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.
Nope - prior restraint - where he the exercise of a right is denied until the state determines that the exercise in question does not violate the law - is the correct term.‘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.Yeah - prior restraint ain't nuthin' to get upset about.All you people out there claiming that "background" checks are unconstitutional need to really examine just how fucked up you really are.
Unless, of course, it is applied to some right other than that to keep and bear arms.
Please cite the SCotUS ruling that states this.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.
Incorrect. Due process can remove any right.It would in all likelihood be unconstitutional for example, to deny a felon or an insane person free speech or free press rights.
Emotion, ignorance and dishoesty. Thank you.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 hackThe bolded text is -absolutely- true; you're simply avoiding the point.Since your premise is absolutely false, we cannot proceed until you acknowledge that it is false.
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?
Emotion ignorance and dishonesty. Keep up the good work.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?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.An unlimited view of the 2nd amendment would allow children to buy and possess guns.
fallacy: Appeal to popularityExpanded background checks was supported by the majority of Americans.
Background check are a form of prior restraint.Now see how it's coming around to bite the republicans in congress right on the ass?
It's not infringing your right.
Emotion, ignorance and dishoesty. Thank you.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 hackThe 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?
These terms describe your response, not you.Ahhh so you result to name-calling.Emotion, ignorance and dishoesty. Thank you.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
Ignorance, dishonestyAre you so blind that you can't see that felons, and the mentally-ill are a clear and present danger
Ignorance, dishonestyAnd yet, you have no problem with them buying guns legally
EmotionWhat a hack
Emotion ignorance and dishonesty. Keep up the good work.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?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.
It's not my fault that it effectively describes your post.That's one of the most well thought out answers I have ever read!!Emotion ignorance and dishonesty. Keep up the good work.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?
Ignorance, dishonestyWell children are citizens, every citizen has the right to bear arms
Ignorance, dishonestySo how, based on your argument, is that not a violation of the 2nd Amendment?
These terms describe your response, not you.Ahhh so you result to name-calling.Emotion, ignorance and dishoesty. Thank you.
To wit:
Ignorance, dishonesty
The statement I made doesn't refer to these poeple, but the law abiding. You either didnt recogniize this (ignorance) or ignored it (dishonesty).
Ignorance, dishonestyAnd yet, you have no problem with them buying guns legally
Nothing I have said even remotely resembes this statement.
EmotionWhat a hack
Personal attack
You stand corrected.
Incorrect.If your premise is that background checks are unconstitutional, and infringe on our rights, then you most certainly are not talking about law-abiding citizens, because it shouldn't effect them in any way.These terms describe your response, not you.Ahhh so you result to name-calling.
To wit:
Ignorance, dishonesty
The statement I made doesn't refer to these poeple, but the law abiding. You either didnt recogniize this (ignorance) or ignored it (dishonesty).
Ignorance, dishonesty
Nothing I have said even remotely resembes this statement.
EmotionWhat a hack
Personal attack
You stand corrected.
Non-sequitur.However, you are arguing against background checks, which will effect those unlawful/handicap citizens. So, like I said, you have no problem with criminals and the mentally-ill purchasing firearms legally.
If you do not understand the legal, historical and conceptual difference bwteen "the people" and the citizenry in general, your ignorance indicates cannot have a meaningful conversation on this issue.And just who are the "people" if not the citizens...It's not my fault that it effectively describes your post.That's one of the most well thought out answers I have ever read!!
To wit:
Ignorance, dishonesty
The right of the PEOPLE, not the citizens. You either do not recognize the difference (ignorance) or do and ignore it (dishonesty)
Ignorance, dishonestySo how, based on your argument, is that not a violation of the 2nd Amendment?
This question was answered in the post you responded to. You eiother failed to recognize this (ignorance) or ignored it (dishonesty).
You stand corrected.
Were you being serious when you wrote this, or joking?
If you do not understand the legal, historical and conceptual difference bwteen "the people" and the citizenry in general, your ignorance indicates cannot have a meaningful conversation on this issue.And just who are the "people" if not the citizens...It's not my fault that it effectively describes your post.
To wit:
Ignorance, dishonesty
The right of the PEOPLE, not the citizens. You either do not recognize the difference (ignorance) or do and ignore it (dishonesty)
Ignorance, dishonesty
This question was answered in the post you responded to. You eiother failed to recognize this (ignorance) or ignored it (dishonesty).
You stand corrected.
Were you being serious when you wrote this, or joking?
If you DO understand the difference andf simple ignore it, your dishonesty indicates you cannot have a meaningful conversation on this issue.
Put simply, not every citizen carries or possesses the full rights of "the people".
...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.
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.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.An unlimited view of the 2nd amendment would allow children to buy and possess guns.
That requires an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that involves nothing actually said in the 2nd amendment. There is no age limit designated in the 2nd amendment.
fallacy: Appeal to popularityExpanded background checks was supported by the majority of Americans.
Background check are a form of prior restraint.Now see how it's coming around to bite the republicans in congress right on the ass?
It's not infringing your right.
Prior restraint infringes on your rights.
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.
That requires an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that involves nothing actually said in the 2nd amendment. There is no age limit designated in the 2nd amendment.
What was the age a person was allowed to enter into militia service?
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.
That requires an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that involves nothing actually said in the 2nd amendment. There is no age limit designated in the 2nd amendment.
What was the age a person was allowed to enter into militia service?
