9th Circus Makes Ground Breaking Ruling On Guns

[2aguy]

Then you legally murder people.

Nope then you exercise lawful lethal self-defense.

Study: Stand Your Ground law increased homicides in Florida

Not subscribing to read the link,,,,how did it increase homicides ?

More guns always does.

Another lie.....

25 years of actual experience...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

Read more here (I need to credit where I read it)

Ace of Spades HQ

Ninth Circuit Appeals Court: If Hawaii Restricts Citizens' Ability to Carry Concealed, Then There Must Be An Absolute Right to OpenCarry
—Ace of Spades
Huge ruling.

Hawaii sharply limits who can carry concealed -- basically, only people who have jobs in security and law enforcement can carry concealed.

The Ninth Circuit -- not the whole Ninth Circuit, which is a leftwing clownshow, but two of the three judges selected randomly to review the lower court's ruling here -- rules that people have the right to carry firearms (quoting the Supreme Court's MacDonald decision), and if the right to carry concealed is restricted by a state, that must mean that the other method of carrying, open carry, is absolute.

The court rules that the "right to keep and bear arms" is actually two rights: to "keep" arms is about storing arms on physical property, but to bear arms is to carry arms on one's person.

And it rules that Hawaii may not leave citizens with no way of exercising this latter right.

WINNER!!!

People being able to defend themselves... bad news for criminals/leftists.

Funny. With all our guns our homicide rate is 4-5x that of countries with strong gun control.

And that has nothing to do with law abiding gun owners who own and carry guns for self defense.....it has everything to do with democrats who keep letting violent gun criminals out of jail, over and over again.....in democrat controlled cities with extreme gun control, where only the criminals have guns...

 

[2aguy]

In Hawaii county in 2016, violent crimes increased by 16.3% from the prior year.

Liberty 1
statist brain 0

Guess I like low homicide rates.

States with carry laws have lower rates.

Which ones have lower homicide rates than Hawaii?

You ignored the question. What concealed carry states have lower homicide rates?

Wisconsin, you moron....Florida, you moron.....their murder rates have dropped since they enacted concealed carry....

And comparing them to Hawaii is about as fair as comparing you to someone who is intelligent.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What does "Congress shall make no law" mean?

What does “ well regulated” mean . If u want to cherry pick lines .

Hawaii ain’t congress by the way.

At the time the Constitution was written, it meant that a persons property should ready to roll. Properly maintained.
Not well regulated like the statists like to imagine.
Try again

Ok how about “militia “?

Geez . I agree we have a right to guns but don’t act as if the 2nd says “guns for everybody ! The government can’t do nothing about it !”

As long as it isnt impeding on someone else, what should they do about it?
Does the Constitution mean things it doesnt actually say?
Do you think its a metaphor or something?

Is this where u are a strict constitutionalist except when you don’t want to?

Strictly reading the 2nd it means we need an armed people for the army . Of course we have a standing army now . You could easily say only guard/military members have a right to own guns .

Yes, conservatives are inconsistent and hypocritical when it comes to their ‘strict constitutionalist’ nonsense.

Conservatives whine about the word ‘privacy’ not being in the Constitution, and attempt to advance the ridiculous, wrongheaded ‘argument’ that there is no right to privacy.

However, nowhere in the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense’ – but there is nonetheless an individual right to possess a firearm and a right to self-defense because the Supreme Court has ruled that both exist; just as the Court ruled that the right to privacy exists.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[2aguy]

What does “ well regulated” mean . If u want to cherry pick lines .

Hawaii ain’t congress by the way.

At the time the Constitution was written, it meant that a persons property should ready to roll. Properly maintained.
Not well regulated like the statists like to imagine.
Try again

Ok how about “militia “?

Geez . I agree we have a right to guns but don’t act as if the 2nd says “guns for everybody ! The government can’t do nothing about it !”

As long as it isnt impeding on someone else, what should they do about it?
Does the Constitution mean things it doesnt actually say?
Do you think its a metaphor or something?

Is this where u are a strict constitutionalist except when you don’t want to?

Strictly reading the 2nd it means we need an armed people for the army . Of course we have a standing army now . You could easily say only guard/military members have a right to own guns .

