A comparison of two Constitutional rights

[M14 Shooter]

no, no they are not for the same reasons. They are not mutually exclusive in any sense of the notion. The only thing they have in common are that they are rights. Otherwise you treat them differently.

Ok...im not arguing that sooooo.........anyways i'm moving on from whatever your point is about what you think i am doing or not doing, or could be doing.

Guns can be restricted, end of story.

I accept your concession of the point. Thank you.

i didnt concede anything, maybe you didnt make yourself clear enough with whatever point you are trying to make about me.

My point cannot be more clear.

Rights may be limited in the cases I noted, as evidenced by the limits on the rights protected by the 1st amendment, used in my example:
1: When the exercise in question harms someone else
2: When the exercise in question puts someone else in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger
3: When public properrty is involved, and the time place and manner is limited based on public safety concerns.

You are under the unsupportable impression that the conditions/reasons for limiting the exercise of various rights differs from right to right when in fact they do not; the limitations fopr the exercise of ALL rights are based on harm or danger to others - my right to swing my fist ends at your nose.

If you want to argue that the 1st amendmet illustrates that the exercise of rights may be limited, and thus, the 2nd may be similarly limited, then you need to use the reasoning for those limits when you look to create limits for the 2nd.

If you want to argue that the basis for limiting rights is dependent on the right itself and changes from right to right, you have to show that this is actually the case with regards to rights other than those protected by the f1st.

If the former, you need to address the questions I asked; if the latter, you need to get busy.

....while i've wanted to talk about gun laws in US history.

You argue that "rightsmay be limited" and yet you are loathe to delve into the reasons why.
Wonder why....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

huh? you must be confusing me with someone else and someone who cares.

You don't care that Citizen's United overturned a century of campaign finance reform?

Not when it comes to this thread. Go shove your stupid tangent someplace else.

For the sake of pretending you are winning the debate in this thread you are going to pretend that you don't think the same guy you are citing to prove your point about guns is so stupid you can't stand to think about him. Gotta love your intellectual honesty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

ah its all a conspiracy out to get Windbag. There is always an excuse with you.

Funny, I don't recall saying that. I do, however, posting actual cases in the Law section, the area you avoid because it makes your brain hurt, where judges ruled that exigent circumstances trump the 4th Amendment, even though the cops were chasing someone else. I also recall posting examples of outright lies being told by police officers on the stand that were so egregious the judges had to admit on the record that they were lies, and not a single one of them were prosecuted. I can also provide evidence of police saying one thing while surveillance video clearly shows the exact opposite.

All you have is an assertion that I am claiming this is a massive conspiracy to trap me.

Go play with your SpongeBob action figure.

trap you? hardly. just calling you nuts.
Its a lot more simple than you think windbag.

i dont go in there because its not a forum that holds that much interest. I dont see you in the flamezone often because you fail everytime you venture in there.

If the law doesn't hold any interest for you what makes you think you understand it?

 

[Darkwind]

where in the constitution does it say that reasonable regulation of guns is inappropriate.

i'd suggest you actually look at heller which specifically leaves room for such regulation.

and the comparison is a false one as there is no problem with 'voter fraud' except in the fevered imagination of the right.. not to mention that your own people made the mistake of saying they wanted it in order to sway election results.

but that's ok, right?

It says it right in the Second Amendment.

"Shall NOT BE INFRINGED"....do you need help with the bigger words?

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

peaceable citizens...the early Americans demanded citizens who owned guns to be peaceable citizens. they supported disarming fools and trouble makers

300 million guns, 100 million gun owners....and you have less than 0.00003% gun incidents.

Your point is asinine. We Already have peaceable gun owners. Yet here you are, advocating that people be punished for crimes they did NOT commit.

I have a better link for you. I suggest reading it as it is more to the topic of My reply.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

[M14 Shooter]

i didnt concede anything, maybe you didnt make yourself clear enough with whatever point you are trying to make about me.

My point cannot be more clear.

Rights may be limited in the cases I noted, as evidenced by the limits on the rights protected by the 1st amendment, used in my example:
1: When the exercise in question harms someone else
2: When the exercise in question puts someone else in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger
3: When public properrty is involved, and the time place and manner is limited based on public safety concerns.

You are under the unsupportable impression that the conditions/reasons for limiting the exercise of various rights differs from right to right when in fact they do not; the limitations fopr the exercise of ALL rights are based on harm or danger to others - my right to swing my fist ends at your nose.

If you want to argue that the 1st amendmet illustrates that the exercise of rights may be limited, and thus, the 2nd may be similarly limited, then you need to use the reasoning for those limits when you look to create limits for the 2nd.

If you want to argue that the basis for limiting rights is dependent on the right itself and changes from right to right, you have to show that this is actually the case with regards to rights other than those protected by the f1st.

If the former, you need to address the questions I asked; if the latter, you need to get busy.

