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

[martybegan]

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

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

 

[bendog]

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

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

IMO they aren't, 4 what its worth

 

[martybegan]

$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

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

IMO

???

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No, you didn't. why would such a restriction be considered reasonable?

Post 35. Now go get some air and start over with a clear head.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

You're not arguing what the OP is arguing. You're off topic.

You're arguing against unreasonable regulation.

He's arguing against reasonable regulation.

 

[martybegan]

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.

No, you didn't. why would such a restriction be considered reasonable?

Post 35. Now go get some air and start over with a clear head.

Not an answer. This is a yes/no question.

 

[martybegan]

$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

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

You're not arguing what the OP is arguing. You're off topic.

You're arguing against unreasonable regulation.

He's arguing against reasonable regulation.

It's all part of the same argument.

So you are saying NYC's rules are unreasonable, or not?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your point doesn't support the OP's assertion.

Answer the question.

I did, asshole. I said it was debatable.

No, you didn't. why would such a restriction be considered reasonable?

Post 35. Now go get some air and start over with a clear head.

Not an answer. This is a yes/no question.

I said it was debatable and you claimed I didn't say that.

 

[martybegan]

Answer the question.

I did, asshole. I said it was debatable.

No, you didn't. why would such a restriction be considered reasonable?

Post 35. Now go get some air and start over with a clear head.

Not an answer. This is a yes/no question.

I said it was debatable and you claimed I didn't say that.

That's not an answer. Again, is the NYC rule reasonable, or not?

 

[kaz]

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!

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

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.

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.

They aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer ...

 

[bendog]

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

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

IMO

???

imo the NY regulation is overbroad and unconstitutional

 

[martybegan]

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

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?

 

[Timmy]

Do you think we should have guns available in vending machines for anyone (including kids and criminals ) to buy ?

Cause the "shall not be infringed " line yall spew would mean just that if u can't have any regs.

 

[nat4900]

The militia wasn't defined by government.

...and NEITHER was the term "arms" defined......So, to follow the 2nd amendment strictly as it was written.....you morons could walk around with muskets.

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

Reasonable in ensuring criminals and nut jobs are not sold guns and those who get a permit meet the standards established by the community

 

[kaz]

The militia wasn't defined by government.

...and NEITHER was the term "arms" defined......So, to follow the 2nd amendment strictly as it was written.....you morons could walk around with muskets.

Clearly they would have considered modern guns "arms," stop being an idiot. Then again, you are the clown girl, so I guess you already know that

 

[martybegan]

The militia wasn't defined by government.

...and NEITHER was the term "arms" defined......So, to follow the 2nd amendment strictly as it was written.....you morons could walk around with muskets.

So by that logic, the internet isn't covered by the 1st amendment, and the 4th amendment shouldn't cover cars, phones, or computers, right?

 

[martybegan]

$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

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

Reasonable in ensuring criminals and nut jobs are not sold guns and those who get a permit meet the standards established by the community

it takes 3-6 months and $1000 to accomplish that? Really?

And again, since it is a right, the "community" doesn't have a say in it, or do you want to imply that a location can ban abortion and gay marriage if they feel like it. Or, forget the ban, just add a $1000 fee and a 3 month waiting period to each one.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"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...'

maybe she got snagged by the 'well regulated militia' part.

That lie only reached fruition in the 1930s, and has since been dispatched to the roundfile.

Constitutionally, the federal government may not create laws of limitation upon the right. Any regulation is a matter for the States.

Where in the Constitution is that?

The Bill of Rights restricts the federal government. There is no confusion in "shall not be infringed."

 

[Nosmo King]

"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...'

Which of the constitutionally enumerated rights is absolutely free of reasonable regulation?