What Part Of "Shall Not Be Infringed" Does She Not Understand?

[bendog]

You just don't like the answer

Your community wants thorough background checks and regulations. There are eight million people in NYC, if they believe those regulations are excessive, they have a court system available to them

It's not an answer. Tell my why the restrictions I stated are reasonable.

IMO

???

imo the NY regulation is overbroad and unconstitutional

And as is the case with everyone else, you’re entitled to your own opinion, you’re not entitled to your own facts of law, however.

The Safe Act and other similar measures are currently Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

New York, Connecticut, and Maryland, along with all other governments, have the authority to place reasonable restrictions on firearms, including banning AR 15s.

Whether those restrictions are reasonable (Constitutional) or not is a matter for the courts the decide, and indeed that day will likely come when the Supreme Court rules on the matter.

You seem capable of understanding that fact, many others on the right clearly lack that capability.

Ah buy your AKS NOW. LOL BUT sure it comes down to reasonable. But NY will pass and what Tex will pass are different things. And the fed courts would differ. AND we'll never see one natl standard

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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."

No, I don't. A felon losing a right is not regulation, but a penalty through due process.

Nonsense.

Citizens cannot ‘lose’ their rights; our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, as is the case with the Second Amendment right.

In order for government to justly placing restrictions on our rights, such restrictions must be rationally based, they must be supported by objective, documented evidence in support, and they must pursue a legitimate legislative end.

It’s perfectly rational, therefore, to prohibit convicted felons from possessing firearms, that a felon was convicted in a court of law provides the objective, evidence in support of the prohibition, such as the testimony under oath by witnesses to the crime, and it pursues a legitimate legislative end: to keep guns out of the hands of those who have in fact demonstrated contempt for the law and the rights and safety of others.

This illustrates why the term ‘restoration of rights’ is legally inaccurate, as a felon does not have his rights ‘restored’; rather, the conditions that once justified the state prohibiting a felon from possessing firearms no longer exist, where the state no longer has a rational basis to prohibit an ex-offender from possessing a firearm, and to do so no longer pursues a legitimate legislative end, rendering any prohibition un-Constitutional.

And this is a simple test to determine if a proposed firearm regulatory measure will pass Constitutional muster:

Is there a rational basis for the measure

Is there objective, documented evidence in support of the measure

And does the measure pursue a legitimate legislative end

If a proposed gun control measure fails to meet any of the above criteria, then the measure is likely un-Constitutional.

 

[rightwinger]

It is amazing the trust people have with our federal government. DESPITE their constant bitching about it.. Fuckin idiots

Most of our gun laws are local

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wasn't there one of these threads about a month ago, about 1000 posts long, where the gun nut constitutional ignoramuses on the right already lost every argument they're now losing all over again?

Yes, and there will likely be another such tedious, ridiculous, and moronic thread started by one of the usual ignorant rightwing loons, where conservative subscribers to that thread will once again lose each of their inane ‘arguments.’

 

[rightwinger]

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean then?

1. Felons, the insane, children must have full access?
2. You can buy any weapon you choose.....machine gun, RPG, flame thrower?
3. You can carry whatever arm you wish, wherever you wish?
4. you can fire your weapon anytime, anywhere?

 

[2aguy]

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

Cars are more dangerous than guns.......and cars are not a Fundamental Human Right.

 

[2aguy]

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean then?

1. Felons, the insane, children must have full access?
2. You can buy any weapon you choose.....machine gun, RPG, flame thrower?
3. You can carry whatever arm you wish, wherever you wish?
4. you can fire your weapon anytime, anywhere?

Now we have something to talk about....

- felons......that can be worked on since after they go to jail they can get their rights restored.

-the insane...lose access to certain rights...depending on their mental capacity

-Children....are under their parents control until the age of majority...18 for rifles, 21 for hand gun...

--Arms are individual arms not crew served weapons...rifles and pistols....whatever the police and military have we get to have...

