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.
Or maybe you could point out the clause in the BOR that forbids 'reasonable restriction'.Who knew that is time sensitive, like abortion?Are you a constitutional scholar? Your question is not an answer to my question. Which of the constitutionally enumerated rights is absolutely free of reasonable regulation?No, its unconstitutional, but such concepts are "beneath you".
Fascist.
How is a 3-6 month wait and a $1000 fee reasonable?
How about we apply that to abortions?
And where's my answer? Which of the constitutionally enumerated rights is not subject to reasonable regulation?
Again, one of you people needs to point out the "reasonable restrictions" clause in the BOR. That will answer your question.
Banning felons is a reasonable restriction, I think. Banning juveniles is a reasonable restriction, I think. There are probably lots more that I am not thinking of, and I'll bet you agree with some of the restrictions too.
"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton
Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'
So state laws forbidding felons from owning guns are unconstitutional?
As previously stated, felons lose rights upon conviction. It is part of the penalty for their crimes.
Post #170 was responded to by BILLY_KINETTA as funny. When one is lost for words and or lacks the ability and integrity to post a rebuttal is telling.
So....according to you guys...
It is a reasonable restriction on the First Amendment to require....
--anyone publishing anything anywhere in print or spoken form must undergo a license process before they can speak...to be sure they know the exact meanings and interpretations of libel and slander laws.....
--all citizens must get a license for each electronic device they have, from I-pads to personal computers.......because the government wants to make sure that they will not use those devices for computer crimes.......
--all computers and electronic devices must be registered with the local police department under the actual name of the user.......so that if that computer is used for a computer crime the police will be able to track down the user...or if the computer is stolen it can be returned to the user....
--no one needs more than one electronic device...since multpiple devices can only be used for the intent of setting up a criminal enterprise, private ownership of electronic devices will be limited to one.......per household....
--any transfer of an electronic device will require a background check...to ensure that the buyer is not a prohibited person.....and if the seller fails to get that background check all priveldges and access to electronic media will be forfeited.....
And the beauty of these rules......there is no fucking way the founders ever knew about computers...so according to you nut jobs they are not protected by the First Amendment.........
We do that for cars
You have no right to own or operate a vehicle off your own property.
"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton
Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'
So state laws forbidding felons from owning guns are unconstitutional?
As previously stated, felons lose rights upon conviction. It is part of the penalty for their crimes.
So you agree with Hillary Clinton when she said
"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
So....according to you guys...
It is a reasonable restriction on the First Amendment to require....
--anyone publishing anything anywhere in print or spoken form must undergo a license process before they can speak...to be sure they know the exact meanings and interpretations of libel and slander laws.....
--all citizens must get a license for each electronic device they have, from I-pads to personal computers.......because the government wants to make sure that they will not use those devices for computer crimes.......
--all computers and electronic devices must be registered with the local police department under the actual name of the user.......so that if that computer is used for a computer crime the police will be able to track down the user...or if the computer is stolen it can be returned to the user....
--no one needs more than one electronic device...since multpiple devices can only be used for the intent of setting up a criminal enterprise, private ownership of electronic devices will be limited to one.......per household....
--any transfer of an electronic device will require a background check...to ensure that the buyer is not a prohibited person.....and if the seller fails to get that background check all priveldges and access to electronic media will be forfeited.....
And the beauty of these rules......there is no fucking way the founders ever knew about computers...so according to you nut jobs they are not protected by the First Amendment.........
We do that for cars
You have no right to own or operate a vehicle off your own property.
I see. So we somehow lost the right to travel. If you are from Maine and want to go to Hawaii well you can only walk there. You are SOL.
.
"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton
Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'
What part of reasonable regulation don't YOU understand?
Show me the "reasonable regulation" clause in the Constitution.
There doesn't have to be one, since the Constitution and subsequent case law gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
Once in possession of that power, the Court had the prerogative to make judgments as to whether or not reasonable regulation could be applied to the exercise of rights.
No, Marbury v. Madison (1803) gave the court the power of judicial review, and granted the SCOTUS greater-than-equal power among the three branches of government. It was the SCOTUS granting power unto itself, not via the amendment process.
Case law is not a viable or legal substitute for that process.
If the court didn't have the power of judicial review, every state could pass as much gun control as it wanted.
You all seem to forget that we are living in post-Constitutional America.....
"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton
Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'
What part of reasonable regulation don't YOU understand?
Show me the "reasonable regulation" clause in the Constitution.
There doesn't have to be one, since the Constitution and subsequent case law gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
Once in possession of that power, the Court had the prerogative to make judgments as to whether or not reasonable regulation could be applied to the exercise of rights.
No, Marbury v. Madison (1803) gave the court the power of judicial review, and granted the SCOTUS greater-than-equal power among the three branches of government. It was the SCOTUS granting power unto itself, not via the amendment process.
