Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
...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.
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?
The right to due process (immigration), the right to equal protection (same-sex couples and marriage), the right to privacy (reproductive rights), but to name a few.
Indeed, weve even heard republican and conservative lawmakers advocate repealing the 14th Amendment as a way to deny the right to citizenship at birth.
Really? Which ones do we want to dismantle?
The right to due process (immigration), the right to equal protection (same-sex couples and marriage), the right to privacy (reproductive rights), but to name a few.
Indeed, we’ve even heard republican and conservative lawmakers advocate repealing the 14th Amendment as a way to deny the right to citizenship at birth.
Illegal immigrants do not deserve the right to due process, the deserve to be sent home. Equal protection? How can liberals preach of equality when their history contradicts their platform? Right to privacy? Getting an abortion is no private matter.
...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.
Really? Which ones do we want to dismantle?
The right to due process (immigration), the right to equal protection (same-sex couples and marriage), the right to privacy (reproductive rights), but to name a few.
Indeed, weve even heard republican and conservative lawmakers advocate repealing the 14th Amendment as a way to deny the right to citizenship at birth.
Illegal immigrants do not deserve the right to due process, the deserve to be sent home. Equal protection? How can liberals preach of equality when their history contradicts their platform? Right to privacy? Getting an abortion is no private matter.
And so we go back to my question:You just admitted that exceptions to the 1st amendment were acceptable.So you agree that, similarly, there are no constitutionally allowable exceptions for the 2nd. Thank you.
Which means you've admitted that 2nd amendment exceptions are acceptable.
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.
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.
...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.
That's not the whole amendment.
...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.
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.
They all constitute an infringement on the right to bear arms. The owner of a building is free to impose whatever rules it likes for admittance to the building. In the case of schools and court houses, the government is the owner, so it imposes the rules. Licensing requirements, background checks and waiting periods, on the other hand, do not involve government property. There is no legal justification for them.
Yours is the typically dishionest, incorrect and self-serving interpretation of this clause.As with all other rights, Second Amendment rights are not absolute, and subject to appropriate restrictions:...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.
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.
There is no federal ban on machineguns....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.
So the machine gun ban is unconstitutional? It certainly infringes.
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?
The right to due process (immigration), the right to equal protection (same-sex couples and marriage), the right to privacy (reproductive rights), but to name a few.
Indeed, weve even heard republican and conservative lawmakers advocate repealing the 14th Amendment as a way to deny the right to citizenship at birth.
Your statement does nothing to address, much less negate, my poimt....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.
That's not the whole amendment.
Yours is the typically dishionest, incorrect and self-serving interpretation of this clause.As with all other rights, Second Amendment rights are not absolute, and subject to appropriate restrictions:...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.
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.
The clause speaks of restrictions and qualifications for the commercial sale of arms, not the exercise of the right to possess/own - that is, regulations of interstate commerce such as requiring a licensed dealer for a transfer, only able to buy certain guns across state lines; requiring a lucensed dealer for interstate transfer of other guns, etc.
Nothing in Heller supports the idea that licensieng, registration, etc, are constitutionaly allowable; the ruling itself specifically states that such tings are not considered by the case in any way.
Further proof tha anti-gun loons cannot present an argument not based in emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.This thread dispels the notion that conservatives have any idea what's actually in the constitution. A document, that itself, is liberal for all intents and purposes.
They really should stop pinning any of their ridiculous notions to that document.
I note the complete absence of a rerspone that illustrates exactly how I am wrong.Never practice law.And so we go back to my question:You just admitted that exceptions to the 1st amendment were acceptable.
Which means you've admitted that 2nd amendment exceptions are acceptable.
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.
You seriously show a lack of understanding of how it works.
Your statement does nothing to address, much less negate, my poimt....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.
That's not the whole amendment.
