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.

You're whining without direction.

The complete lack of substance in your response indicates you know you aren't able to so respond.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Never practice law.
You seriously show a lack of understanding of how it works.

I note the complete absence of a rerspone that illustrates exactly how I am wrong.
I therefore accept your concession of the points I made.

You are contradicting yourself in the very same post.

The Constitution, by the way, makes no provisions regarding pornography or murder.

It neither prohibits nor advocates for either.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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



“…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.

Yours is the typically dishionest, incorrect and self-serving interpretation of this clause.

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.

Says the OP who started this thread with a lie of omission by printing a third of the second amendment.

There are 2 other parts to it. The notion of defense of the state. And the notion of militias.

As noted before, your statement does nothing to address, much less negate, my point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's not the whole amendment.

Your statement does nothing to address, much less negate, my poimt.

Of course it does.

It is imposible for you to show how your statement addresses my point in a meaningful way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Never practice law.
You seriously show a lack of understanding of how it works.

I note the complete absence of a rerspone that illustrates exactly how I am wrong.
I therefore accept your concession of the points I made.

You are contradicting yourself in the very same post.

It is impossible for you to show this to be true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're whining without direction.

The complete lack of substance in your response indicates you know you aren't able to so respond.

Don't you have some old beer bottles to go shoot up? Fuck stop whining and go do the redneck trailer park shit you enjoy.

Further proof that anti-gun loons cannot present an argument not rooted in emotion, ibnorace and/or dishonesty.

 

[Yurt]

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.

what does child porn have to do with freedom of the press?

 

[Sallow]

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.

Further proof tha anti-gun loons cannot present an argument not based in emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Well no.

You guys show little or no understanding of the Constitution or the law in general. You engage in false logicals and use edited versions of the second amendment to make your case. Which falls apart pretty quickly.

 

[Yurt]

sallow:

your arguments with M14 are horrible. he made good points about the law and all you could do was proclaim he was wrong. you can't rationally discuss the issue without getting emotive. he brought up a good point about child porn harming others, where does the second amendment harm anyone?

 

[Sallow]

I note the complete absence of a rerspone that illustrates exactly how I am wrong.
I therefore accept your concession of the points I made.

You are contradicting yourself in the very same post.

It is impossible for you to show this to be true.

Check several posts up.

Not impossible at all.

 

[bripat9643]

“…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.

Actually, more often then not..that's not the case.

But what the heck does that have to do with the second amendment?

I just explained the reason the owner of a building can prevent you from bringing guns into it. Even a 5-year-old should be able to get it.

 

[Sallow]

sallow:

your arguments with M14 are horrible. he made good points about the law and all you could do was proclaim he was wrong. you can't rationally discuss the issue without getting emotive. he brought up a good point about child porn harming others, where does the second amendment harm anyone?

Nothing being "emotional" in the slightest.

But here's the pepsi challenge.

Find the clauses, amendments, words or anything in the Constitution that deal with murder, libel, pornography, sex, slander, or a myriad of other "good points" brought up by this poster.

What his main focus seems to be is that one of the amendment should be exclusionary to case law and congressional oversight while the others don't have the same sort of protection.

That's patently ridiculous. Even more so given that the original intent of the second amendment has been corrupted by case law and gun lobbyists.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Actually, more often then not..that's not the case.

But what the heck does that have to do with the second amendment?

I just explained the reason the owner of a building can prevent you from bringing guns into it. Even a 5-year-old should be able to get it.

Okay..good point. But there are limits to that as well. For instance, law enforcement.

 

[Yurt]

sallow:

your arguments with M14 are horrible. he made good points about the law and all you could do was proclaim he was wrong. you can't rationally discuss the issue without getting emotive. he brought up a good point about child porn harming others, where does the second amendment harm anyone?

Nothing being "emotional" in the slightest.

But here's the pepsi challenge.

Find the clauses, amendments, words or anything in the Constitution that deal with murder, libel, pornography, sex, slander, or a myriad of other "good points" brought up by this poster.

What his main focus seems to be is that one of the amendment should be exclusionary to case law and congressional oversight while the others don't have the same sort of protection.

