Shall not be infringed.

[M14 Shooter]

...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To the anti-gun loons and their useful idiot followers, this reads:

....the right to keep and bear arms shall be taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited – but it shall not be infringed.

Never mind that these same people scream at the top of their lungs that, when applied to any other other right, each of these things violate the constitition, including those rights not so protected.

 

[ClosedCaption]

VIDEO: The Daily Show on Fox News and a ?weak Constitution?

You guys are for dismantling all sorts of rights, just don't touch the 2nd one

 

[NYcarbineer]

The First Amendment says that freedom of the press shall not be abridged,

but no one in their right mind thinks that, for example, it's unconstitutional to outlaw child porn.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The First Amendment says that freedom of the press shall not be abridged,

but no one in their right mind thinks that, for example, it's unconstitutional to outlaw child porn.

Child porn is outlawed because it directly harms the child.
Please continue with your point.

 

[hazlnut]

...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

From the majority opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller:

(2) 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

That's the CONSERVATIVE Justice Scalia writing.

The language of the first amendment is even stronger "Shall make no law", yet we have made laws against free speech - libel, kiddy porn, incitement....

So we the laws banning assault weapons and gun free zones are all Constitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The First Amendment says that freedom of the press shall not be abridged,

but no one in their right mind thinks that, for example, it's unconstitutional to outlaw child porn.

Child porn is outlawed because it directly harms the child.
Please continue with your point.

That is not relevant to the wording of the First Amendment. There are no explicit exceptions in the 1st Amendment.

How is it possible to create an exception to the ban on 'abridgement' in the first amendment?

How is it possible to find something in the Constitution that isn't written there?

 

[WethePeopleUS]

All you people out there claiming that "background" checks are unconstitutional need to really examine just how fucked up you really are. We are not talking about the government telling you to turn in your guns, for because of the NRA that will NEVER happen. The government is NOT telling law-abiding citizens they cannot but guns. They are simply stating that people with prior convictions that deal with assault or weapon use, cannot but a firearm legally. What is so wrong about that?

And if you are going to argue, that background checks will not keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, so don't even bother trying them.. I ask you, just because one law doesn't work, should we abandon all laws on the subject?

This is your argument:
Background checks for firearms do not work in preventing gun-related crimes, so do not bother passing any legislation.

Lets take your same logic and apply it to drugs.
Therefore, your argument would be:

Drug laws have failed to prevent the drug use in America, so don't even try enacting legislation to stop it.

DO you NOW see how flawed your argument is?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The First Amendment says that freedom of the press shall not be abridged,

but no one in their right mind thinks that, for example, it's unconstitutional to outlaw child porn.

Child porn is outlawed because it directly harms the child.
Please continue with your point.

That is not relevant to the wording of the First Amendment. There are no explicit exceptions in the 1st Amendment.

So you agree that, similarly, there are no constitutionally allowable exceptions for the 2nd. Thank you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The language of the first amendment is even stronger "Shall make no law", yet we have made laws against free speech - libel, kiddy porn, incitement....

Why do kiddie porn, slander and libel fall outside the protection of the 1st amendment?
Given your answer to that...
Why would simple ownership/posession of any sort of firearm fall outside the protection of the 2nd?

 

[WethePeopleUS]

The First Amendment says that freedom of the press shall not be abridged,

but no one in their right mind thinks that, for example, it's unconstitutional to outlaw child porn.

Child porn is outlawed because it directly harms the child.
Please continue with your point.

If you have some time, you should watch these..

 

[M14 Shooter]

All you people out there claiming that "background" checks are unconstitutional need to really examine just how fucked up you really are.

Yeah - prior restraint ain't nuthin' to get upset about.
Unless, of course, it is applied to some right other than that to keep and bear arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The First Amendment says that freedom of the press shall not be abridged,

but no one in their right mind thinks that, for example, it's unconstitutional to outlaw child porn.

