infringe.  Evasion is classic commie behavior.


----------



## EvMetro

buttercup said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get big money out of politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's late to do anything, coyote.
> 
> Freedom in America is dead. Our system of checks and balances is dead. And few care.
> 
> The last straw for me was watching my so-called conservative peers literally worship a king who now has the power to wage war anywhere in the world he pleases for any arbitrary reason he wants without any constitutional congressional approval. Our derelict congress, btw, gave him that power.
> 
> Making America great again, they call it. But my democratic friends agree, after all they just funded it all. But their policies are no different.
> 
> Our king can also put the electorate in cages indefinitely without any charge or change of trial should he just feel like it. And they love him for it.
> 
> We're 24 trillion dollar in debt. Our dollar is collapsing.
> 
> I could keep going all afternoon. But what's to be had?
> 
> The next nation to fall will be this one. And now I just don't care. There's too many other nice places in the world to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservative peers?  I sure hope you are not claiming to be a righty.  I can no longer believe people when they claim to be conservative or republican, since commies have been claiming these political identifiers.  Commies don't like being called commies, so they claim to be conservatives, repubs, dems, socialists, libertarians, righties, you name it.  Why not just admit to being a commie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointing out the 24 trillion debt is "commie"?  Pointing out that both parties couldn't care less about the constitution is "commie"?    Pointing out that people only care about the letter by a president's name as opposed to things that actually matter is "commie"?
> 
> Please point out anything specific he said that is, in your mind, "commie."    This should be good for a laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's funny how commies can't see how easy they are to spot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, then it should be easy for you. Point out anything he said that was commie. I'm waiting.
Click to expand...

He speaks in commie dialect with  the commie accent you have.


----------



## Natural Citizen

buttercup said:


> Ok, then it should be easy for you. Point out anything he said that was commie. I'm waiting.



We should wait until it gets moved to the rubber room for him start esplainin stuff. Think that's zone 3, isn't it? It oughtta be a hoot. I never really cared to mix it up in any serious way with some of the low IQ snarky type people up here who demonstrate the deepness of a mud puddle the way this cat does. Dolts like this one are too protected up here. It's probably why they stay up here, now that I think on it.


----------



## buttercup

Natural Citizen said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out the 24 trillion debt is "commie"?  Pointing out that both parties couldn't care less about the constitution is "commie"?    Pointing out that people only care about the letter by a president's name as opposed to things that actually matter is "commie"?
> 
> Please point out anything specific he said that is, in your mind, "commie."    This should be good for a laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just having fun with him. You know how I do. Heh.
Click to expand...


I know.  I still like to get the football mentality types to back themselves up, which of course they can't.  And the funny thing is, none of them (D _or_  R) realize they are being useful idiots to the establishment who count on the public being stuck in that red vs blue mindset.  Well, funny but sad.


----------



## Jitss617

Coyote said:


> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.


Where does it say that?


----------



## Natural Citizen

buttercup said:


> I know.  I still like to get the football mentality types to back themselves up, which of course they can't.  And the funny thing is, none of them (D _or_  R) realize they are being useful idiots to the establishment who count on the public being stuck in that red vs blue mindset.  Well, funny but sad.



It's a heck of a thing, isn't it?

Ah well. I have to jump off here. Thanks for chiming in, bcup. It's always a wonderful day in the neighborhood, isn't it?

Later, Sparky. Good point about the Patriot Act, even if good ol EvMetro in all of his leftie loosy righty tighty wisdom didn't understand what you were trying to say.

Hey, remember what the President of the United States said....'Take guns first, go through due process second.''....oh wait...that's assuming they feel like charging us and giving us a trial, we may just go straight to a cage, its purely arbitrary now. So sayeth the congress and so signeth the king.

MAGA!!! lolol.


----------



## EvMetro

Ok folks, how many laws were listed here that do not infringe?  The commies took us off a different direction,  but the question still stands.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EvMetro said:


> Which gun control laws do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?


Any firearm regulatory measure not invalidated by the courts.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EvMetro said:


> This thread would be a great place for lefties to justify their anti constitutional stance.  C'mon lefties, start listing all the laws that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.


Actually, unlike most on the right, liberals support and defend the Second Amendment and Second Amendment case law,


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EvMetro said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that there are no laws that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?  You seem kinda slippery about giving a straight answer to the opening post.
Click to expand...

Of course there are – and those laws are not being enforced because they were invalidated by the courts.

For example, laws banning handguns violate the Second Amendment, along with measures prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Natural Citizen said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is strictly limited. That's what the constitution does. It limits government. Strictly. Limited for liberty!
> 
> Unfortunately, they function outside its restrictions. This is a consequence of a derelict congress and a complicit electorate.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see, for example, _US v. Morrison_ (2000)).   

However derelict Congress might me, or complicit the electorate, acts of government nonetheless reflect the will of the people, acts which are perfectly lawful provided they comport with Constitutional case law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

sparky said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is strictly limited. That's what the constitution does. It limits government. Strictly. Limited for liberty!
> 
> Unfortunately, they function outside its restrictions. This is a consequence of a derelict congress and a complicit electorate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for_ eloquently_ making my point NC
> ~S~
Click to expand...

And you are just as wrong as he.


----------



## EvMetro

I doubt I will ever see a gun control law cited on this thread that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Natural Citizen

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise



Gonna have to show us judicial review in Article III, Clayton.

The Constitution makes no mention of the right of the Supreme Court to declare federal and state laws unconstitutional. No place whatsever.

This is the job of the Congress. Which, unfortunately, is derelict in its responsibilities. Most of em aren't even of the intellectual capacity to even participate in that kind of debate, to be perfectly honest.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

sparky said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which gun control laws* do not infringe* on the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all '_infringe_'  , and have done so for almost a century
> 
> Firearm case law in the United States
> Gun law in the United States
> Gun politics in the United States
> Uniform Firearms Act
> ~S~
Click to expand...

And again: firearm regulatory measures not invalidated by the courts do not infringe on the Second Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EvMetro said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which gun control laws do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> 
> 
> Any of them that don't completely eliminate the right for anyone, anywhere to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name one gun control law that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Infringe:  To act so as to limit or undermine
Click to expand...

