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

[NYcarbineer]

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........

The regulation of rights is a fundamental Power.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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........

The regulation of rights is a fundamental Power.

One the federal government does not legally enjoy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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........

The regulation of rights is a fundamental Power.

One the federal government does not legally enjoy.

M14 shooter claims Scalia's words (to follow) don't mean what they mean. Are you that stupid too?

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendmentor state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

 

[Weatherman2020]

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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........

The regulation of rights is a fundamental Power.

One the federal government does not legally enjoy.

M14 shooter claims Scalia's words (to follow) don't mean what they mean. Are you that stupid too?

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendmentor state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

Shrug. Scalia notwithstanding. Case law cannot amend the Constitution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Neither are guns

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

The regulation of rights is a fundamental Power.

One the federal government does not legally enjoy.

M14 shooter claims Scalia's words (to follow) don't mean what they mean. Are you that stupid too?

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendmentor state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

Shrug. Scalia notwithstanding. Case law cannot amend the Constitution.

Yet it has. What part of reality challenges you?
Some food for thought:

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=mlr

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

"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.

Due process of the law is the only way to loss a Constitutuional right.

 

[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........

The regulation of rights is a fundamental Power.

Nope........the government has limited ability to do that and only because there are competing issues with citizens exercising their Rights.....several groups cannot occupy the same public space for free speech on the same day, every day.......so the government has to help accomodate...not regulate that Right......

 

[2aguy]

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........

The regulation of rights is a fundamental Power.

One the federal government does not legally enjoy.

M14 shooter claims Scalia's words (to follow) don't mean what they mean. Are you that stupid too?

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendmentor state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

Yes, yes....you assholes think that statement gives you the right to ban and confiscate through regulation........that is not what he meant.......

You can't libel or slander and hide behind the 1st Amendment.....that is what he meant....

You can't use a gun to commit murder.......or crime....that is what he meant......

morons.....

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

The regulation of rights is a fundamental Power.

One the federal government does not legally enjoy.

M14 shooter claims Scalia's words (to follow) don't mean what they mean. Are you that stupid too?

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendmentor state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

Shrug. Scalia notwithstanding. Case law cannot amend the Constitution.

Yet it has.

That does not make it Constitutional. Do you hold the 10th Amendment repealed?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The regulation of rights is a fundamental Power.

One the federal government does not legally enjoy.

M14 shooter claims Scalia's words (to follow) don't mean what they mean. Are you that stupid too?

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendmentor state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

Shrug. Scalia notwithstanding. Case law cannot amend the Constitution.

Yet it has.

That does not make it Constitutional. Do you hold the 10th Amendment repealed?

What part of reality escapes your attention? You must know on some level that we no longer live in an agrarian society and we are no longer living in the 18th century. You do know that Marbury v. Madison has been the law of the land for over two centuries, and to whine and complain that it is unconstitutional is the errand of a fool.

If you choose to be a textualist, and read COTUS in that manner, you can't cherry pick which SC decision are okay and which are not. Thus the tossing out of M v. M will result in chaos. A rather foolish errand, something even you must know.

If we read the 2nd A. as written and passed in the late 18th Century, "Arms" meant the weapons of war at the time of its passage. No one imagined that every citizen from then until now had the absolute right to own weapons of war used in the 21st Century. Those who do are members of the lunatic fringe, for "arms' today include Strategic Arms (Nuclear weapons) and even small arms capable of inflicting great harm in short order (imagine a single company of minutemen armed with today's automatic weapons facing the Red Coats - I can, the signers of the Bill of Rights could not).

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

One the federal government does not legally enjoy.

M14 shooter claims Scalia's words (to follow) don't mean what they mean. Are you that stupid too?

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendmentor state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

Shrug. Scalia notwithstanding. Case law cannot amend the Constitution.

Yet it has.

That does not make it Constitutional. Do you hold the 10th Amendment repealed?

What part of reality escapes your attention? You must know on some level that we no longer live in an agrarian society and we are no longer living in the 18th century.

Neither are we living in Soviet Russia. Oh wait ... it's getting there.

You do know that Marbury v. Madison has been the law of the land for over two centuries, and to whine and complain that it is unconstitutional is the errand of a fool.

Its vintage does not make it constitutional. The branches of government were mandated as co-equal. The SCOTUS decision upended that balance.

If you choose to be a textualist, and read COTUS in that manner, you can't cherry pick which SC decision are okay and which are not.

Nonsense. Separating error from correct decisions is an old hobby.