Yes, conservatives are inconsistent and hypocritical when it comes to their ‘strict constitutionalist’ nonsense.

Conservatives whine about the word ‘privacy’ not being in the Constitution, and attempt to advance the ridiculous, wrongheaded ‘argument’ that there is no right to privacy.

However, nowhere in the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense’ – but there is nonetheless an individual right to possess a firearm and a right to self-defense because the Supreme Court has ruled that both exist; just as the Court ruled that the right to privacy exists.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

And you know it is completely explained and analyzed in D.C v Heller....but you want to pretend to be more intelligent on the topic than you actually are....

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.....Please show us where killing a baby is a protected Right enumerated in the Constitution....

 

[hunarcy]

Then you legally murder people.

Nope then you exercise lawful lethal self-defense.

Study: Stand Your Ground law increased homicides in Florida

"It's very weak methodology,"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Read more here (I need to credit where I read it)

Ace of Spades HQ

Ninth Circuit Appeals Court: If Hawaii Restricts Citizens' Ability to Carry Concealed, Then There Must Be An Absolute Right to OpenCarry
—Ace of Spades
Huge ruling.

Hawaii sharply limits who can carry concealed -- basically, only people who have jobs in security and law enforcement can carry concealed.

The Ninth Circuit -- not the whole Ninth Circuit, which is a leftwing clownshow, but two of the three judges selected randomly to review the lower court's ruling here -- rules that people have the right to carry firearms (quoting the Supreme Court's MacDonald decision), and if the right to carry concealed is restricted by a state, that must mean that the other method of carrying, open carry, is absolute.

The court rules that the "right to keep and bear arms" is actually two rights: to "keep" arms is about storing arms on physical property, but to bear arms is to carry arms on one's person.

And it rules that Hawaii may not leave citizens with no way of exercising this latter right.

Hummm.

Kind of makes conservative lie that the 9th circuit court is a big liberal court the lie that it is.

Or it shows that liberals aren't against guns and aren't out to take them from everyone. Which exposes that lie conservatives have been screaming for years for the lie that it is.

Exactly.

No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns; no one wants to ‘confiscate’ guns – including ‘liberals.’

Liberals own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and support current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s conservatives who rail against that jurisprudence and make ignorant, ridiculous statements about the Second Amendment being an ‘unlimited’ right.

 

[2aguy]

Read more here (I need to credit where I read it)

Ace of Spades HQ

Ninth Circuit Appeals Court: If Hawaii Restricts Citizens' Ability to Carry Concealed, Then There Must Be An Absolute Right to OpenCarry
—Ace of Spades
Huge ruling.

Hawaii sharply limits who can carry concealed -- basically, only people who have jobs in security and law enforcement can carry concealed.

The Ninth Circuit -- not the whole Ninth Circuit, which is a leftwing clownshow, but two of the three judges selected randomly to review the lower court's ruling here -- rules that people have the right to carry firearms (quoting the Supreme Court's MacDonald decision), and if the right to carry concealed is restricted by a state, that must mean that the other method of carrying, open carry, is absolute.

The court rules that the "right to keep and bear arms" is actually two rights: to "keep" arms is about storing arms on physical property, but to bear arms is to carry arms on one's person.

And it rules that Hawaii may not leave citizens with no way of exercising this latter right.

Hummm.

Kind of makes conservative lie that the 9th circuit court is a big liberal court the lie that it is.

Or it shows that liberals aren't against guns and aren't out to take them from everyone. Which exposes that lie conservatives have been screaming for years for the lie that it is.

Exactly.

No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns; no one wants to ‘confiscate’ guns – including ‘liberals.’

Liberals own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and support current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s conservatives who rail against that jurisprudence and make ignorant, ridiculous statements about the Second Amendment being an ‘unlimited’ right.

You can't claim that anymore...... at the CNN Townhall, the entire audience shouted that they want to ban all semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns..... at the school walkouts and the various rallies they all yelled the same thing... your buddies who didn't get the message to lie about what they want, spilled the beans....