There are many laws that don’t infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, such as background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and waiting periods.

That a law might be bad, ridiculous, or otherwise ineffective doesn’t necessarily mean it infringes on the Second Amendment right, and it doesn’t make that law un-Constitutional.


----------



## sparky

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Acts of government are *presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise* (see, for example, _US v. Morrison_ (2000)).


I realize it's a _living_ doc Clay , with many scotus challenges 

Yet when they let something like the PA slide 

I don't have to consider them a '_constitutional benchmark'_ anymore




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> However derelict Congress might me, or complicit the electorate, *acts of government nonetheless reflect the will of the people*, acts which are perfectly lawful provided they comport with Constitutional case law.


They're _supposed _to, but no longer _do_ Clay
Corruption is Legal in America



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And you are just as wrong as he.



I'd like to be.....honestly....



Natural Citizen said:


> Gonna have to show us judicial review in Article III, Clayton.



Way over my head....

~S~


----------



## Natural Citizen

sparky said:


> Way over my head....
> 
> ~S~



*The Absurdity of ‘Judicial Review’*


----------



## EvMetro

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which gun control laws* do not infringe* on the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all '_infringe_'  , and have done so for almost a century
> 
> Firearm case law in the United States
> Gun law in the United States
> Gun politics in the United States
> Uniform Firearms Act
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again: firearm regulatory measures not invalidated by the courts do not infringe on the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see a gun control law cited here that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.  I doubt it will ever happen.


----------



## Natural Citizen

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And again: firearm regulatory measures not invalidated by the courts do not infringe on the Second Amendment.



How can the Supreme Court use judicial review to gain the power of judicial review?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Coyote said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> prove it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already did.
> 
> There are laws on slander and libel.
> 
> There are laws on instigating riots.
> 
> You can't own a nuke.
> 
> You can't sacrifice virgins.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Hate speech that advocates for imminent lawlessness and violence is not entitled to First Amendment protections.

Prison cell searches and seizures do not violate the 4th Amendment rights of inmates.

Private property designated as contraband is not entitled to 5th Amendment Takings Clause protections.

The Second Amendment is no different.


----------



## sparky

Natural Citizen said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again: firearm regulatory measures not invalidated by the courts do not infringe on the Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can the Supreme Court use judicial review to gain the power of judicial review?
Click to expand...



who watches the watchers NC...?
~S~


----------



## sparky

Coyote said:


> You can't sacrifice virgins.



well.....erruhmmm....can ya find one anymore....?

~S~


----------



## Natural Citizen

sparky said:


> who watches the watchers NC...?
> ~S~



Supposed to be the electorate watching them. But they're watching Watters' World. Cheering about bipartisan legislation putting us in cages with neither charge nor trial and whatnot.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread would be a great place for lefties to justify their anti constitutional stance.  C'mon lefties, start listing all the laws that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain which rights are unlimited.  I believe all have restrictions.
> 
> Why is the 2nd a special case?
Click to expand...


What is the definition of the "right" you are referencing.  

You can believe all rights have restrictions (and I agree....free speech does not cover pornography), but you have to prove how that is the case.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should a right have limitations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you start a thread about this?  In the meantime, you are evading the opening post like a cat evades being shoved into a toilet.  You can't name a single law that does not infringe, and you can't admit that you cant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, do you think a right is unlimited?
> 
> Clearly, the law preventing you from having nukes infringes on your "right" to "keep and bear arms".  Happy now?
> 
> Good.
> 
> Glad that right is infringed on.
Click to expand...


Has anyone tested that hypothosis in court ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

EvMetro said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread would be a great place for lefties to justify their anti constitutional stance.  C'mon lefties, start listing all the laws that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain which rights are unlimited.  I believe all have restrictions.
> 
> Why is the 2nd a special case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread is not about which rights are unlimited, it simply asks which gun control laws do not limit the right to keep and bear arms.  Candle you list some of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't "candle" anything at the moment.
> 
> However, you can't examine rights in a vacuum much as you would like to.  No rights are unlimited.  You aren't allowed to own a nuke.  You can't use your right to free speech to provoke a riot or slander or libel.  Your right of assembly doesn't allow you to assemble a riot or take down the government.  Your religious freedom does not allow you to keep slaves or conduct human sacrifices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should start a thread about how no rights are unlimited, if that is what you want to talk about.  This thread is meant for discussing all the gun control laws that don't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.  Can you even name a single one?
Click to expand...


The constitution sets the rules for the federal government.

It does not (or did not) apply to state legislators.

Most state constitutions have a 2nd amendment in them proving that they understood that.

Until we got to selective incorporation.  Which a mess and a disaster.

Without incorporation, states could, in theory, regulate arms.


----------



## Gdjjr

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Second Amendment is no different.


Except the wording- shall not be infringed-

*Definition of infringe*
transitive verb

1 *: *to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Does the right to keep and bear arms sound familiar? There are no caveats, especially in the declarative; shall not be infringed'

*Definition of encroach*
intransitive verb

1 *: *to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
2 *: *to advance beyond the usual or proper limits the gradually encroaching sea

Black robed idiots who pay others to teach them to lie legally try to pretend it's an esoteric endeavor- it ain't-

Oh, that living constitution bullshit- the constitution is an inert piece of paper- it can't be alive which is prerequisite to living-
It CAN be amended- to that, many will respond- come and take it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EvMetro said:


> Ok folks, how many laws were listed here that do not infringe?  The commies took us off a different direction,  but the question still stands.


And the question has been answered several times.

You placed this thread in the US Constitution sub-forum – it’s therefore reasonable to infer that the discussion would be in the context of the law and the legal process, where there are many firearm regulatory measures that do not infringe on the Second Amendment right and are perfectly Constitutional.

Perhaps you intended this to be a political discussion – politics and the law are not the same; the politics of the Second Amendment is a very different matter than that of the Second Amendment as a matter of law.

And in a political context, there are many firearm regulatory measures that are bad law – laws that are ineffective, unwarranted, and ridiculous.

Examples of bad firearm regulatory measures would include AWBs, waiting periods, registration requirements, magazine capacity restrictions, and some training requirements.

AWBs are particularly inane given the fact nothing is ‘banned,’ where such laws have grandfather provisions for current owners of restricted weapons.