Case law is not a viable or legal substitute for that process.
Umm, no.Constitutionally, the federal government may not create laws of limitation upon the right. Any regulation is a matter for the States.
What part of "the Second Amendment is not unlimited" do you not understand."If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton
Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'
Please indicate where that phrase appears within the amendment.
It doesn't have to. Your problem is you don't understand how the Constitution works.
Yes it does. The Bill of Rights is limiting by its nature. The limitations are clear and cannot be legally altered save by the amendment process..
So....according to you guys...
It is a reasonable restriction on the First Amendment to require....
--anyone publishing anything anywhere in print or spoken form must undergo a license process before they can speak...to be sure they know the exact meanings and interpretations of libel and slander laws.....
--all citizens must get a license for each electronic device they have, from I-pads to personal computers.......because the government wants to make sure that they will not use those devices for computer crimes.......
--all computers and electronic devices must be registered with the local police department under the actual name of the user.......so that if that computer is used for a computer crime the police will be able to track down the user...or if the computer is stolen it can be returned to the user....
--no one needs more than one electronic device...since multpiple devices can only be used for the intent of setting up a criminal enterprise, private ownership of electronic devices will be limited to one.......per household....
--any transfer of an electronic device will require a background check...to ensure that the buyer is not a prohibited person.....and if the seller fails to get that background check all priveldges and access to electronic media will be forfeited.....
And the beauty of these rules......there is no fucking way the founders ever knew about computers...so according to you nut jobs they are not protected by the First Amendment.........
We do that for cars
You have no right to own or operate a vehicle off your own property.
I see. So we somehow lost the right to travel. If you are from Maine and want to go to Hawaii well you can only walk there. You are SOL.
.
You are free to get a plane ticket.
I don't think one can drive to Hawaii.
Clinton is correct, consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence:"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton
Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'
Clinton is correct, consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence:"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton
Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'
"Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
And you and other conservatives are wrong if you believe that government has no authority to place reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment right.
Have you noticed that when liberal fanatics can't find justification for their illegal schemes, they look not to the Constitution, but to the courts? Despite the fact that the Constitution states its regulation in the 2nd amendment clearly and simply?Clinton is correct, consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence
Wrong."If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
Our courts agree with her .....even the Heller decision written by Scalia
There is a big big difference to what Scalia thought was reasonable and what the typical Libtard Moon Bat thinks is reasonable.
You can't ever trust the stupid Moon Bats with a definition of reasonable because they are dumbass unreasonable dickheads.
I can give several recent examples of their unreasonableness if you are confused about this point.
This statement has been debunked literally dozens of time in this forum alone. Since Hillary probably isn't a reader of this forum, we'll need to re-debunk it yet again.So you agree with Hillary Clinton when she said
"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
Big Government Authoritarians, both Democrat and Republican, just don't get it. Civil Rights are human rights. They're not only granted and bestowed upon us by Government.
We're all born with inalienable rights. Government isn't merely doing us a 'favor' by 'allowing' us Civil Rights. We possess them regardless. Big Government Authoritarians are very dangerous folks leading us down a very dark path.
LOL, sorry, your ignorance of history is amazing and hysterically funny. Government is us! Our system of governance is a covenant among We The People who currently live in the United States, those who came before us and those who will come after us.
You've been given the kool-aid produced and purveyed by the idiot fringe, those whose self interest supersedes that agreement which has guided us on a course of freedom and liberty through the rocky waters of the 19th and 20th Centuries. There have been times when we were off course, but men and women of good will avoided the rocks and manmade mines, leading us even today, though still in rough waters to be sure, but well guided by men and women of good will who hold to the vision left them in the Preamble to our Constitution and in the DoI.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.The claim that the current administration, or those of the recent past, meet the standard set in the words above is ridiculous. But let's not be too harsh, let the radicals who claim we live in danger of despotic rule and tyranny offer evidence that these are the ends of days for out form of government
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
"long established"
Wrong."If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
Our courts agree with her .....even the Heller decision written by Scalia
There is a big big difference to what Scalia thought was reasonable and what the typical Libtard Moon Bat thinks is reasonable.
You can't ever trust the stupid Moon Bats with a definition of reasonable because they are dumbass unreasonable dickheads.
I can give several recent examples of their unreasonableness if you are confused about this point.
Liberals accept Heller/McDonald as settled and accepted case law, and they appropriately abide by current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Liberals and Scalia are in agreement that the Second Amendment right can be regulated by government.
And we’ll never know what specific regulatory policies Scalia would have supported or opposed; that will be determined in the coming years and decades.
However the Court might rule with regard to Second Amendment regulatory policies, liberals will respect and follow that case law, unlike far too many on the right.
