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

[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...'

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Q

You want a ten year old to have the right to go to school armed with a handgun?

Stop being fucking moron and posting stupid shit like that. It just makes you look like a fool.

?

You're arguing that the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow for reasonable regulation of guns. If that were true then the above situation would be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"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.

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that a person's gun rights can be taken away for committing a crime?

 

[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...'

So state laws forbidding felons from owning guns are unconstitutional?

They could be.......once you have served your time, your rights should be restored....Virginia just restored the voting rights of felons...if they can vote, they get to own guns....

I believe that has gone to the courts, because the governor hasn't the authority to restore rights en masse, but only on a case-by-case basis.

 

[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

 

[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.

This is not going to go down well. I guess prisons have to start allowing inmates to buy guns through mail order.....

Criminals routinely lose rights on conviction, unless a Democratic governor returns them en masse (illegally at that) as has a certain Virginia governor.

You DO understand the difference between the federal and state governments, yes?

I just keep learning new things from you. so, there are no federal prisons? Damn! I hope that they don't find out about that at Leavenworth and Sing Sing!

Apparently you have not in your life learned much of anything from anyone.

 

[HUGGY]

As long as there are politicians that abuse power there are no such things as reasonable gun restrictions.

 

[Norman]

"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...'

I wonder which part of "Top Secret" she didn't understand.

 

[Contumacious]

[Q

You want a ten year old to have the right to go to school armed with a handgun?

Stop being fucking moron and posting stupid shit like that. It just makes you look like a fool.

?

You're arguing that the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow for reasonable regulation of guns. If that were true then the above situation would be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

ASKED AND ANSWERED

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court

The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people


The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln,11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

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.
​

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
"long established"

 

[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...'

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..

 

[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...'

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.

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that a person's gun rights can be taken away for committing a crime?

Your statement is indicative of the vacuousness of Democrat thought. Recess is over. Back to class.

 

[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...'

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"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.

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that a person's gun rights can be taken away for committing a crime?

Your statement is indicative of the vacuousness of Democrat thought. Recess is over. Back to class.

You asked the same sort of question.

It's so funny to see you idiots trying to argue with me and then ending up agreeing with me on every point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"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.

 

[bullwinkle]

It's a start.

No, its unconstitutional, but such concepts are "beneath you".

Fascist.

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?

How is a 3-6 month wait and a $1000 fee reasonable?

How about we apply that to abortions?

Who knew that is time sensitive, like abortion?

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.

Or maybe you could point out the clause in the BOR that forbids 'reasonable restriction'. 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.

 

[kaz]

"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.

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?

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

Wrong.

In Heller Scalia reaffirmed the settled and accepted fact of law that government is authorized to place limits on the Second Amendment, as is the case with all other rights.

To maintain otherwise is as ignorant as it is stupid.

There are no other limits on rights other than the fifth amendment, which says your rights cannot be restricted other than through due process of law.

Again, saying that you can't shoot someone with a gun is not restricting your right to a gun any more than saying you can't cause a panic in a crowded theater is restricting your right to free speech or that you can't drive into someone with a car is restricting your right to own a car. It's hilarious all your posts you think you're logical when you're as logical as a PMSing woman. You can't harm other citizens, with speech, a gun or a car. That isn't a "reasonable restriction" on free speech, it's not a restriction on free speech at all

 

[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

You have no right to own or operate a vehicle off your own property.

 

[kaz]

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

we aleady have that and felons know they cannot buy, own or carry guns...we already have that law...if they are caught with guns they can be arrested.

Yes, the 5th amendment says you cannot have your rights restricted without due process of law. Convicted felons had their due process as they were convicted. The second isn't being violated

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.