----------



## EvMetro

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok folks, how many laws were listed here that do not infringe?  The commies took us off a different direction,  but the question still stands.
> 
> 
> 
> And the question has been answered several times.
> 
> You placed this thread in the US Constitution sub-forum – it’s therefore reasonable to infer that the discussion would be in the context of the law and the legal process, where there are many firearm regulatory measures that do not infringe on the Second Amendment right and are perfectly Constitutional.
> 
> Perhaps you intended this to be a political discussion – politics and the law are not the same; the politics of the Second Amendment is a very different matter than that of the Second Amendment as a matter of law.
> 
> And in a political context, there are many firearm regulatory measures that are bad law – laws that are ineffective, unwarranted, and ridiculous.
> 
> Examples of bad firearm regulatory measures would include AWBs, waiting periods, registration requirements, magazine capacity restrictions, and some training requirements.
> 
> AWBs are particularly inane given the fact nothing is ‘banned,’ where such laws have grandfather provisions for current owners of restricted weapons.
Click to expand...

Which law was cited,  please direct me to this specific law.  My opening post was simple, and it only asked for one simple thing.


----------



## pismoe

EvMetro said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS  carried by individual  soldiers [combat soldiers]  for military and other legal and lawful purposes .   Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it say that?   The Constitution is very vague on the 2nd, and the idea that it means what we think it does today is a relatively modern interpretation.
> 
> Politics Changed the Reading of the Second Amendment—and Can Change It Again
> _For about two hundred years, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear and mostly undisputed, despite the gnarled syntax of the text itself: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Generations of Supreme Court and academic opinion held that the amendment did not confer on individuals a right “to keep and bear Arms” but, rather, referred only to the privileges belonging to state militias. This was not a controversial view._​
> Frankly, not being allowed to have a nuke is a clear infringement and I think we ought to do something about it.  I demand my right to have a suitcase nuke for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting that the second amendment is specifically about self defense?
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    NO , self defennse is just one of the ledal and lawful purposes    EV .


----------



## Coyote

EvMetro said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS  carried by individual  soldiers [combat soldiers]  for military and other legal and lawful purposes .   Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it say that?   The Constitution is very vague on the 2nd, and the idea that it means what we think it does today is a relatively modern interpretation.
> 
> Politics Changed the Reading of the Second Amendment—and Can Change It Again
> _For about two hundred years, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear and mostly undisputed, despite the gnarled syntax of the text itself: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Generations of Supreme Court and academic opinion held that the amendment did not confer on individuals a right “to keep and bear Arms” but, rather, referred only to the privileges belonging to state militias. This was not a controversial view._​
> Frankly, not being allowed to have a nuke is a clear infringement and I think we ought to do something about it.  I demand my right to have a suitcase nuke for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting that the second amendment is specifically about self defense?
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that self defense is not included?

I want my suitcase nuke.


----------



## Coyote

progressive hunter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> prove it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already did.
> 
> There are laws on slander and libel.
> 
> There are laws on instigating riots.
> 
> You can't own a nuke.
> 
> You can't sacrifice virgins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> correct me if I'm wrong but libel and slander are civil not criminal, and cant be adjudicated if no harm is done,,,and riots are actions not words,,,
Click to expand...


They are still against the law - assuming the case is proved.  Again - it is a limit on free speech.

Free speech is not just verbal speech, for example contributing money is "free speech".  Do you think you can finance a riot?

How about yelling fire in a crowded theatre?



> and I have sacrificed many virgins


TMI!



> as for nukes,, I say the people that do have them shouldnt,,,



Most likely true.


----------



## Coyote

TNHarley said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread would be a great place for lefties to justify their anti constitutional stance.  C'mon lefties, start listing all the laws that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain which rights are unlimited.  I believe all have restrictions.
> 
> Why is the 2nd a special case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread is not about which rights are unlimited, it simply asks which gun control laws do not limit the right to keep and bear arms.  Candle you list some of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't "candle" anything at the moment.
> 
> However, you can't examine rights in a vacuum much as you would like to.  No rights are unlimited.  You aren't allowed to own a nuke.  You can't use your right to free speech to provoke a riot or slander or libel.  Your right of assembly doesn't allow you to assemble a riot or take down the government.  Your religious freedom does not allow you to keep slaves or conduct human sacrifices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You can own a nuke.*
> The second says shall not be infringed. What do you mean it can be limited?
Click to expand...


Oh?

I don't think so.


----------



## Coyote

Jitss617 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
Click to expand...


Our legal code.


----------



## HenryBHough

Coyote said:


> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.



There are some possibilities in that statement:

1.  You are severely retarded.
2.  You attend a liberal elementary school where you were forbidden to read The U.S. Constitution.
3.  You are being home-schooled by Bernie Sanders.


----------



## Coyote

HenryBHough said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some possibilities in that statement:
> 
> 1.  You are severely retarded.
> 2.  You attend a liberal elementary school where you were forbidden to read The U.S. Constitution.
> 3.  You are being home-schooled by Bernie Sanders.
Click to expand...


4. You are about to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.


----------



## bodecea

pismoe said:


> second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS  carried by individual  soldiers [combat soldiers]  for military and other legal and lawful purposes .   Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .


Where does the 2nd Amendment specify the size of arms?


----------



## bodecea

EvMetro said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS  carried by individual  soldiers [combat soldiers]  for military and other legal and lawful purposes .   Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> Part of what makes lefties what they are is the ability to evade.  If you look at any lefty post that is a response to a a righty, you will see that it is one of the standard evasion techniques from my list:  Dodge, deflect, divert, invert, convert, ignore, redefine, or otherwise evade.  Coyote's evasion of the opening post reminds me of what a cat does when it is being shoved into a toilet.  I saw a big kid do that to a poor cat when I was in elementary school, and it is quite a fight.
Click to expand...

No evasion here...an example of a law that restricts your right to arms is the very laws that prevent you from buying nukes.


----------



## bodecea

sparky said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge, deflect, divert, invert, convert, ignore, redefine, or otherwise evade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only one doing that is you refusing  to accept straight answers
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Remember his "lefties hate Christmas" thread?