Child porn is outlawed because it directly harms the child.
Please continue with your point.

If you have some time, you should watch these..

Your avoidance of the point here is noted.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

All you people out there claiming that "background" checks are unconstitutional need to really examine just how fucked up you really are.

Yeah - prior restraint ain't nuthin' tio get upset about.

Your picking the one insignificant line of my argument and talking about that it noted. Try reading the rest of this post..

 

[M14 Shooter]

All you people out there claiming that "background" checks are unconstitutional need to really examine just how fucked up you really are.

Yeah - prior restraint ain't nuthin' tio get upset about.

Your picking the one insignificant line of my argument and talking about that it noted.

Tell me how/why the 2nd amendment does not protect those that wish to legally exercise their rights under it from the form of prior restraint placed upon that exercise by background checks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Child porn is outlawed because it directly harms the child.
Please continue with your point.

That is not relevant to the wording of the First Amendment. There are no explicit exceptions in the 1st Amendment.

So you agree that, similarly, there are no constitutionally allowable exceptions for the 2nd. Thank you.

You just admitted that exceptions to the 1st amendment were acceptable.

Which means you've admitted that 2nd amendment exceptions are acceptable.

 

[bripat9643]

VIDEO: The Daily Show on Fox News and a ?weak Constitution?

You guys are for dismantling all sorts of rights, just don't touch the 2nd one

Really? Which ones do we want to dismantle?

 

[NYcarbineer]

...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The language of the first amendment is even stronger "Shall make no law", yet we have made laws against free speech - libel, kiddy porn, incitement....

Why do kiddie porn, slander and libel fall outside the protection of the 1st amendment?
Given your answer to that...
Why would simple ownership/posession of any sort of firearm fall outside the protection of the 2nd?

Because for example felons by their actions have disqualified themselves under the law. Because allowing a 10 year old to take a loaded handgun to school is considered dangerous.
Because the insane are considered too high a risk to do harm if allowed guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is not relevant to the wording of the First Amendment. There are no explicit exceptions in the 1st Amendment.

So you agree that, similarly, there are no constitutionally allowable exceptions for the 2nd. Thank you.

You just admitted that exceptions to the 1st amendment were acceptable.
Which means you've admitted that 2nd amendment exceptions are acceptable.

And so we go back to my question:
Why does the 1st amendment not protect kiddie porn?

The answer:
Rights may be constitutionally restricted when the exercise in question causes harm or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger; kiddie porn harms the child and so falls outside the protection of the 2nd.

How does simple ownership/posseesiomn of a firearm cause harm?
How does simple ownership/possession of a firearm places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

If you can soundly asnwer these questions, then you'll show how restrictions on simple ownership/possession of fiirerarms are constitutionally acceptable.
If not, you cannot show any such thing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To the anti-gun loons and their useful idiot followers, this reads:

....the right to keep and bear arms shall be taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited – but it shall not be infringed.

Never mind that these same people scream at the top of their lungs that, when applied to any other other right, each of these things violate the constitition, including those rights not so protected.

As with all other rights, Second Amendment rights are not absolute, and subject to appropriate restrictions:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.

DC v. Heller (2008)

“…or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Such as license requirements, registration requirements, permit requirements, background checks, and waiting periods – all of which have been upheld as Constitutional in state and Federal courts.

Consequently your position that these and other measures constitute an ‘infringement’ on Second Amendment rights is both ignorant and incorrect.

"dunno" indeed.

 

[JimH52]

...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

From the majority opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller:

(2) 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

That's the CONSERVATIVE Justice Scalia writing.

The language of the first amendment is even stronger "Shall make no law", yet we have made laws against free speech - libel, kiddy porn, incitement....

So we the laws banning assault weapons and gun free zones are all Constitutional.

It looks like the court is legitimizing gun restrictions. Of course the gun nuts will swear that the "Guvment is trying to take our guns away!"