Here...so that even you can see that you are lying.....the CNN Town Hall....at the 1:54 mark...

 

[2aguy]

Read more here (I need to credit where I read it)

Ace of Spades HQ

Ninth Circuit Appeals Court: If Hawaii Restricts Citizens' Ability to Carry Concealed, Then There Must Be An Absolute Right to OpenCarry
—Ace of Spades
Huge ruling.

Hawaii sharply limits who can carry concealed -- basically, only people who have jobs in security and law enforcement can carry concealed.

The Ninth Circuit -- not the whole Ninth Circuit, which is a leftwing clownshow, but two of the three judges selected randomly to review the lower court's ruling here -- rules that people have the right to carry firearms (quoting the Supreme Court's MacDonald decision), and if the right to carry concealed is restricted by a state, that must mean that the other method of carrying, open carry, is absolute.

The court rules that the "right to keep and bear arms" is actually two rights: to "keep" arms is about storing arms on physical property, but to bear arms is to carry arms on one's person.

And it rules that Hawaii may not leave citizens with no way of exercising this latter right.

Hummm.

Kind of makes conservative lie that the 9th circuit court is a big liberal court the lie that it is.

Or it shows that liberals aren't against guns and aren't out to take them from everyone. Which exposes that lie conservatives have been screaming for years for the lie that it is.

Exactly.

No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns; no one wants to ‘confiscate’ guns – including ‘liberals.’

Liberals own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and support current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s conservatives who rail against that jurisprudence and make ignorant, ridiculous statements about the Second Amendment being an ‘unlimited’ right.

a former Justice on the Supreme Court and the 4 remaining left wing justices want to end the 2nd Amendment...but thanks for lying...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Funny. With all our guns our homicide rate is 4-5x that of countries with strong gun control.

Freedom isnt free.
If it was, it would always be available.

Lots of free countries have fewer guns and lower homicide rates.

And they dont have the freedom to own badass weapons.
I would rather stay here.
Why dont you move there instead of trying to change my culture and shit on my constitution?

Awe so you need big weapons to feel like a man. Cute.

No, people need weapons to defend themselves from criminals, and a tyrannical government. Talking down to someone and mischaracterizing them is not an argument.

To believe the only reason one wants to have a weapon is to feel masculine is to believe that criminals will never threaten one, something that's clearly wrong, or that the state is an omnipotent entity capable of protecting everyone at all times

Defend against criminal attack, yes; ‘defend’ against ‘tyranny,’ no – the notion is as ridiculous as it is unfounded and wrong.

The Second Amendment right is an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘deter crime,’ and not to ‘defend against tyranny.’

 

[westwall]

There are no “abolute rights” . All rights have limits .

What does "Congress shall make no law" mean?

What does “ well regulated” mean . If u want to cherry pick lines .

Hawaii ain’t congress by the way.

It means in good working order. You see that marking on clocks from the era too. Are you claiming that clocks had to have laws regulating their use?

 

[2aguy]

Freedom isnt free.
If it was, it would always be available.

Lots of free countries have fewer guns and lower homicide rates.

And they dont have the freedom to own badass weapons.
I would rather stay here.
Why dont you move there instead of trying to change my culture and shit on my constitution?

Awe so you need big weapons to feel like a man. Cute.

No, people need weapons to defend themselves from criminals, and a tyrannical government. Talking down to someone and mischaracterizing them is not an argument.

To believe the only reason one wants to have a weapon is to feel masculine is to believe that criminals will never threaten one, something that's clearly wrong, or that the state is an omnipotent entity capable of protecting everyone at all times

Defend against criminal attack, yes; ‘defend’ against ‘tyranny,’ no – the notion is as ridiculous as it is unfounded and wrong.

The Second Amendment right is an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘deter crime,’ and not to ‘defend against tyranny.’

Law enforcement as a citizen... you are right. To deter crime, you are wrong, and you are wrong on defense against tyranny, you obviously want to hide what the founders who wrote the amendment actually stated on the issue.

 

[2aguy]

Freedom isnt free.
If it was, it would always be available.

Lots of free countries have fewer guns and lower homicide rates.