----------



## bodecea

EvMetro said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you think a right is unlimited?
> 
> Clearly, the law preventing you from having nukes infringes on your "right" to "keep and bear arms".  Happy now?
> 
> Good.
> 
> Glad that right is infringed on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to evade answering the opening post by listing laws that do infringe.  The opening post requests gun control laws that do not.
Click to expand...


He literally answered your question in that post you quoted.  Is English not your first language?


----------



## progressive hunter

Coyote said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> prove it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already did.
> 
> There are laws on slander and libel.
> 
> There are laws on instigating riots.
> 
> You can't own a nuke.
> 
> You can't sacrifice virgins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> correct me if I'm wrong but libel and slander are civil not criminal, and cant be adjudicated if no harm is done,,,and riots are actions not words,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are still against the law - assuming the case is proved.  Again - it is a limit on free speech.
> 
> Free speech is not just verbal speech, for example contributing money is "free speech".  Do you think you can finance a riot?
> 
> How about yelling fire in a crowded theatre?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I have sacrificed many virgins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TMI!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as for nukes,, I say the people that do have them shouldnt,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most likely true.
Click to expand...



I challenge you to show me one law against libel or slander thats stated as a crime,,,  

and as I said a riot is call to action not speech,,,

and sorry but its not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater,,if so show me that law,,


----------



## EvMetro

bodecea said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you think a right is unlimited?
> 
> Clearly, the law preventing you from having nukes infringes on your "right" to "keep and bear arms".  Happy now?
> 
> Good.
> 
> Glad that right is infringed on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to evade answering the opening post by listing laws that do infringe.  The opening post requests gun control laws that do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He literally answered your question in that post you quoted.  Is English not your first language?
Click to expand...

No, he talked of a law that DOES infringe.  The opening post asks for a law that does not.  Either way, he did not actually cite any law at all.

You will not be citing any gun control law that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms as the opening post requests because you are just a commie who is here to derail the thread as a way to support lefty ideology.  Go ahead, post something besides a law that does not what was requested in the opening post.  It's all you can do.


----------



## EvMetro

bodecea said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS  carried by individual  soldiers [combat soldiers]  for military and other legal and lawful purposes .   Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> Part of what makes lefties what they are is the ability to evade.  If you look at any lefty post that is a response to a a righty, you will see that it is one of the standard evasion techniques from my list:  Dodge, deflect, divert, invert, convert, ignore, redefine, or otherwise evade.  Coyote's evasion of the opening post reminds me of what a cat does when it is being shoved into a toilet.  I saw a big kid do that to a poor cat when I was in elementary school, and it is quite a fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No evasion here...an example of a law that restricts your right to arms is the very laws that prevent you from buying nukes.
Click to expand...

I did not ask for laws that restrict rights, I asked for laws that do not.


----------



## pismoe

bodecea said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS  carried by individual  soldiers [combat soldiers]  for military and other legal and lawful purposes .   Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> Part of what makes lefties what they are is the ability to evade.  If you look at any lefty post that is a response to a a righty, you will see that it is one of the standard evasion techniques from my list:  Dodge, deflect, divert, invert, convert, ignore, redefine, or otherwise evade.  Coyote's evasion of the opening post reminds me of what a cat does when it is being shoved into a toilet.  I saw a big kid do that to a poor cat when I was in elementary school, and it is quite a fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No evasion here...an example of a law that restricts your right to arms is the very laws that prevent you from buying nukes.
Click to expand...

--------------------------------------------------------- Just guessing as I know nothing about availability of NUKES . But I believe that with enough money and correctly done paperwork that NUKES are available for sale through legal or illegal means .  And with illegal nuke sales paperwork is not required . -------------------------  just saying .


----------



## CWayne

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread would be a great place for lefties to justify their anti constitutional stance.  C'mon lefties, start listing all the laws that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain which rights are unlimited.  I believe all have restrictions.
> 
> Why is the 2nd a special case?
Click to expand...

Any right that requires permission from the government is not a right, it is a license.

There is ONLY one permissible limitation on any right.

Due Process.


----------



## pismoe

bodecea said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS  carried by individual  soldiers [combat soldiers]  for military and other legal and lawful purposes .   Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the 2nd Amendment specify the size of arms?
Click to expand...

-------------------------------------    agree , but generally speaking Americans should be fully outfitted with the SMALL ARMS 0f the American combat soldier .    Nothing to do with size relly but Small Arms are a class of weapons that are not Crew Served and are individually carried   Bode .


----------



## pismoe

Coyote said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some possibilities in that statement:
> 
> 1.  You are severely retarded.
> 2.  You attend a liberal elementary school where you were forbidden to read The U.S. Constitution.
> 3.  You are being home-schooled by Bernie Sanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4. You are about to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.
Click to expand...

---------------------------------------    always thought that the yelling fire was a bad example as any person can yell fire all he likes in a crowded movie theatre .     Arrests may be made after fire is yelled if there is no fire .


----------



## Jitss617

Coyote said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our legal code.
Click to expand...

So not the constitution, so you added to it


----------



## EvMetro

Still no gun control laws cited that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms...


----------



## Jitss617

We need to go back to the original law of the land on gun, this is what makes America great. It’s not fit everyone and you can leave if you dont like it


----------



## Blues Man

EvMetro said:


> Which gun control laws do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?


Here we go again.

I have been trying to explain to you people that the right to keep and bear arms is in no way the right to use those arms.

The Constitution clearly states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms or in other words own and carry.  There is no express or implied right to use that firearm but for very specific instances.

Among these are legally sanctioned hunting as spelled out by your local and state laws, target shooting which is also subject to state and local laws. and last but most importantly in defense of one's, person, property or the defense of another person.

These are the only legally sanctioned uses of firearms and self defense comes with the caveat that requires the person using a firearm in self defense is responsible for justifying that use to the satisfaction of the law.

So to answer your question any law that stops a person from owning and carrying firearms infringes on the second amendment.  The laws that restrict the use of firearms do not.


----------



## Blues Man

EvMetro said:


> Still no gun control laws cited that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms...


