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.
"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
"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?
Isn't a "well regulated militia" a form of regulation
It's a moot point because the right to regulate rights is permissible by well established court precedent.
Sure, then why not just scrap the U.S. Constitution? I mean, rights are only granted and bestowed by Government. What Big Brother giveth, can also taketh away. It all gets back to so many believing that Civil Rights are only granted and bestowed by Government.
But obviously they're sadly mistaken. Civil Rights are human rights bestowed upon us at birth. We don't have to kneel and grovel at the feet of Big Brother to ensure them. We're born with them.
Do you have the right to publish and distribute child pornography under the protection of the 1st Amendment?
The whole idea of a constitutional right is that it limits the "people" unless you get supermajorities to overturn the right in the first place.
People in Mississippi want to ban Gay Marriage and Abortion, is that a case of the "people speaking" as well?
There are restrictions on both gay marriage and abortion
Just like there are restrictions on guns and free speech
$1000 and 3-6 months is not a "restriction", it is a blatant attempt to discourage law abiding people from owning firearms in NYC.
Why don't we apply the NYC firearm standard to voting, or abortion or getting a marriage license? Why is it reasonable for guns, but not for the others?
The court system is fully available to all the citizens of NYC
Nice non-answer.
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
Hyperbole on your part"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
Wrong...what you dipsticks think that means is that you have the ability to regulate guns out of existence.......what Scalia and the intelligent justices meant is the bare minimum regulations that do not infringe on the actual Right.......so almost all of your gun control laws are unConstitutional.....
You cannot yell fire in a theater is the one you nuts always use for the first....but you don't have to register first to speak in a theater....you are arrested and your right suspended when you actually yell fire in the theater....
The same applies to guns.....if you use a gun for a crime ....you are arrested....right now, if you are felon in possession of a gun....you are arrested.......that is what scalia meant.....
Not....you can't own or carry a gun unless the government approves and you had better have a reason they like......
I'm pretty confident only 3 Justices at most would ok a total ban, and that will be down to 2 at most regardless of who wins, although Trump supported NYC's law which is close to a ban"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?
You guys don't get the reasonable regulation....you nuts think an outright ban is not unreasonable........and anything up to that is fine too.....
There are restrictions on both gay marriage and abortion
Just like there are restrictions on guns and free speech
$1000 and 3-6 months is not a "restriction", it is a blatant attempt to discourage law abiding people from owning firearms in NYC.
Why don't we apply the NYC firearm standard to voting, or abortion or getting a marriage license? Why is it reasonable for guns, but not for the others?
The court system is fully available to all the citizens of NYC
Nice non-answer.
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
Yes, let's allow Judges to run the country. Might as well scrap that pesky Constitution i guess. Seriously, y'all Big Government Authoritarians really do need to think things through a bit more.
LOLThere are restrictions on both gay marriage and abortion
Just like there are restrictions on guns and free speech
$1000 and 3-6 months is not a "restriction", it is a blatant attempt to discourage law abiding people from owning firearms in NYC.
Why don't we apply the NYC firearm standard to voting, or abortion or getting a marriage license? Why is it reasonable for guns, but not for the others?
The court system is fully available to all the citizens of NYC
Nice non-answer.
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
Yes, let's allow Judges to run the country. Might as well scrap that pesky Constitution i guess. Seriously, y'all Big Government Authoritarians really do need to think things through a bit more.
And yet all agree, excepting maybe anarchists, that 1A has a limit...i.e. the old no yelling fire in a crowded theater. Everything has a limit.Kaz, I cannot argue this issue with anyone. Both sides are hardened beyond reason. All I can do is explain my thought, which doesn't matter to anyone but me, I know. But I favor regulation and I favor a ban on combat-type weapons and clips available to civilians. Although I am not a hunter, several in my family are. And I recognize the need for weapon power for many individuals threatened by critters or by humans. So by regulation I mean background checks and I mean banning weapons beyond hunting or protection needs. Some concentrate on the 'shall not be infringed' part and I concentrate on the 'regulate' and 'militia'. And taking into account the times of the writing, I believe it means militias cannot be banned, as they were under British rule, although I recognize none can really know the thought behind 2A. As far as I know, there was never a weapons ban, even under the Brits, just a ban on joining together in a military force. I wish I could explain better. I own a revolver and it is loaded with hollow-point bullets. May I never use it!maybe she got snagged by the 'well regulated militia' part."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...'