And they dont have the freedom to own badass weapons.
I would rather stay here.
Why dont you move there instead of trying to change my culture and shit on my constitution?

Awe so you need big weapons to feel like a man. Cute.

No, people need weapons to defend themselves from criminals, and a tyrannical government. Talking down to someone and mischaracterizing them is not an argument.

To believe the only reason one wants to have a weapon is to feel masculine is to believe that criminals will never threaten one, something that's clearly wrong, or that the state is an omnipotent entity capable of protecting everyone at all times

Defend against criminal attack, yes; ‘defend’ against ‘tyranny,’ no – the notion is as ridiculous as it is unfounded and wrong.

The Second Amendment right is an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘deter crime,’ and not to ‘defend against tyranny.’

Defend against Tyranny...

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

Noah Webster Gun Quotes
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

James Madison Gun Quotes
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

Richard Henry Lee Gun Quotes
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Patrick Henry Gun Quotes
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Joseph Story Gun Quotes
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

 

[2aguy]

Freedom isnt free.
If it was, it would always be available.

Lots of free countries have fewer guns and lower homicide rates.

And they dont have the freedom to own badass weapons.
I would rather stay here.
Why dont you move there instead of trying to change my culture and shit on my constitution?

Awe so you need big weapons to feel like a man. Cute.

No, people need weapons to defend themselves from criminals, and a tyrannical government. Talking down to someone and mischaracterizing them is not an argument.

To believe the only reason one wants to have a weapon is to feel masculine is to believe that criminals will never threaten one, something that's clearly wrong, or that the state is an omnipotent entity capable of protecting everyone at all times

Defend against criminal attack, yes; ‘defend’ against ‘tyranny,’ no – the notion is as ridiculous as it is unfounded and wrong.

The Second Amendment right is an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘deter crime,’ and not to ‘defend against tyranny.’

They even made a left wing musical about this guy....I wonder if those left wingers know how this guy felt about guns?

Alexander Hamilton Gun Quotes

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

-----

“f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

-------

Tench Coxe Gun Quotes
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are no “abolute rights” . All rights have limits .

Why because you say so?

Because the Supreme Court says so.

Or should I be able to scream threats outside your window at 2:00am?

The government doesn't determine what one's rights are, it merely uses force to infringe on them, or chooses to recognize them. The government determining that it's allowed to infringe on a right does not mean we do not have that right.

Yes, you should be able to scream threats outside someone's window at 2AM, however, you'd also be threatening an individual while standing on their property, meaning they can defend themselves. If the individual is armed, you'd likely associate more risk with doing something so inherently stupid and choose to retreat when they step outside.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld time, place, and manner restrictions of free speech rights, including noise and nuisance ordinances, such as individuals yelling in residential neighborhoods at 2:00 AM.

Just as the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not unlimited, so too are the rights in the Second Amendment not unlimited.

 

[2aguy]

There are no “abolute rights” . All rights have limits .

Why because you say so?

Because the Supreme Court says so.

Or should I be able to scream threats outside your window at 2:00am?

The government doesn't determine what one's rights are, it merely uses force to infringe on them, or chooses to recognize them. The government determining that it's allowed to infringe on a right does not mean we do not have that right.

Yes, you should be able to scream threats outside someone's window at 2AM, however, you'd also be threatening an individual while standing on their property, meaning they can defend themselves. If the individual is armed, you'd likely associate more risk with doing something so inherently stupid and choose to retreat when they step outside.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld time, place, and manner restrictions of free speech rights, including noise and nuisance ordinances, such as individuals yelling in residential neighborhoods at 2:00 AM.

Just as the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not unlimited, so too are the rights in the Second Amendment not unlimited.

And that weak argument is trotted out by you guys all the time....

Time and use restrictions are due to the fact that Free speech in public spaces may have competing groups trying to use the same public space...

You do not have prior restraint rules against free speech.....you can't yell fire in a theater, but you can say fire in a theater......it is only a crime when you yell it which causes harm to the Rights of others in the theater...

Scalia listed the limits...felons and the dangerously mentally ill can't have guns..... and you can restrict some locations such as court rooms...other than that, he specifically protects all bearable arms under the 2nd Amendment, in particular the AR-15 rifle in Friedman v Highland Park...