No law that restricts the use of firearms infringes the right to keep and bear arms


----------



## Coyote

EvMetro said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you think a right is unlimited?
> 
> Clearly, the law preventing you from having nukes infringes on your "right" to "keep and bear arms".  Happy now?
> 
> Good.
> 
> Glad that right is infringed on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to evade answering the opening post by listing laws that do infringe.  The opening post requests gun control laws that do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He literally answered your question in that post you quoted.  Is English not your first language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he talked of a law that DOES infringe.  The opening post asks for a law that does not.  Either way, he did not actually cite any law at all.
> 
> You will not be citing any gun control law that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms as the opening post requests because you are just a commie who is here to derail the thread as a way to support lefty ideology.  Go ahead, post something besides a law that does not what was requested in the opening post.  It's all you can do.
Click to expand...

One that doesn't infringe? Banning conceal carry.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

EvMetro said:


> Name one gun control law that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.


Irrelevant to what I said. You don't read so good, son.


----------



## EvMetro

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one gun control law that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant to what I said. You don't read so good, son.
Click to expand...

The opening post is the benchmark of relevance for this thread.


----------



## Gdjjr

I'm confused. I thought words meant things- clearly asking a question and getting non pertinent responses and straw man arguments represents "not" doesn't exist- oops- doesn't is the contraction of does not- how you gonna keep em down on the farm once they been "officially" edgumacated-- 

Good lord people, it was a simple question- the simple answer is none- all the postulating doesn't make it esoteric- it's simple English for crying out loud.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Coyote said:


> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.


Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should a right have limitations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you start a thread about this?  In the meantime, you are evading the opening post like a cat evades being shoved into a toilet.  You can't name a single law that does not infringe, and you can't admit that you cant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, do you think a right is unlimited?
> 
> Clearly, the law preventing you from having nukes infringes on your "right" to "keep and bear arms".  Happy now?
> 
> Good.
> 
> Glad that right is infringed on.
Click to expand...

"Do you want people to own nukes" is the dumbest response in the history of the gun control debate.


----------



## Blues Man

Coyote said:


> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.


Which is why there is no right to use firearms but for a few very specific instances



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## EvMetro

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.
Click to expand...

This says it all.


----------



## Coyote

EvMetro said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This says it all.
Click to expand...


Banning concealed carry is not infringement.

And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.

Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".

Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This says it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banning concealed carry is not infringement.
> 
> And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.
> 
> Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".
> 
> Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).
Click to expand...

You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee




----------



## Coyote

EvMetro said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This says it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banning concealed carry is not infringement.
> 
> And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.
> 
> Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".
> 
> Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
Click to expand...

Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.


----------



## Blues Man

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This says it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banning concealed carry is not infringement.
> 
> And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.
> 
> Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".
> 
> Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).
Click to expand...

Keep and bear

Own and carry

If you ban concealed carry and do not allow open carry that is an infringement 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This says it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banning concealed carry is not infringement.
> 
> And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.
> 
> Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".
> 
> Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
Click to expand...

"Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This says it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banning concealed carry is not infringement.
> 
> And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.
> 
> Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".
> 
> Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
Click to expand...

in·fringe·ment
/inˈfrinjmənt/


The action of limiting or undermining something.


----------



## EvMetro

Blues Man said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is no right to use firearms but for a few very specific instances
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

"Limiting" the right to use of firearms as you say, is infringement in its purest form.  Limiting the right to keep and bear arms in ANY way is the very definition of infringement.


----------



## Coyote

EvMetro said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.
> 
> 
> 
> This says it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banning concealed carry is not infringement.
> 
> And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.
> 
> Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".
> 
> Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in·fringe·ment
> /inˈfrinjmənt/
> 
> 
> The action of limiting or undermining something.
Click to expand...


hmmm.  How does banning concealed carry limit your ability to carry arms?  

It doesn't.


----------



## Coyote

EvMetro said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is no right to use firearms but for a few very specific instances
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Limiting" the right to use of firearms as you say, is infringement in its purest form.  Limiting the right to keep and bear arms in ANY way is the very definition of infringement.
Click to expand...


I demand my nuke.


----------



## Coyote

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.
> 
> 
> 
> This says it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banning concealed carry is not infringement.
> 
> And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.
> 
> Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".
> 
> Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.
Click to expand...



Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.

Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom.  Assuming I can find any.


----------



## Blues Man

EvMetro said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is no right to use firearms but for a few very specific instances
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Limiting" the right to use of firearms as you say, is infringement in its purest form.  Limiting the right to keep and bear arms in ANY way is the very definition of infringement.
Click to expand...

The second only protects the right to keep and bear arms not to use those arms.

There are only several very well defined instances where a person has the right to use a firearm 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blues Man

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> This says it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Banning concealed carry is not infringement.
> 
> And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.
> 
> Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".
> 
> Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in·fringe·ment
> /inˈfrinjmənt/
> 
> 
> The action of limiting or undermining something.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hmmm.  How does banning concealed carry limit your ability to carry arms?
> 
> It doesn't.
Click to expand...

If open carry is allowed it does not but open carry is not allowed in many places 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Coyote said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> This says it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Banning concealed carry is not infringement.
> 
> And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.
> 
> Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".
> 
> Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.
> 
> Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom.  Assuming I can find any.
Click to expand...

Another stupid argument my owning firearms does not in any way impact any ones rights. I'm a law abiding citizen that's not hurting or killing anyone with my firearms unless I'm protecting me and mine. The 2nd Amendment is clear I don't give a fuck what you or the courts say "Shall not be infringed" that's the end of the argument. 
What the hell do you ignorant bastards think is going to happen when you come for our firearms, oh right it won't be people like yourself.


----------



## Coyote

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning concealed carry is not infringement.
> 
> And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.
> 
> Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".
> 
> Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).
> 
> 
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.
> 
> Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom.  Assuming I can find any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another stupid argument my owning firearms does not in any way impact any ones rights. I'm a law abiding citizen that's not hurting or killing anyone with my firearms unless I'm protecting me and mine. The 2nd Amendment is clear I don't give a fuck what you or the courts say "Shall not be infringed" that's the end of the argument.
> What the hell do you ignorant bastards think is going to happen when you come for our firearms, oh right it won't be people like yourself.
Click to expand...