The militia wasn't defined by government. So just to be clear, you think they put a right of government in the bill of rights. They were afraid government would take it's own guns away and wanted to make sure that didn't happen? What you you think it means?
Regulated didn't mean government regulation. You should look up the definition of the word. So think about what you are arguing with "regulated." People can have guns, but only as government decides they can have guns.
So then, why did they put it in the bill of rights? Government will give you the gun rights that it decides to give you. Obviously government can do that anyway, right? That isn't a right at all, think about it
Hyperbole on your part"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
Wrong...what you dipsticks think that means is that you have the ability to regulate guns out of existence.......what Scalia and the intelligent justices meant is the bare minimum regulations that do not infringe on the actual Right.......so almost all of your gun control laws are unConstitutional.....
You cannot yell fire in a theater is the one you nuts always use for the first....but you don't have to register first to speak in a theater....you are arrested and your right suspended when you actually yell fire in the theater....
The same applies to guns.....if you use a gun for a crime ....you are arrested....right now, if you are felon in possession of a gun....you are arrested.......that is what scalia meant.....
Not....you can't own or carry a gun unless the government approves and you had better have a reason they like......
Nobody is trying to regulate guns out of existence, there are 300 million of them out there
The courts allow reasonable gun restrictions....even your favorite Heller decision
You don't have freedom to speak in a theater...they have a right to tell you to shut up, just like they have a right to tell you to keep your gun outside
And yet all agree, excepting maybe anarchists, that 1A has a limit...i.e. the old no yelling fire in a crowded theater. Everything has a limit.Kaz, I cannot argue this issue with anyone. Both sides are hardened beyond reason. All I can do is explain my thought, which doesn't matter to anyone but me, I know. But I favor regulation and I favor a ban on combat-type weapons and clips available to civilians. Although I am not a hunter, several in my family are. And I recognize the need for weapon power for many individuals threatened by critters or by humans. So by regulation I mean background checks and I mean banning weapons beyond hunting or protection needs. Some concentrate on the 'shall not be infringed' part and I concentrate on the 'regulate' and 'militia'. And taking into account the times of the writing, I believe it means militias cannot be banned, as they were under British rule, although I recognize none can really know the thought behind 2A. As far as I know, there was never a weapons ban, even under the Brits, just a ban on joining together in a military force. I wish I could explain better. I own a revolver and it is loaded with hollow-point bullets. May I never use it!maybe she got snagged by the 'well regulated militia' part.
The militia wasn't defined by government. So just to be clear, you think they put a right of government in the bill of rights. They were afraid government would take it's own guns away and wanted to make sure that didn't happen? What you you think it means?
Regulated didn't mean government regulation. You should look up the definition of the word. So think about what you are arguing with "regulated." People can have guns, but only as government decides they can have guns.
So then, why did they put it in the bill of rights? Government will give you the gun rights that it decides to give you. Obviously government can do that anyway, right? That isn't a right at all, think about it
misquoted and misused
Hyperbole on your part"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
Wrong...what you dipsticks think that means is that you have the ability to regulate guns out of existence.......what Scalia and the intelligent justices meant is the bare minimum regulations that do not infringe on the actual Right.......so almost all of your gun control laws are unConstitutional.....
You cannot yell fire in a theater is the one you nuts always use for the first....but you don't have to register first to speak in a theater....you are arrested and your right suspended when you actually yell fire in the theater....
The same applies to guns.....if you use a gun for a crime ....you are arrested....right now, if you are felon in possession of a gun....you are arrested.......that is what scalia meant.....
Not....you can't own or carry a gun unless the government approves and you had better have a reason they like......
