Shall not be infringed.

[regent]

All of our rights have restrictions and are infringed.
The laws thus far infringing our rights are in relation to the rights being infringed not to other rights.
The Court, while not given the power to interpret the laws and the Constitution in the constitution, has taken that power upon itself and it is now accepted as fact.
The president enforces the laws.
The constitution and laws of the United States are the supreme laws of the land.
The militia is now the National Guard.
More laws and interpretations regarding our rights will be coming as new problems arise; that is an ongoing process.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All of our rights have restrictions and are infringed.
The laws thus far infringing our rights are in relation to the rights being infringed not to other rights.
The Court, while not given the power to interpret the laws and the Constitution in the constitution, has taken that power upon itself and it is now accepted as fact.
The president enforces the laws.
The constitution and laws of the United States are the supreme laws of the land.
The militia is now the National Guard.
More laws and interpretations regarding our rights will be coming as new problems arise; that is an ongoing process.

I applaud you in your complete, utter and shameless failure to address the questions at hand.

 

[M14 Shooter]

STILL no one?
huh.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Personally I find it interesting that the writes of the Constitution used the words "shall not be infringed" only in the second amendment.

It seems that the right to bear arms was meant to be unequivocal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

STILL nothing.

Says all that needs be said, really.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

The best way to test whether a certain law or restriction on a right is warranted (for instance, child porn), is to determine which way a panel of Jurors would vote to convict or acquit the defendant in violation of said limitation.

I don't think you'll find a jury that would acquit someone for child porn.

Of course, this assumes that the Jury is fully informed of their right to judge both the law and facts (jury nullification), as the Founding Fathers assumed (this is one of the few things the founding fathers ALL agreed upon).

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by
man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

"It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges
are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves
to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this
power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the
exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of
English liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnond, 1789.

"If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point
of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may
be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and
fact." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

 

[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.

The best way to test whether a certain law or restriction on a right is warranted (for instance, child porn), is to determine which way a panel of Jurors would vote to convict or acquit the defendant in violation of said limitation.

The best way is to determine this is if the exercise in question wrongfully harms another or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - this test is the primary determiner of what forms/exercises of speech are protecte dby the 1snt and what forms are not.

If said exercise does cause harm/creates that constition, then it falls outside the right in question and may therefore be restricted w/o running afoul of the protections afforded to the right by the constitution.

If said exercise does NOT bring harm/create that condition, then any restriction plces on that exercise violates the protections afforded by the constitution.

Note specifically that simple possession/ownership of -any- sort of firearm harms no one and places no one in said condition.