What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[Uncensored2008]

Correct, and the first isn't absolute by any means

Really?

Do tell? What restrictions on the 1st Amendment are there?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Correct, and the first isn't absolute by any means

Really?

Do tell? What restrictions on the 1st Amendment are there?

walk into an airport and yell "i have a bomb" and see if the police just shrug and say "well he was just exercising his first amendment rights"

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Walk into an airport and yell "I have a bomb" and see if the police shrug ans say "well , he was just exercising his first amendment rights"

And why does the 1ns amazement not protect this?
Because it places others in a condition of clear present and immediate danger. You have no right to do this, and so the 1st doe not protect your doing so.
How would you translate that into a restriction on the 2nd?

NO right is absolute. Nor should it be in today's asshole filled world. That's called a reality

This is why we're currently discussing interpreting the 2nd with the exact same parameters as the 1st, as you agreed.

I reiterate, under a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, there couldn't even be law against a murderer owning a gun,

Incorrect.
Under the due process described by the 5th amendment, your right to own a gun an be removed; if you have no right to own a gun, the 2nd does not protect you

 

[Fair&Balanced]

[
Walk into an airport and yell "I have a bomb" and see if the police shrug ans say "well , he was just exercising his first amendment rights"

And why does the 1ns amazement not protect this?
Because it places others in a condition of clear present and immediate danger. You have no right to do this, and so the 1st doe not protect your doing so.
How would you translate that into a restriction on the 2nd?

NO right is absolute. Nor should it be in today's asshole filled world. That's called a reality

This is why we're currently discussing interpreting the 2nd with the exact same parameters as the 1st, as you agreed.

I reiterate, under a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, there couldn't even be law against a murderer owning a gun,

Incorrect.
Under the due process described by the 5th amendment, your right to own a gun an be removed; if you have no right to own a gun, the 2nd does not protect you

LOL you're arguing in circles, you agree that your second amendment rights can be removed but then you object to ID being used to ensure that they haven't been. How fucking stupid is that?

 

[Uncensored2008]

walk into an airport and yell "i have a bomb" and see if the police just shrug and say "well he was just exercising his first amendment rights"

When you walk into an Airport, it is posted at every entrance that you agree to limits on speech and consent to searches.

FAIL.

But kudos for not falling into the "fire in a theater" trap I was setting.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Do tell? What restrictions on the 1st Amendment are there?

walk into an airport and yell "i have a bomb" and see if the police just shrug and say "well he was just exercising his first amendment rights"

As usual, ask a liberal a question about what the Constitution itself says, and they will hastily change the subject and try to discuss what other people (police, courts etc.) claim the Constitution says instead.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Do tell? What restrictions on the 1st Amendment are there?

walk into an airport and yell "i have a bomb" and see if the police just shrug and say "well he was just exercising his first amendment rights"

As usual, ask a liberal a question about what the Constitution itself says, and they will hastily change the subject and try to discuss what other people (police, courts etc.) claim the Constitution says instead.

So you suggest that a person who yells "bomb" in an airport SHOULD be covered by the first amendment? SCOTUS disagrees.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Under the due process described by the 5th amendment, your right to own a gun an be removed; if you have no right to own a gun, the 2nd does not protect you

Incorrect. The 2nd amendment names a clear exception to this command by the 5th.

I would expect you, of all people, to know this.

The 2nd amendment states that no government has any say in who can own and carry a gun. At all.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Walk into an airport and yell "I have a bomb" and see if the police shrug ans say "well , he was just exercising his first amendment rights"

And why does the 1ns amazement not protect this?
Because it places others in a condition of clear present and immediate danger. You have no right to do this, and so the 1st doe not protect your doing so.
How would you translate that into a restriction on the 2nd?

NO right is absolute. Nor should it be in today's asshole filled world. That's called a reality

This is why we're currently discussing interpreting the 2nd with the exact same parameters as the 1st, as you agreed.

I reiterate, under a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, there couldn't even be law against a murderer owning a gun,

Incorrect.
Under the due process described by the 5th amendment, your right to own a gun an be removed; if you have no right to own a gun, the 2nd does not protect you

LOL you're arguing in circles

No. I am not.
You, other other hand appear to be lacking of the knowledge and understanding necessary to have this conversation, especially in regard to interpreting the 2nd with the exact same parameters as we interpret the 1st.

Still waiting for an answer to my questions:
Because yelling "I have a bomb" in an airport places others in a condition of clear present and immediate danger, you have no right to do this, and so the 1st doe not protect your doing so.
How would you translate that into a restriction on the 2nd?

Given the dramatic drop in all kinds of violent crime since 1993, on what basis does "something need to give"?

 

[Little-Acorn]

So you suggest that a person who yells "bomb" in an airport SHOULD be covered by the first amendment? SCOTUS disagrees.

You are apparently trying as hard as you can to ignore what I already wrote on this subject.

Is there any reason everyone shouldn't ignore what you say, too?

So, you are not interested in discussing the subject?

 

[P@triot]

I love it when law enforcement is committed to the U.S. Constitution as they should be. Now if we could only get politicians to be as equally committed. I had the privilege of attending a conference in which Richard Mack was the keynote speaker. He was amazing...