It's a right like any other under the constitution.  That means it isn't unlimited.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Coyote said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.
> 
> Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom.  Assuming I can find any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another stupid argument my owning firearms does not in any way impact any ones rights. I'm a law abiding citizen that's not hurting or killing anyone with my firearms unless I'm protecting me and mine. The 2nd Amendment is clear I don't give a fuck what you or the courts say "Shall not be infringed" that's the end of the argument.
> What the hell do you ignorant bastards think is going to happen when you come for our firearms, oh right it won't be people like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a right like any other under the constitution.  That means it isn't unlimited.
Click to expand...

"Shall not be infringed " for fuck sake some of you people got jipped by the public school system.


----------



## Coyote

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> 
> 
> "Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.
> 
> Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom.  Assuming I can find any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another stupid argument my owning firearms does not in any way impact any ones rights. I'm a law abiding citizen that's not hurting or killing anyone with my firearms unless I'm protecting me and mine. The 2nd Amendment is clear I don't give a fuck what you or the courts say "Shall not be infringed" that's the end of the argument.
> What the hell do you ignorant bastards think is going to happen when you come for our firearms, oh right it won't be people like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a right like any other under the constitution.  That means it isn't unlimited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Shall not be infringed " for fuck sake some of you people got jipped by the public school system.
Click to expand...


We understand law a bit better than you lot I suspect.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> 
> 
> "Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.
> 
> Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom.  Assuming I can find any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another stupid argument my owning firearms does not in any way impact any ones rights. I'm a law abiding citizen that's not hurting or killing anyone with my firearms unless I'm protecting me and mine. The 2nd Amendment is clear I don't give a fuck what you or the courts say "Shall not be infringed" that's the end of the argument.
> What the hell do you ignorant bastards think is going to happen when you come for our firearms, oh right it won't be people like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a right like any other under the constitution.  That means it isn't unlimited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Shall not be infringed " for fuck sake some of you people got jipped by the public school system.
Click to expand...

At least they got an education.

The ‘literalist’ crowd clearly have no education at all.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning concealed carry is not infringement.
> 
> And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.
> 
> Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".
> 
> Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).
> 
> 
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.
> 
> Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom.  Assuming I can find any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another stupid argument my owning firearms does not in any way impact any ones rights. I'm a law abiding citizen that's not hurting or killing anyone with my firearms unless I'm protecting me and mine. The 2nd Amendment is clear I don't give a fuck what you or the courts say "Shall not be infringed" that's the end of the argument.
> What the hell do you ignorant bastards think is going to happen when you come for our firearms, oh right it won't be people like yourself.
Click to expand...

The stupidity and ignorance exist solely with those who reject the authority of the courts to determine the meaning of the Constitution – including the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

It’s as simple as that.


----------



## Gdjjr

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.


Can you point out the caveat limiting or restricting in the 2nd amendment? 
What does shall not be infringed mean? Is it just a suggestion?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.
> 
> Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom.  Assuming I can find any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another stupid argument my owning firearms does not in any way impact any ones rights. I'm a law abiding citizen that's not hurting or killing anyone with my firearms unless I'm protecting me and mine. The 2nd Amendment is clear I don't give a fuck what you or the courts say "Shall not be infringed" that's the end of the argument.
> What the hell do you ignorant bastards think is going to happen when you come for our firearms, oh right it won't be people like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a right like any other under the constitution.  That means it isn't unlimited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Shall not be infringed " for fuck sake some of you people got jipped by the public school system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least they got an education.
> 
> The ‘literalist’ crowd clearly have no education at all.
Click to expand...

. 
I couldn't think as slow as you people if I tried. For shits and giggle why don't one of you genius tell me the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions restrictions ?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Coyote said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.
> 
> Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom.  Assuming I can find any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another stupid argument my owning firearms does not in any way impact any ones rights. I'm a law abiding citizen that's not hurting or killing anyone with my firearms unless I'm protecting me and mine. The 2nd Amendment is clear I don't give a fuck what you or the courts say "Shall not be infringed" that's the end of the argument.
> What the hell do you ignorant bastards think is going to happen when you come for our firearms, oh right it won't be people like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a right like any other under the constitution.  That means it isn't unlimited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Shall not be infringed " for fuck sake some of you people got jipped by the public school system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We understand law a bit better than you lot I suspect.
Click to expand...

Ok what part of the 2nd amendment mentions restriction .........


----------



## Blues Man

Coyote said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.
> 
> Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom.  Assuming I can find any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another stupid argument my owning firearms does not in any way impact any ones rights. I'm a law abiding citizen that's not hurting or killing anyone with my firearms unless I'm protecting me and mine. The 2nd Amendment is clear I don't give a fuck what you or the courts say "Shall not be infringed" that's the end of the argument.
> What the hell do you ignorant bastards think is going to happen when you come for our firearms, oh right it won't be people like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a right like any other under the constitution.  That means it isn't unlimited.
Click to expand...

The mere ownership of guns is not the problem

It doesn't matter what firearms a person owns

We already have laws that clearly define the legal uses of firearms



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## pismoe

boy oh boy , what is it , its about 80 or MORE Years that gun owners ,NRA and other guns groups have been playing word games with their anti gun enemies .      The talk and BS shoulda been nipped in the bud many many years ago but gun owner people were too bus watching tv Sports and drinking beer I Guess .


----------



## danielpalos

EvMetro said:


> Which gun control laws do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?


Our Second Amendment is clear.  Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!


----------



## pismoe

pismoe said:


> boy oh boy , what is it , its about 80 or MORE Years that gun owners ,NRA and other guns groups have been playing word games with their anti gun enemies .      The talk and BS shoulda been nipped in the bud many many years ago but gun owner people were too bus watching tv Sports and drinking beer I Guess .


-----------------------------------    i mean , when was the first infringement .   Quick guess would be that it was sometime in the late 20s 0r early thirties with Machine gun rules and regulation' .       Yet certain government employees and their gov taxpayer paid employer bosses run around with some pretty nice full auto stuff on USA city streets every day  .


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is no right to use firearms but for a few very specific instances
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Limiting" the right to use of firearms as you say, is infringement in its purest form.  Limiting the right to keep and bear arms in ANY way is the very definition of infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I demand my nuke.
Click to expand...

That's very commie of you to demand goods like that.  When I want something, my instinct is to pay for it or otherwise earn it.