 

[hunarcy]

There are no “abolute rights” . All rights have limits .

Why because you say so?

Because the Supreme Court says so.

Or should I be able to scream threats outside your window at 2:00am?

The government doesn't determine what one's rights are, it merely uses force to infringe on them, or chooses to recognize them. The government determining that it's allowed to infringe on a right does not mean we do not have that right.

Yes, you should be able to scream threats outside someone's window at 2AM, however, you'd also be threatening an individual while standing on their property, meaning they can defend themselves. If the individual is armed, you'd likely associate more risk with doing something so inherently stupid and choose to retreat when they step outside.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld time, place, and manner restrictions of free speech rights, including noise and nuisance ordinances, such as individuals yelling in residential neighborhoods at 2:00 AM.

Just as the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not unlimited, so too are the rights in the Second Amendment not unlimited.

Those examples are examples of regulating HUMAN behavior, not free speech.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Freedom isnt free.
If it was, it would always be available.

Lots of free countries have fewer guns and lower homicide rates.

And they dont have the freedom to own badass weapons.
I would rather stay here.
Why dont you move there instead of trying to change my culture and shit on my constitution?

Awe so you need big weapons to feel like a man. Cute.

No, people need weapons to defend themselves from criminals, and a tyrannical government. Talking down to someone and mischaracterizing them is not an argument.

To believe the only reason one wants to have a weapon is to feel masculine is to believe that criminals will never threaten one, something that's clearly wrong, or that the state is an omnipotent entity capable of protecting everyone at all times

Defend against criminal attack, yes; ‘defend’ against ‘tyranny,’ no – the notion is as ridiculous as it is unfounded and wrong.

The Second Amendment right is an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘deter crime,’ and not to ‘defend against tyranny.’

So, what you're arguing is that there's no chance that a society would have to defend themselves against a monopoly on arbitration and violence, yet there are examples around the world of individuals having to do so, INCLUDING but not limited to the individuals who wrote the constitution in the first place.

You, therefor, believe that the government is the unquestionably moral, despite the fact that the individuals who run it are static, but for the most part only look out for themselves? Before you confirm this, please remember that you'd have to be agreeing that if your political opponents were in charge, they'd uphold this "unquestably moral" standard.

No, actually, it's "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.", meaning that the government should not be allowed to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, as well as form a militia to preserve a free state. As discussed early in this thread, "Well-Regulated" refers to being regular. It does not specify that our right ti keep and bear arms is an extent that has to be acceptable to the state YOU worship. We, the people, are allowed to defend ourselves, point-blank, period.

 

[OODA_Loop]

No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns; no one wants to ‘confiscate’ guns – including ‘liberals.’

I don't believe this for a second

 

[Pumpkin Row]

There are no “abolute rights” . All rights have limits .

Why because you say so?

Because the Supreme Court says so.

Or should I be able to scream threats outside your window at 2:00am?

The government doesn't determine what one's rights are, it merely uses force to infringe on them, or chooses to recognize them. The government determining that it's allowed to infringe on a right does not mean we do not have that right.

Yes, you should be able to scream threats outside someone's window at 2AM, however, you'd also be threatening an individual while standing on their property, meaning they can defend themselves. If the individual is armed, you'd likely associate more risk with doing something so inherently stupid and choose to retreat when they step outside.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld time, place, and manner restrictions of free speech rights, including noise and nuisance ordinances, such as individuals yelling in residential neighborhoods at 2:00 AM.

Just as the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not unlimited, so too are the rights in the Second Amendment not unlimited.

The supreme court and the government as a whole has done nothing but what is in their own best interest, it has upheld our rights as far as they can throw a bus.

I was not arguing my stance based on the views of your Church of the Omnipotent state, they've consistently infringed on our at their leisure, and our rights are not limited to what the government believes they should be. Our rights are granted to ourselves based on our ownership of ourselves, limited only by what we can do without cercionand force.

The government only forces us to abide by their rules because they are a monopoly on force and arbitration, not because they our gods, despite what you'd like to believe.