Shall not be infringed.

[Sallow]

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.

Logic, in this case, is to present an argument and backing it up with citations or fact.

You've done neither.

The OP presented an argument that the second amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well

Fact number one - That's a third of the amendment.
Fact number two - All other parts of the bill of rights have been "infringed" in one way or another by legislation or case law.

You interrupt that argument by stating my arguments are rooted in "emotionalism" and then fail to illustrate, how.

Additionally you fail to cite any clause or amendment in the Constitution that supports the OP's argument. And I even gave you the parameters the OP set up.

Thus..you are lacking in any substance here. And you further dilute any substance by continuing with the ridiculous insults.

Which, is fine in my book.

Because you wind up looking silly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

An unlimited view of the 2nd amendment would allow children to buy and possess guns.

 

[Yurt]

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.

Logic, in this case, is to present an argument and backing it up with citations or fact.

You've done neither.

The OP presented an argument that the second amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well

Fact number one - That's a third of the amendment.
Fact number two - All other parts of the bill of rights have been "infringed" in one way or another by legislation or case law.

You interrupt that argument by stating my arguments are rooted in "emotionalism" and then fail to illustrate, how.

Additionally you fail to cite any clause or amendment in the Constitution that supports the OP's argument. And I even gave you the parameters the OP set up.

Thus..you are lacking in any substance here. And you further dilute any substance by continuing with the ridiculous insults.

Which, is fine in my book.

Because you wind up looking silly.

holy crap dude. i cited scotus TWICE in defense of the argument. do you need the actual cases? i thought both cases were well known.

shall not be infringed.....what the fuck do you think that means? you're the one who has not presented a single argument. all you've done is whine and moan and bitch about the supposed lack of argument from someone else. you have yet to present one fact, one argument or anything other than your whiny opinion.

fact no. 1: scotus says you're wrong and that the clause is independent. so again, it is actually YOU who is not citing anything.

fact no. 2: only the second amendment says infringed. again, you're not citing facts or anything. you're making things up and trying to pass it off as coherent argument.

please try and actually come up with cites and something containing facts along with a coherent argument instead of just whining like a baby. thanks.

 

[Sallow]

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?

An unlimited view of the 2nd amendment would allow children to buy and possess guns.

If you go by the OPs interpretation of the amendment.

Which, a strict reading seems to disagree with..

But then again..it would also allow for private citizens owning nuclear weapons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

For the thousandth time, the prior restraint argument was attempted in a 2nd amendment case and rejected by the Court.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Logic, in this case, is to present an argument and backing it up with citations or fact.

You've done neither.

The OP presented an argument that the second amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well

Fact number one - That's a third of the amendment.
Fact number two - All other parts of the bill of rights have been "infringed" in one way or another by legislation or case law.

You interrupt that argument by stating my arguments are rooted in "emotionalism" and then fail to illustrate, how.

Additionally you fail to cite any clause or amendment in the Constitution that supports the OP's argument. And I even gave you the parameters the OP set up.

Thus..you are lacking in any substance here. And you further dilute any substance by continuing with the ridiculous insults.

Which, is fine in my book.

Because you wind up looking silly.

holy crap dude. i cited scotus TWICE in defense of the argument. do you need the actual cases? i thought both cases were well known.

shall not be infringed.....what the fuck do you think that means? you're the one who has not presented a single argument. all you've done is whine and moan and bitch about the supposed lack of argument from someone else. you have yet to present one fact, one argument or anything other than your whiny opinion.

fact no. 1: scotus says you're wrong and that the clause is independent. so again, it is actually YOU who is not citing anything.

fact no. 2: only the second amendment says infringed. again, you're not citing facts or anything. you're making things up and trying to pass it off as coherent argument.

please try and actually come up with cites and something containing facts along with a coherent argument instead of just whining like a baby. thanks.

Not making any thing up. I am arguing from a constitutional view point..which differs from Heller..which I find to be a reprehensible decision. And from the very people that argue for "State's" rights.

And even that decision, which is terrible in my book, argues the right is not without limits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me attempt to re-explain the child porn analogy.

1. the OP is making the argument that the 2nd amendment's ban on infringement is not open to interpretation, so,

2. that would mean that the 1st amendment's ban on abridging (of freedom of the press) is not open to interpretation, however,

3. in order to constitutionally ban child porn, the 'shall not be abridged' declaration HAS to open to interpretation, since there is obviously no specific reference to child porn, and,

4. since the OP acknowledges that outlawing child porn is in fact constitutional, he is acknowledging that the language of the 1st amendment is open to interpretation, and by extension,

5. he is conceding therefore that the 2nd amendment's language is open to interpretation, and thus,

6. all of the arguments that 'shall not be infringed' is a comprehensively inviolable absolute, as we are told repeatedly by the gunrights extremists

is pure nonsense.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

In my opinion, the II Amendment is not without limit. It never has been. The federal government is without lawful power to infringe on said right, but the same does not and has not held true for the respective states.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

You guys?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

which of your rights have been threatened?
Be specific. And choose your answer carefully.