--yes....except for private property or areas that are sensitive...military and possibly the courts....since they both have armed security...but we can discuss those....

--you can't fire them anywhere or anytime...

See....nuts like you can have a rational discussion...

 

[2aguy]

"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.

And that needs to be changed......

 

[2aguy]

"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.

Nope....those Rights are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.....that is why democrats could not use Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting....even though voting is a state level activity.....

 

[rightwinger]

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

Cars are more dangerous than guns.......and cars are not a Fundamental Human Right.

Neither are guns

 

[2aguy]

"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."

She was wrong...it isn't "If" it is a Constitutional right....it "is" a basic, fundamental human right......she should ask her rapist husband what the meaning of "is" is......

 

[2aguy]

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 can go to Hawaii....but a private person doesn't have to provide transportation.........if you have a ship, or a plane you can go...you just can't force someone as part of a Right to take you there.....that is slavery.

 

[2aguy]

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

Cars are more dangerous than guns.......and cars are not a Fundamental Human Right.

Neither are guns

Guns and owning them is a fundamental Right........

 

[2aguy]

"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 "the Second Amendment is not unlimited" do you not understand.

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..

They can and are legally limited and altered in practice, if one is focused on reality; it has been "infringed" from time to time over the centuries.

Even the NRA acknowledges the right to keep 'arms' out of the hands of some citizens is necessary, as do many of our citizens, including some gun owners.

Only the lunatic fringe believes all forms of arms should be legally owned and traded without restriction or regulation.

Yeah......and you have just acknowledged the rational level of restrictions that the NRA supports....we have them already...and we don't need any more laws.......everything else you guys want is a prior restraint on a Right....

 

[2aguy]

"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.

Wrong.

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.

No they don't.....they are waiting for the extra judge they need to rescind Heller......moron.

 

[2aguy]

It's not an answer. Tell my why the restrictions I stated are reasonable.

IMO

???

imo the NY regulation is overbroad and unconstitutional

THAT is an answer. Thank you.

So my question is, if NYC is the "gold standard" for some gun control supporters, why should I trust ANY further gun control proposals when this one is still allowed to stand?

Not all those seeking some new regulation act in good faith, nor do the NRA or gun mfters. The NRA has not sued over NY. So I think we have to approach each individually. Law abiding folk oughtta be able to buy all non-military firearms they want

You are wrong....we need to be able to buy the exact same weapon as the infantry soldiers of the United States........we arm them.....they don't command us.....

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Every last one of the Liberal elite understand the 2nd Amendment they just don't care about your rights. An unarmed populace is no threat to a tyrannical government.

 

[2aguy]

you and the nra should sue

They should. but the national NRA considers NYC a lost cause. The law has been challenged, and local judges have allowed the law to stand.

it can be appealed all thr way. I think the nra loves the law for the fear factor

Then why not get rid of it, and take away the NRA's ammunition?

The answer is that the true blue gun controllers want NYC's regs for EVERYONE, except government agents, and of course anyone who protects the people in power.

imo ny pols like the law. And if it went to the sup ct, NY would pt to pre-gulini and after gulini NY. I'd say it was the maximum sentencing for gun crimes and not gun control, but its maybe the only case the gummit could lose. I rode the subway back in the bad days, and an NY turned a corner smewhere

It was increased policing, the gun laws remained effectively the same. What happened was Guiliani went after petty crimes as well as major ones, and flooded bad areas with cops.

Yes.....the petty crimes allowed them to catch bad actors who were violating parole or had outstanding warrants...and allowed them to catch thugs with guns before they shot people....

 

[bullwinkle]

"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."

No, I don't. A felon losing a right is not regulation, but a penalty through due process.

No, it is a regulation placed on gun sellers not to sell to a convicted felon.....your semantic prestidigitation notwithstanding.

 

[HenryBHough]

Who says?

Emperor Obama!

You been sleepin'?