Sheriffs Call for Defying Unconstitutional Gun Control: Feds “The Greatest Threat We Face”

 

[Fair&Balanced]

So you suggest that a person who yells "bomb" in an airport SHOULD be covered by the first amendment? SCOTUS disagrees.

You are apparently trying as hard as you can to ignore what I already wrote on this subject.

Is there any reason I shouldn't ignore what you say, too?

So, you are not interested in discussing the subject?

It's 37 pages and you kinda came at me for something I said to M14, so yes I may have missed your point, as you may have missed mine.

I don't buy into "gun control" I do buy into having to prove you have a right to exercise a particular right. To me, proving you are eligible to buy a gun is exactly no different than proving you are eligible to vote. That's why I laugh at both sides when they alm ,ost universally support requiring ID for one, but not the other. BOTH should require ID. Then after agreeing to that, we can discuss what the bar should be to have the ability to buy a gun (and actually I've already stated my opinion on that as well US citizen, no criminal record, no mental health record. That's it.

I don't support magazine limits, I don't support any sort of database, I don't support extra taxes on gun sales, or any of othe other bullshit that stupid liberals support

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you suggest that a person who yells "bomb" in an airport SHOULD be covered by the first amendment? SCOTUS disagrees.

Straw man fallacy.

You voluntarily relinquish certain civil rights when entering an airport.

You are free to go yell "bomb" on the street corner, you retain your 1st amendment rights.

 

[kaz]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

Isn't that a variation of "regulated?"

Yes it is, but it is time for 2nd Amendment proponents to recognize a reality here. Something has to give. We can't just have a strict reading of the 2nd and that's it. I mean if you wanted to just get right to it, in actuality the government shouldn't even be able to preclude the mentally ill from owning guns. I mean the 2n does say "NO REGULATION" , but no one that I''m aware of would support that stance.

In this digital era, it is ridiculous that we can't simply show an ID and boom know instantly that someone is okay to sell guns to.

The standard isn't "mentally ill," The standard is 'due process of law.' The mentally ill can have their rights restricted with the due process of law

 

[Fair&Balanced]

So you suggest that a person who yells "bomb" in an airport SHOULD be covered by the first amendment? SCOTUS disagrees.

Straw man fallacy.

You voluntarily relinquish certain civil rights when entering an airport.

You are free to go yell "bomb" on the street corner, you retain your 1st amendment rights.

I seriously doubt you are free to yell "bomb" on any street corner of any major US city without consequences.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

Isn't that a variation of "regulated?"

Yes it is, but it is time for 2nd Amendment proponents to recognize a reality here. Something has to give. We can't just have a strict reading of the 2nd and that's it. I mean if you wanted to just get right to it, in actuality the government shouldn't even be able to preclude the mentally ill from owning guns. I mean the 2n does say "NO REGULATION" , but no one that I''m aware of would support that stance.

In this digital era, it is ridiculous that we can't simply show an ID and boom know instantly that someone is okay to sell guns to.

The standard isn't "mentally ill," The standard is 'due process of law.' The mentally ill can have their rights restricted with the due process of law

And how exactly do you determine such without checking ID? Take their word for it??

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't buy into "gun control" I do buy into having to prove you have a right to exercise a particular right

In keeping with interpreting the 2nd with the exact same parameters as we interpret the 1st....
Do you knot understand this is a form of prior restraint and violates the constitution under virtually every circumstance?

To me, proving you are eligible to buy a gun is exactly no different than proving you are eligible to vote.

Non sequitur.
Voter verification protects the rights of those who seek to exercise their right to vote.
Background checks do not protect the rights of those who seek to exercise their right to arms.
Thus, the former does not constitutionally justify the latter.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's 37 pages

It's two pages ago. And it was posted AFTER you posted several posts of drivel, just a few minutes ago.

So either you saw it and deliberately ignored it, or you didn't even bother checking what people are replying to you.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I don't buy into "gun control" I do buy into having to prove you have a right to exercise a particular right

In keeping with interpreting the 2nd with the exact same parameters as we interpret the 1st....
Do you knot understand this is a form of prior restraint and violates the constitution under virtually every circumstance?

To me, proving you are eligible to buy a gun is exactly no different than proving you are eligible to vote.

Non sequitur.
Voter verification protects the rights of those who seek to exercise their right to vote.
Background checks do not protect the rights of those who seek to exercise their right to arms.
Thus, the former does not constitutionally justify the latter.

You're an idiot, and I'm moving on.

 

[g5000]

I don't buy into "gun control" I do buy into having to prove you have a right to exercise a particular right

In keeping with interpreting the 2nd with the exact same parameters as we interpret the 1st....
Do you knot understand this is a form of prior restraint and violates the constitution under virtually every circumstance?

To me, proving you are eligible to buy a gun is exactly no different than proving you are eligible to vote.

Non sequitur.
Voter verification protects the rights of those who seek to exercise their right to vote.

Nope. Every argument in favor of Voter ID has been about preventing fraud. It has not been about protecting those who are eligible to vote.

And so the intent of Voter ID is exactly the same as the intent of gun control. They are intended to prevent the wrong people from voting or buying a gun.