CDZ Second Amendment Rights Must be Complete and Uncondional!

[Mikeoxenormous]

Again... Inalienable rights are not unconditional. If you are a felon you give up your rights.

Not if it's an inalienable right.

adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
   
   
   

If you infringe on another persons rights, then you lose your right..Simple, the founding fathers were geniuses....

 

[meaner gene]

Do I have a Constitutional right not to get shot by your gun?

A criminal matter. Laws outline penalties for such behavior.

The misbehavior of one does not cancel the rights of others.

Actually under the theory of "when you infringe upon the rights of another" it certainly can be.

The government has a responsibility to protect a right, when if infringed upon can't be repaid by reparations.

So protecting somebody from being shot dead, can be the basis for a restriction, until such time as we learn how to raise Lazarus from the dead.

 

[meaner gene]

Guns are in a different category. Those you site are short range weapons. A confrontation has to be personal. With guns, a person can exercise their force at great distances, against a great number of people.

making shit up doesnt prove anything,,,

O.K. since you aren't a great thinker, let me quote your reading material.

With great power, comes great responsibility.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Do I have a Constitutional right not to get shot by your gun?

A criminal matter. Laws outline penalties for such behavior.

The misbehavior of one does not cancel the rights of others.

Actually under the theory of "when you infringe upon the rights of another" it certainly can be.

The government has a responsibility to protect a right, when if infringed upon can't be repaid by reparations.

So protecting somebody from being shot dead, can be the basis for a restriction, until such time as we learn how to raise Lazarus from the dead.

But when it takes minutes when seconds count for the government to show up and keep you from being shot dead, then you need to resort to the old faithful, eye for an eye, do unto others as they are going to unto you. Come at me with the intent to do bodily harm, i will have no problem sending you to Lucifer. That simple.

 

[meaner gene]

thats a law not a right,, they lied to you and you believed them,,

Is that like the voting rights act. A law, that's not in the constitution.

 

[meaner gene]

It is the way of the progressive to put the restrictions to rally, why is that?

As was already posted. It's an infringement against other members of the population who are then not able to use that public space.

 

[meaner gene]

If you infringe on another persons rights, then you lose your right..Simple, the founding fathers were geniuses....

Except the constitution doesn't say that. In fact they supported taking away other peoples rights without penalty. It was called supporting slavery.

Slave owners did not suffer any loss, even after denying another the right to life or liberty.

 

[meaner gene]

But when it takes minutes when seconds count for the government to show up and keep you from being shot dead, then you need to resort to the old faithful, eye for an eye, do unto others as they are going to unto you. Come at me with the intent to do bodily harm, i will have no problem sending you to Lucifer. That simple.

Or the government can place restrictions such that you would not be subject to being shot.

To take it to the absurd. If you eliminate all guns, nobody has to worry about getting shot. Prevention instead of retribution.

 

[Blues Man]

After IDGAF

Selfish.

How can i be selfish after I'm dead?

 

[miketx]

The Second Amendment also says well regulated, which mean reasonable restrictions are allowed, which even Justice Scalia acknowledged in the decision of Heller v D.C. The ongoing issue is what is considered to be reasonable.

That's a lie. Well regulated at the time meant in good working order. Look it up and stop embarrassing yourself further.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Opinions?

You’re comprehensively ignorant and wrong on the subject.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[meaner gene]

The Second Amendment also says well regulated, which mean reasonable restrictions are allowed, which even Justice Scalia acknowledged in the decision of Heller v D.C. The ongoing issue is what is considered to be reasonable.

That's a lie. Well regulated at the time meant in good working order. Look it up and stop embarrassing yourself further.

You suffer from ignoring your own words. Well regulated meant in good working order, you said.

Now apply that to a "well regulated militia". A force that had to be kept in good working order, ie trained, armed and subjected to controlling rules and regulations.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Felons forfeit their rights to own guns--or even possess them when they commit the crime.

Yes, we know that, but the law can't be applied when there are no background checks in place. And so all the convicted gun murderer must do is keep a straight face when he buys his gun.

Did you have something in mind that could stop the murderer from getting his gun, or indeed a truckload of AR-15's?

I can think of dozens of ways but they would all be infringements on 2nd. amendment rights.

Wrong.

Government may enact all manner of firearm regulatory measures provided those measures are consistent with Second Amendment case law – such as background checks.

There is no ‘infringement’ when government follows the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the premise of this thread is that the 2nd. amendment isn't conditional or limited.

The premise of the thread is as ridiculous as it is wrong, and completely devoid of merit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What possible gun laws can be enacted?

Those which the courts have ruled to be in accordance with the Second Amendment – such as UBCs and magazine capacity restriction.

 

[miketx]

The Second Amendment also says well regulated, which mean reasonable restrictions are allowed, which even Justice Scalia acknowledged in the decision of Heller v D.C. The ongoing issue is what is considered to be reasonable.

That's a lie. Well regulated at the time meant in good working order. Look it up and stop embarrassing yourself further.

You suffer from ignoring your own words. Well regulated meant in good working order, you said.

Now apply that to a "well regulated militia". A force that had to be kept in good working order, ie trained, armed and subjected to controlling rules and regulations.

No such bs regulations existed in the 18th century. Stop lying.

 

[meaner gene]

Government may enact all manner of firearm regulatory measures provided those measures are consistent with Second Amendment case law – such as background checks.

There is no ‘infringement’ when government follows the Constitution.

Case law is what sets the boundaries on, and limits "compelling government interest".

Whether a restriction has a good enough reason to support it's implementation. Or is it reaching and over-expansive, where that interest could be met by less restrictive methods.

It's a balancing act between the benefits the government gives to the people, and what the government takes away from the people.

 

[miketx]

What possible gun laws can be enacted?

Those which the courts have ruled to be in accordance with the Second Amendment – such as UBCs and magazine capacity restriction.

Lol, you lose! At the time of the writing no such thing existed. Lmao! Fail.

 

[meaner gene]

Now apply that to a "well regulated militia". A force that had to be kept in good working order, ie trained, armed and subjected to controlling rules and regulations.

No such bs regulations existed in the 18th century. Stop lying.

Massachusetts had such laws pre-revolutionary war.

 

[meaner gene]

Those which the courts have ruled to be in accordance with the Second Amendment – such as UBCs and magazine capacity restriction.

Lol, you lose! At the time of the writing no such thing existed. Lmao! Fail.

Then you have run into a logic wall. At the time of the constitutions writing, the AR-15 did not exist either.