Trump calls for nationwide concealed carry

[jon_berzerk]

obviously you do

or you wouldnt be making such asinine comparisons

Where is the child pornography exception enumerated?

Where is the no yelling fire in a crowded theatre exception enumerated?

once again you revert to the exploitation of children as being constitutional

obviously it is not

your lame attempt to compare exploiting children with firearm rights

is asinine at best

morally bankrupt at worst

your choice slime bag

Why can't you yell fire in a crowded theater and claim a 1st Amendment right to do so?

you can

if there is a fire retard

thanks for dropping your asinine remarks of the constitutionality of exploiting of children slick

Guess you can cry gun when the theater is turned into a shooting hominids in a barrel gallery.

what kind of post was that newbie freakster

 

[Fenton Lum]

Where is the child pornography exception enumerated?

Where is the no yelling fire in a crowded theatre exception enumerated?

once again you revert to the exploitation of children as being constitutional

obviously it is not

your lame attempt to compare exploiting children with firearm rights

is asinine at best

morally bankrupt at worst

your choice slime bag

Why can't you yell fire in a crowded theater and claim a 1st Amendment right to do so?

you can

if there is a fire retard

thanks for dropping your asinine remarks of the constitutionality of exploiting of children slick

Guess you can cry gun when the theater is turned into a shooting hominids in a barrel gallery.

what kind of post was that newbie freakster

Pretty much all the "discussion" warranted intellectually. [Insert your own insult and name calling here].

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Supreme Court has the right to interpret the Constitution. You're insane.

The Supreme Court does not have the authority to “interpret” the Constitution to mean other than what it clearly says. When the court does that, as it much too often does, it is guilty of gross malfeasance.

 

[jon_berzerk]

once again you revert to the exploitation of children as being constitutional

obviously it is not

your lame attempt to compare exploiting children with firearm rights

is asinine at best

morally bankrupt at worst

your choice slime bag

Why can't you yell fire in a crowded theater and claim a 1st Amendment right to do so?

you can

if there is a fire retard

thanks for dropping your asinine remarks of the constitutionality of exploiting of children slick

Guess you can cry gun when the theater is turned into a shooting hominids in a barrel gallery.

what kind of post was that newbie freakster

Pretty much all the "discussion" warranted intellectually. [Insert your own insult and name calling here].

yeah whatever freakster --LOL

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The right to regulate gun ownership within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, as determined by the Court, is a state's right.

There is no such “right”. The people have a right to keep and bear arms. This right belongs to us, and not to the government. The Second Amendment explicitly forbids government from infringing this right. Period.

When any part of government, state or federal, acts against this right, it is acting illegally, in violation of the Constitution.

You've never heard of the 10th Amendment?

The Tenth Amendment speaks of powers reserved to the federal government, to the states, and to the people.

The Second Amendment is absolutely clear about to whom the right to keep and bear arms belongs. It does not speak of any power of the state, nor of the federal government, but of a right of the people.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Does freedom of the press in the 1st Amendment mean that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional?

Obviously, any right may end where it clearly violates some other right.

Child pornography involves sexually abusing and exploiting children. Only a depraved liberal would even think of suggesting that the First Amendment extends to protecting any “right” to engage in such abuse and exploitation. But then, such is the character of modern liberals. You are, after all, the same bunch that now wants to let male perverts into women's restrooms and locker rooms.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

While truthful the Framers were wary of a standing army, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is way off. It's not a militia right or a state's right. It's an individual right as defined by DC vs. Heller.

No, it is not defined by DC vs. Heller. It is defined by the use of the phrase “the right of the people”, as written in the Second Amendment. It is the Constitution itself that is the authority, and not any court's “interpretation” thereof.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

For instance - why does the "insane" lose their Constitutional rights? A felon, sure, because they actively chose to break the law so they forfeit their rights. But that's not the case for the "insane".

There is a long history, in tyrannical regimes, of defining “mentally ill” to include political dissidents. The Союз Советских Социалистических Республик was particularly notorious for this sort of abuse.

Wasn't it Senator Feinswine who suggested, recently, that war veterans ought to automatically be considered mentally-ill, and denied their Second Amendment rights? War veterans, of course, tend to be overwhelmingly patriotic, and conservative,and most opposed to the sort of extreme wrong-wing agenda pushed by corrupt scumbags like Ms. Feinswine; so it's not difficult at all to grasp why she would want to oppress that particular group.

We've seen efforts in our own country, and I'm pretty sure I've seen the arguments made on this very forum, trying to define religious faith and belief as mental illness.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I said 'within the confines of the 2nd Amendment' the states have the right to regulate gun ownership.

And you're wrong for so saying. Every time you say it, you're wrong.

Where, in “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”, do you find the authority for the state to infringe that right?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Then freedom of the press is absolute which means child pornography is protected. Eh?

Not any more that the right to keep and bear arms includes a “right” to carelessly or willfully discharge or otherwise misuse those arms in a manner that unjustifiably harms or endangers others.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

why do you think exploiting minors would be constitutional

You're asking that of someone who probably believes that creepy male perverts, who claim to “identify as female”, should be allowed in girl's locker rooms.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Does freedom of the press in the 1st Amendment mean that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional?

Obviously,any right may end where it clearly violates some other right.

Child pornography involves sexually abusing and exploiting children. Only a depraved liberal would even think of suggesting that the First Amendment extends to protecting any “right” to engage in such abuse and exploitation. But then, such is the character of modern liberals. You are, after all, the same bunch that now wants to let male perverts into women's restrooms and locker rooms.

exactly

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It is a militia right.

The Second Amendment does not say anything about any “militia right”. It says “right of the people”.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In a nutshell, like all liberals, hangover is too lazy to take personal responsibility for his own security. He wants to outsource it to the government, and to do that, he wants the government to disarm everyone.

Like most cowardly liberal pussies, what he wants, rather than seeking to overcome his own weakness and cowardice, and raise himself up to the level of real men, is to drag others down to his level of weakness and cowardice.

 

[Little-Acorn]

IT'S PURPOSE WAS TO PROTECT OUR GOVERNMENT/NATION,

Not even close. The main (but not only) reason for the 2nd amendment, was to protect the people from tyrannical government.

The Framers had just gotten finished throwing off one tyrannical government, which had tried to take away the people's guns while imposing other big-govt measures.

So the Framers wrote a Constitution that restricted government to very limited roles... and added the 2nd amendment to deal with anyone who tried to violate those restrictions.

 

[P@triot]

And this is exactly why we need a national conceal carry right - 4 people brutally stabbed in a mass stabbing....

Two People Killed, Two Injured In Massachusetts Stabbing Spree

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And this is exactly why we need a national conceal carry right…

We already have it. We've had it as part of our highest law, since 1791.

We just need to get rid of the corrupt public servants, at all levels, who insist on blatantly violating this highest law.

 

[KGB]

While truthful the Framers were wary of a standing army, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is way off. It's not a militia right or a state's right. It's an individual right as defined by DC vs. Heller.

No, it is not defined by DC vs. Heller. It is defined by the use of the phrase “the right of the people”, as written in the Second Amendment. It is the Constitution itself that is the authority, and not any court's “interpretation” thereof.

I agree but the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution's meaning...

 

[Ridgerunner]

The four things I will be buried with...

Picture of my ex-wife...
Picture of my adult children and their families...
Picture of my last Dawg, Buster...
and my lifetime License to Carry...

 

[Rambunctious]