That's patently ridiculous. Even more so given that the original intent of the second amendment has been corrupted by case law and gun lobbyists.

you're being emotive by simply tossing his argument without a rational response. the above is a decent response.

i don't agree with his argument that the 2nd is unlimited, neither does scotus. his argument about illegal porn etc makes perfect sense in light of the rights of all americans. the second amendment does not harm others, it does not allow you to murder someone for example. whereas if one takes the 1st to be unlimited, they will and have used it as an excuse to engage in child porn. thankfully scotus shot that down as it endangers others and infringes on their rights to be free from harm.

an unlimited view of the second amendment would not harm anyone. that is the difference and i'm pretty sure that is his argument. can you counter that?

 

[velvtacheeze]

...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.

There is no federal ban on machineguns.

What is there , then? You can't buy an automatic , can't possess one, can't buy a bazooka either. These are all infringements. Good ones too. Saves lives. We need more.

 

[Sallow]

sallow:

your arguments with M14 are horrible. he made good points about the law and all you could do was proclaim he was wrong. you can't rationally discuss the issue without getting emotive. he brought up a good point about child porn harming others, where does the second amendment harm anyone?

Nothing being "emotional" in the slightest.

But here's the pepsi challenge.

Find the clauses, amendments, words or anything in the Constitution that deal with murder, libel, pornography, sex, slander, or a myriad of other "good points" brought up by this poster.

What his main focus seems to be is that one of the amendment should be exclusionary to case law and congressional oversight while the others don't have the same sort of protection.

That's patently ridiculous. Even more so given that the original intent of the second amendment has been corrupted by case law and gun lobbyists.

you're being emotive by simply tossing his argument without a rational response. the above is a decent response.

i don't agree with his argument that the 2nd is unlimited, neither does scotus. his argument about illegal porn etc makes perfect sense in light of the rights of all americans. the second amendment does not harm others, it does not allow you to murder someone for example. whereas if one takes the 1st to be unlimited, they will and have used it as an excuse to engage in child porn. thankfully scotus shot that down as it endangers others and infringes on their rights to be free from harm.

an unlimited view of the second amendment would not harm anyone. that is the difference and i'm pretty sure that is his argument. can you counter that?

Well, you've totally failed to back up your point and threw up that emotionalism crapola again.

That's fine. Your point was weak. As the backtracking so "skillfully" shows.

 

[regent]

Have all the of the Bill of Rights now been modified by laws or court decisions?

 

[Sallow]

Have all the of the Bill of Rights now been modified by laws or court decisions?

It's pretty safe to say..that yes..they have.

 

[Yurt]

Nothing being "emotional" in the slightest.

But here's the pepsi challenge.

Find the clauses, amendments, words or anything in the Constitution that deal with murder, libel, pornography, sex, slander, or a myriad of other "good points" brought up by this poster.

What his main focus seems to be is that one of the amendment should be exclusionary to case law and congressional oversight while the others don't have the same sort of protection.

That's patently ridiculous. Even more so given that the original intent of the second amendment has been corrupted by case law and gun lobbyists.

you're being emotive by simply tossing his argument without a rational response. the above is a decent response.

i don't agree with his argument that the 2nd is unlimited, neither does scotus. his argument about illegal porn etc makes perfect sense in light of the rights of all americans. the second amendment does not harm others, it does not allow you to murder someone for example. whereas if one takes the 1st to be unlimited, they will and have used it as an excuse to engage in child porn. thankfully scotus shot that down as it endangers others and infringes on their rights to be free from harm.

an unlimited view of the second amendment would not harm anyone. that is the difference and i'm pretty sure that is his argument. can you counter that?

Well, you've totally failed to back up your point and threw up that emotionalism crapola again.

That's fine. Your point was weak. As the backtracking so "skillfully" shows.

let's see, my post consisted of logic, points, whereas yours was an emotive immature outburst without a single supporting point.

i'm right, you're wrong might have worked in 5th grade sallow, perhaps that is where you belong.

you can't even answer a simple question or discuss the unlimited effects of the 2nd vs. the 1st. you're an immature simpleton who should just stay out of this debate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Since your premise is absolutely false, we cannot proceed until you acknowledge that it is false.