 

[candycorn]

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Come back from La La land when you decide to stop splitting hairs.
Any person with more than two brain cells knows our rights are not absolute.

 

[thereisnospoon]

...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.

Correct..until you got to assault weapons. Reason: because there is no unambiguous definition of an assault weapon.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually, the 2nd Amendment is already limited. You cannot legally buy "nuclear weapons", bazookas, chain guns and the like. But what is not limited are assualt weapons and sidearms. Let's get it straight.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Three states have legalized pot for personal consumption and regulated sale.
As for the background checks, most states have them. In fact most states that do background checks are those that do the most extensive checks.
Here in NC, one cannot but a handgun or semi-auto long arm for two weeks until their background checks out. Fully automatic weapons are not available to non law enforcement.
The only background check that I would stipulate to is the closing of the so called "gun show loophole"..Not because I think the intrusive eyes of government should necessarily be involved, but to level the playing field between shows and regular retailers.
In all actuality, we could be smothered by all kinds of regulations. It won;t make a difference because criminals do not obey the law anyway.
This entire gun control thing is a political knee jerk reaction to a tragedy.
The reason for going after law abiding gun owners is because of political correctness. No way is a democrat White House going to address the REAL problem. That is mental illness of the multiple murderer.
Oh no. We can't touch that issue.
The problem is the way this country mistreats and misdiagnoses psychological illness. They prescribe mind altering narcotics to people who should be institutionalized. And when they refuse to take their meds, they become a time bomb.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

There are many exceptions to all of the amendments.
For example. The exclusionary laws which define 'unreasonable searches and seizures'.
Some states now allow for warrantless searches if in the opinion of a court, the police acted on 'good faith'. There is also the "in plain view" exception to 'unreasonable'.
Hypothetically....If a police officer is investigating a crime and let's say the person of interest has his trash can outside his home on collection day. The police cannot search that trash can without a warrant. However, if the contents of the trash can are in "plain view" and the officer sees a potential piece of evidence, he is permitted under "plain view" to search, but the scope of search is very limited.
Or, if a suspect is stopped for cause and in the officer's plain view through a window, drug paraphernalia is seen, he then can search the entire vehicle without a warrant.
In the 6th Amendment,we are guaranteed the right to "a speedy trial by a jury of our peers"..There are many exceptions to this rule. The speedy trial can be delayed by an inability of the court to empanel an impartial jury and a new venue must be selected. Or if a defendant is mentally or physically impaired and cannot assist in his or defense.
Such was the case in the shooting of Rep Giffords. A long delay ensued when the defendant was tested and examined to see if he was competent to stand trial.

 

[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.

Come back from La La land when you decide to stop splitting hairs.
Any person with more than two brain cells knows our rights are not absolute.

Explain that to the idiot who started this thread.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

‘Prior restraint’ applies to First Amendment jurisprudence, the phrase you’re searching for is ‘undue burden’ to the exercising of a right, in this case the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

And background checks clearly do not manifest an undue burden to exercising the right of the individual to own a firearm. Laws requiring a background check are rationally based, as the state has a legitimate reason to keep felons and the mentally ill from owning a gun, for example. The state can document abundant evidence as to why it’s desirable to keep firearms out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. And background checks contain only the information of those afforded due process, or are undocumented immigrants, or are otherwise fugitives from the law.

Attempting to make the case that background checks are ‘un-Constitutional’ is a failed argument.

A better argument with regard to an undue burden would be licensing, permit, and registration requirements. Yes, various courts have upheld these provisions as Constitutional, but the state has less in the way of supporting documentation that such measures actually stop gun violence or prevent crime. And although it’s a considerable stretch, one could try to make an undue burden argument where a potential gun buyer is required to go through a protracted process to obtain a license or permit absent any evidence of wrong-doing by the applicant, or where one is required to register a weapon again absent evidence that the gun owner might attempt to commit a crime.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's well established by the Courts that the 2nd amendment can be subjected to more rigorous limitation than can, for example, the 1st amendment.

It would in all likelihood be unconstitutional for example, to deny a felon or an insane person free speech or free press rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

You don't have a right to dicking marriage.