----------



## EvMetro

Blues Man said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning concealed carry is not infringement.
> 
> And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.
> 
> Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".
> 
> Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).
> 
> 
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in·fringe·ment
> /inˈfrinjmənt/
> 
> 
> The action of limiting or undermining something.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hmmm.  How does banning concealed carry limit your ability to carry arms?
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If open carry is allowed it does not but open carry is not allowed in many places
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

"Shall not be infringed" means that we have the right to open carry, conceal carry, or carry any way we want.  Think about what "shall not be infringed" really means.  Not what any ideology dogma dictates, not what you or I want it to mean, just think about what that term means.  Anybody who argues for even a second that there is a place for any kind of gun control laws after reading and UNDERSTANDING that term is wanting to violate the rights of americans.  "Shall not be infringed" means that "arms" shouldn't even be taxed.


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.
> 
> Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom.  Assuming I can find any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another stupid argument my owning firearms does not in any way impact any ones rights. I'm a law abiding citizen that's not hurting or killing anyone with my firearms unless I'm protecting me and mine. The 2nd Amendment is clear I don't give a fuck what you or the courts say "Shall not be infringed" that's the end of the argument.
> What the hell do you ignorant bastards think is going to happen when you come for our firearms, oh right it won't be people like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a right like any other under the constitution.  That means it isn't unlimited.
Click to expand...

The second amendment specifies that the right to keep and bear arms is in fact unlimited.  It specifically says "shall not be infringed".  Any interpretation of "shall not be infringed" that limits, governs, taxes, bans, forbids, or regulates the right to keep and bear arms is infringement.


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> This says it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Banning concealed carry is not infringement.
> 
> And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.
> 
> Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".
> 
> Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in·fringe·ment
> /inˈfrinjmənt/
> 
> 
> The action of limiting or undermining something.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hmmm.  How does banning concealed carry limit your ability to carry arms?
> 
> It doesn't.
Click to expand...

"Banning" is infringement.


----------



## Coyote

EvMetro said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning concealed carry is not infringement.
> 
> And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.
> 
> Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".
> 
> Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).
> 
> 
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in·fringe·ment
> /inˈfrinjmənt/
> 
> 
> The action of limiting or undermining something.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hmmm.  How does banning concealed carry limit your ability to carry arms?
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Banning" is infringement.
Click to expand...

No it isn’t.  No one is banning guns.


----------



## Coyote

EvMetro said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> 
> 
> "Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.
> 
> Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom.  Assuming I can find any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another stupid argument my owning firearms does not in any way impact any ones rights. I'm a law abiding citizen that's not hurting or killing anyone with my firearms unless I'm protecting me and mine. The 2nd Amendment is clear I don't give a fuck what you or the courts say "Shall not be infringed" that's the end of the argument.
> What the hell do you ignorant bastards think is going to happen when you come for our firearms, oh right it won't be people like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a right like any other under the constitution.  That means it isn't unlimited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second amendment specifies that the right to keep and bear arms is in fact unlimited.  It specifically says "shall not be infringed".  Any interpretation of "shall not be infringed" that limits, governs, taxes, bans, forbids, or regulates the right to keep and bear arms is infringement.
Click to expand...

You need to educate the courts then.  They appear to disagree.  Get to it girl!


----------



## Coyote

EvMetro said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is no right to use firearms but for a few very specific instances
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Limiting" the right to use of firearms as you say, is infringement in its purest form.  Limiting the right to keep and bear arms in ANY way is the very definition of infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I demand my nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's very commie of you to demand goods like that.  When I want something, my instinct is to pay for it or otherwise earn it.
Click to expand...

Who said I wasn’t going to pay?  You and your rightist assumptions.


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is no right to use firearms but for a few very specific instances
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Limiting" the right to use of firearms as you say, is infringement in its purest form.  Limiting the right to keep and bear arms in ANY way is the very definition of infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I demand my nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's very commie of you to demand goods like that.  When I want something, my instinct is to pay for it or otherwise earn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said I wasn’t going to pay?  You and your rightist assumptions.
Click to expand...

No, you demanded your nuke like commies do.  Demanding is not a form of payment.


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.
> 
> Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom.  Assuming I can find any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another stupid argument my owning firearms does not in any way impact any ones rights. I'm a law abiding citizen that's not hurting or killing anyone with my firearms unless I'm protecting me and mine. The 2nd Amendment is clear I don't give a fuck what you or the courts say "Shall not be infringed" that's the end of the argument.
> What the hell do you ignorant bastards think is going to happen when you come for our firearms, oh right it won't be people like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a right like any other under the constitution.  That means it isn't unlimited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second amendment specifies that the right to keep and bear arms is in fact unlimited.  It specifically says "shall not be infringed".  Any interpretation of "shall not be infringed" that limits, governs, taxes, bans, forbids, or regulates the right to keep and bear arms is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to educate the courts then.  They appear to disagree.  Get to it girl!
Click to expand...

No need to, the second amendment is clear.  Even if a court says up is the new down, up will always be up.  Come and take them!


----------



## Blues Man

EvMetro said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just used the words "banning" and "restricting".  Both of those words are infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in·fringe·ment
> /inˈfrinjmənt/
> 
> 
> The action of limiting or undermining something.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hmmm.  How does banning concealed carry limit your ability to carry arms?
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If open carry is allowed it does not but open carry is not allowed in many places
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Shall not be infringed" means that we have the right to open carry, conceal carry, or carry any way we want.  Think about what "shall not be infringed" really means.  Not what any ideology dogma dictates, not what you or I want it to mean, just think about what that term means.  Anybody who argues for even a second that there is a place for any kind of gun control laws after reading and UNDERSTANDING that term is wanting to violate the rights of americans.  "Shall not be infringed" means that "arms" shouldn't even be taxed.
Click to expand...

The second only protects the right to own and carry so a law that restricts concealed carry doesn't violate the second if open carry is allowed everywhere but that is not the case these days.