Nobody is trying to regulate guns out of existence, there are 300 million of them out there
The courts allow reasonable gun restrictions....even your favorite Heller decision
You don't have freedom to speak in a theater...they have a right to tell you to shut up, just like they have a right to tell you to keep your gun outside
But you have the right to carry your gun inside. So, the rights of all have to be respected.
Ah should vote whereevah ah wannA VOTE. iT'S AH RATBig 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.
$1000 and 3-6 months is not a "restriction", it is a blatant attempt to discourage law abiding people from owning firearms in NYC.
Why don't we apply the NYC firearm standard to voting, or abortion or getting a marriage license? Why is it reasonable for guns, but not for the others?
The court system is fully available to all the citizens of NYC
Nice non-answer.
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
Yes, let's allow Judges to run the country. Might as well scrap that pesky Constitution i guess. Seriously, y'all Big Government Authoritarians really do need to think things through a bit more.
That's what judges do as well as our legislators...its all in the Constitution
Hyperbole on your part"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
Wrong...what you dipsticks think that means is that you have the ability to regulate guns out of existence.......what Scalia and the intelligent justices meant is the bare minimum regulations that do not infringe on the actual Right.......so almost all of your gun control laws are unConstitutional.....
You cannot yell fire in a theater is the one you nuts always use for the first....but you don't have to register first to speak in a theater....you are arrested and your right suspended when you actually yell fire in the theater....
The same applies to guns.....if you use a gun for a crime ....you are arrested....right now, if you are felon in possession of a gun....you are arrested.......that is what scalia meant.....
Not....you can't own or carry a gun unless the government approves and you had better have a reason they like......
Nobody is trying to regulate guns out of existence, there are 300 million of them out there
The courts allow reasonable gun restrictions....even your favorite Heller decision
You don't have freedom to speak in a theater...they have a right to tell you to shut up, just like they have a right to tell you to keep your gun outside
But you have the right to carry your gun inside. So, the rights of all have to be respected.
No you don't
The founders America included regulation. see heller.The court system is fully available to all the citizens of NYC
Nice non-answer.
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
Yes, let's allow Judges to run the country. Might as well scrap that pesky Constitution i guess. Seriously, y'all Big Government Authoritarians really do need to think things through a bit more.
That's what judges do as well as our legislators...its all in the Constitution
Follow the Constitution. It's the road map for true Freedom & Liberty. That's what our Founding Fathers intended.
Ah should vote whereevah ah wannA VOTE. iT'S AH RATBig 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.
The founders America included regulation. see heller.Nice non-answer.
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
Yes, let's allow Judges to run the country. Might as well scrap that pesky Constitution i guess. Seriously, y'all Big Government Authoritarians really do need to think things through a bit more.
That's what judges do as well as our legislators...its all in the Constitution
Follow the Constitution. It's the road map for true Freedom & Liberty. That's what our Founding Fathers intended.
"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?
Explain to me why having to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 in NYC to simply get a revolver for home use is "reasonable".
Your point doesn't support the OP's assertion.
Answer the question.
I did, asshole. I said it was debatable.
And yet all agree, excepting maybe anarchists, that 1A has a limit...i.e. the old no yelling fire in a crowded theater. Everything has a limit.Regulated didn't mean government regulation. You should look up the definition of the word. So think about what you are arguing with "regulated." People can have guns, but only as government decides they can have guns.
So then, why did they put it in the bill of rights? Government will give you the gun rights that it decides to give you. Obviously government can do that anyway, right? That isn't a right at all, think about it
There is no limit to the 1A. You may yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater to your heart's content, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences.
It's not a constitutional matter, but a criminal one.
Yes, it's not the words that are illegal, it's the intent to cause panic which could cause harm. You could say the same words in a different way, like as a joking aside to a bud and it's perfectly fine. You could indicate in non-verbal form there is a fire, like as a message on the screen, with the intent to cause panic and it's not. It's the causing panic that's the crime, not the medium. Just like just because guns are legal doesn't mean it's legal to go around shooting people with them
Don't go and try to explain prior restraint to these people, the concept is above them.
Prior restraint is a gun nut as applied to gun rights.
