Shall not be infringed.

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

 

[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.

Explain that to the idiot who started this thread.

Yes, but it was you who made the comparison..

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Do you have case law you can post that reflects the validity of your claim?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Very much so, as you do not in any way address the argument put in front you, you simply attack the poster. That's dishonesty and ignorance.

Fact is you cannot meaninggully address the argument laid out in the OP, and you know it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Please quote the supposed contradiction and prove that it is a contradiction.
Else, you're simply proving my statement, above.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Fail. No such claim was ever made, and as such you're offering nothing but straw.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You can. Legally, under federal law. These items are NOT banned.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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....

As the desert said to the grain of sand.
You also have as of yet not even tried to meaningfully address the OP in any way shape or form.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

The bolded text is -absolutely- true; you're simply avoiding the point.

So, I ask agin:
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?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Much like your counterpoint to the argument in the OP.

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.

Neither of which can you show are relevant to the argument in the OP.

Your response to the OP is therefore devoid of substance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Except, of course, that children do not have the right to keep and bear arms, so laws limiting or prevent poseesion by children do not violate the 2nd.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

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.

The bolded text is -absolutely- true; you're simply avoiding the point.

So, I ask agin:
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?

Are you so blind that you can't see that felons, and the mentally-ill are a clear and present danger. And yet, you have no problem with them buying guns legally. What a hack

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

More proof that the anti-gun loons cannot prenet an argument that's not based in emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[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.

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

You cannot cite a decison by the SCotUS that states any such thing.

You also cannot conceptualy explain how background checks, where the exercise of a right is denied until the state determines that said exercise does not violate the law, are NOT a form of prior restraint.

And so, your response inno way diminishes mine.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 means you''re not just wrong, you are -deliberately- wrong.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

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.

Except, of course, that children do not have the right to keep and bear arms, so laws limiting or prevent poseesion by children do not violate the 2nd.

Well children are citizens, and based on your argument, every citizen has the right to bear arms. So how, based on your argument, is that not a violation of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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,

False premise.
Your response thusly fails, in toto.
Excellet work.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Except that the 2nd has been incorporated against actions by the states by the 14th amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your inability to provide a reasoned response to the argument laid out in the OP is noted.

 

[nitroz]

Expanded background checks was supported by the majority of Americans.

Now see how it's coming around to bite the republicans in congress right on the ass?
It's not infringing your right.