And it the second in no way protects your right so discharge a firearm 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## EvMetro

Blues Man said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right.  I will wait.
> 
> 
> 
> in·fringe·ment
> /inˈfrinjmənt/
> 
> 
> The action of limiting or undermining something.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hmmm.  How does banning concealed carry limit your ability to carry arms?
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If open carry is allowed it does not but open carry is not allowed in many places
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Shall not be infringed" means that we have the right to open carry, conceal carry, or carry any way we want.  Think about what "shall not be infringed" really means.  Not what any ideology dogma dictates, not what you or I want it to mean, just think about what that term means.  Anybody who argues for even a second that there is a place for any kind of gun control laws after reading and UNDERSTANDING that term is wanting to violate the rights of americans.  "Shall not be infringed" means that "arms" shouldn't even be taxed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second only protects the right to own and carry so a law that restricts concealed carry doesn't violate the second if open carry is allowed everywhere but that is not the case these days.
> 
> And it the second in no way protects your right so discharge a firearm
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Wrong, you want to infringe on the rights of others.

"Shall not be infringed" means that we have the right to open carry, conceal carry, or carry any way we want. Think about what "shall not be infringed" really means. Not what any ideology dogma dictates, not what you or I want it to mean, just think about what that term means. Anybody who argues for even a second that there is a place for any kind of gun control laws after reading and UNDERSTANDING that term is wanting to violate the rights of americans. "Shall not be infringed" means that "arms" shouldn't even be taxed.


----------



## Blues Man

EvMetro said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> in·fringe·ment
> /inˈfrinjmənt/
> 
> 
> The action of limiting or undermining something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm.  How does banning concealed carry limit your ability to carry arms?
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If open carry is allowed it does not but open carry is not allowed in many places
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Shall not be infringed" means that we have the right to open carry, conceal carry, or carry any way we want.  Think about what "shall not be infringed" really means.  Not what any ideology dogma dictates, not what you or I want it to mean, just think about what that term means.  Anybody who argues for even a second that there is a place for any kind of gun control laws after reading and UNDERSTANDING that term is wanting to violate the rights of americans.  "Shall not be infringed" means that "arms" shouldn't even be taxed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second only protects the right to own and carry so a law that restricts concealed carry doesn't violate the second if open carry is allowed everywhere but that is not the case these days.
> 
> And it the second in no way protects your right so discharge a firearm
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, you want to infringe on the rights of others.
> 
> "Shall not be infringed" means that we have the right to open carry, conceal carry, or carry any way we want. Think about what "shall not be infringed" really means. Not what any ideology dogma dictates, not what you or I want it to mean, just think about what that term means. Anybody who argues for even a second that there is a place for any kind of gun control laws after reading and UNDERSTANDING that term is wanting to violate the rights of americans. "Shall not be infringed" means that "arms" shouldn't even be taxed.
Click to expand...

I want no such thing I am looking at the language and telling you what I think the lawyers will say.

Keep and bear is all that is said the manner in which you can bear a weapon is not.

And regardless of how you carry you still have no protected right to discharge any firearms 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Coyote

EvMetro said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why there is no right to use firearms but for a few very specific instances
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> "Limiting" the right to use of firearms as you say, is infringement in its purest form.  Limiting the right to keep and bear arms in ANY way is the very definition of infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I demand my nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's very commie of you to demand goods like that.  When I want something, my instinct is to pay for it or otherwise earn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said I wasn’t going to pay?  You and your rightist assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you demanded your nuke like commies do.  Demanding is not a form of payment.
Click to expand...

It is absent of any references for or against payments.   Like you demand your rights... or what you perceive to be them. I am demanding my rights.


----------



## M14 Shooter

EvMetro said:


> Which gun control laws do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?


Laws that prohibit those who do not have the right to keep and bear arms from buying/possessing a firearm


----------



## M14 Shooter

Coyote said:


> No right is unlimited or unrestricted.


Which, of course, in no way means than any and every limitation and/or restriction on a right is constitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sparky said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS carried by individual soldiers [combat soldiers] for military and other legal and lawful purposes
> 
> 
> 
> and how is that _not _redefining the 2nd?
Click to expand...

Its not - the 2nd continues to protect an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

It is, however, a definition of the term "arms" as used in the 2nd, just like the jurisprudence that defines the term "free speech" as used in the 1st.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Coyote said:


> Politics Changed the Reading of the Second Amendment—and Can Change It Again
> _For about two hundred years, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear and mostly undisputed, despite the gnarled syntax of the text itself: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Generations of Supreme Court and academic opinion held that the amendment did not confer on individuals a right “to keep and bear Arms” but, rather, referred only to the privileges belonging to state militias. This was not a controversial view._​


Not a single ruling form the USSC supports this claim.​Not a single ruling from a federal appeals court prior to 1930 supports this claim.
Thus, the claim is unsupportable nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

Only well regulated militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State specifically not the unorganized militia. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Only the unorganized militia of the People complain about gun control laws. 

don't be lazy gun lovers, get well regulated.


----------



## EvMetro

danielpalos said:


> Only well regulated militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State specifically not the unorganized militia. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Only the unorganized militia of the People complain about gun control laws.
> 
> don't be lazy gun lovers, get well regulated.


Because we need a well regulated militia to secure a free state, our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  It didn't specify that anybody is required to be part of a militia, well regulated or unorganized.  The right to keep and bear arms without having to worry about infringement is all that is needed to secure a free state.  We know what to do with arms.


----------



## EvMetro

M14 Shooter said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which gun control laws do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> 
> 
> Laws that prohibit those who do not have the right to keep and bear arms from buying/possessing a firearm
Click to expand...

How can you infringe on the right of someone who doesn't even have that right?


----------



## EvMetro

Coyote said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Limiting" the right to use of firearms as you say, is infringement in its purest form.  Limiting the right to keep and bear arms in ANY way is the very definition of infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I demand my nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's very commie of you to demand goods like that.  When I want something, my instinct is to pay for it or otherwise earn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said I wasn’t going to pay?  You and your rightist assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you demanded your nuke like commies do.  Demanding is not a form of payment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is absent of any references for or against payments.   Like you demand your rights... or what you perceive to be them. I am demanding my rights.
Click to expand...

You want the nuke that you have the right to, but you won't pay for it.  Classic commie.  Gimme my free shit, I demand my free nuke!


----------



## M14 Shooter

EvMetro said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which gun control laws do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> 
> 
> Laws that prohibit those who do not have the right to keep and bear arms from buying/possessing a firearm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you infringe on the right of someone who doesn't even have that right?
Click to expand...

Correct - that;s why such laws do not infringe on the right to keep ans bear arms.


----------