....while i've wanted to talk about gun laws in US history.

You argue that "rightsmay be limited" and yet you are loathe to delve into the reasons why.
Wonder why....

Rights may be taken away for whatever reason one makes up. Rights are never ever a guarantee.

Clearly you do not have the background necessary to meaningfully carry on this conversation. My apologies.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Rights may be taken away for whatever reason one makes up. Rights are never ever a guarantee.

Clearly you do not have the background necessary to meaningfully carry on this conversation. My apologies.

okie dokie, its more like i just don't care at all. The government can restrict guns through regulation, but not infringe on your right by banning them.

Its rather cut and dry.

Speech is a different issue.

No the government cannot restrict access to military style weapon to the civilian market.
Miller vs. U.S.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

okie dokie, its more like i just don't care at all. The government can restrict guns through regulation, but not infringe on your right by banning them.

Its rather cut and dry.

Speech is a different issue.

No the government cannot restrict access to military style weapon to the civilian market.
Miller vs. U.S.

oh jesus fucking christ, we have been over this already.
I never claimed they could.

The government can not ban a weapon from the public, It can regulate how you get that weapon, require you to have it stored in a case or with a gun lock. Give you massive amounts of paperwork to get said gun. heller

You literally are to fucking retarded to understand what i am saying.

Are you thast stupid that you don't recall saying this?

The government can restrict guns through regulation

The government cannot restrict the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
I just happen to be a part like millions of Americans are a part of the unorganized militia.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not when it comes to this thread. Go shove your stupid tangent someplace else.

For the sake of pretending you are winning the debate in this thread you are going to pretend that you don't think the same guy you are citing to prove your point about guns is so stupid you can't stand to think about him. Gotta love your intellectual honesty.

what?

Are you having trouble following the conversation? You jumped in and argued a poster who disagreed with the Supreme Court about guns is wrong because she disagreed with the Supreme Court, yet you have no problem disagreeing with them yourself. Does that make you a lying sack of shit, or a hypocrite?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

trap you? hardly. just calling you nuts.
Its a lot more simple than you think windbag.

i dont go in there because its not a forum that holds that much interest. I dont see you in the flamezone often because you fail everytime you venture in there.

If the law doesn't hold any interest for you what makes you think you understand it?

i never said the law doesn't interest me. Do you always get everything wrong? Seriously you have a problem don't you?

You did not just state that law, and the justice system, aren't interesting? Was someone posting using your account? Did you call Weiner for advice on how to deal with your account being not hacked?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i didnt concede anything, maybe you didnt make yourself clear enough with whatever point you are trying to make about me.

My point cannot be more clear.

Rights may be limited in the cases I noted, as evidenced by the limits on the rights protected by the 1st amendment, used in my example:
1: When the exercise in question harms someone else
2: When the exercise in question puts someone else in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger
3: When public properrty is involved, and the time place and manner is limited based on public safety concerns.

You are under the unsupportable impression that the conditions/reasons for limiting the exercise of various rights differs from right to right when in fact they do not; the limitations fopr the exercise of ALL rights are based on harm or danger to others - my right to swing my fist ends at your nose.

If you want to argue that the 1st amendmet illustrates that the exercise of rights may be limited, and thus, the 2nd may be similarly limited, then you need to use the reasoning for those limits when you look to create limits for the 2nd.

If you want to argue that the basis for limiting rights is dependent on the right itself and changes from right to right, you have to show that this is actually the case with regards to rights other than those protected by the f1st.

If the former, you need to address the questions I asked; if the latter, you need to get busy.

....while i've wanted to talk about gun laws in US history.

You argue that "rightsmay be limited" and yet you are loathe to delve into the reasons why.
Wonder why....

Rights may be taken away for whatever reason one makes up. Rights are never ever a guarantee.

One could limit the right to guns based off their color if they had enough support for it. The reason for banning things do not have to fall into your 3 sections.

If we are to use your three examples, then you could easily use numbers 1, 2, or 3.

Rights cannot be taken away, that is what makes them rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Rights may be taken away for whatever reason one makes up. Rights are never ever a guarantee.

Clearly you do not have the background necessary to meaningfully carry on this conversation. My apologies.

okie dokie, its more like i just don't care at all. The government can restrict guns through regulation, but not infringe on your right by banning them.
Its rather cut and dry.
Speech is a different issue.

Because you do not have the background necessary to meaningfully carry on this conversation you have absolutely no way to show that these statements are sound.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No the government cannot restrict access to military style weapon to the civilian market.
Miller vs. U.S.

oh jesus fucking christ, we have been over this already.
I never claimed they could.

The government can not ban a weapon from the public, It can regulate how you get that weapon, require you to have it stored in a case or with a gun lock. Give you massive amounts of paperwork to get said gun. heller

You literally are to fucking retarded to understand what i am saying.

Are you thast stupid that you don't recall saying this?

The government can restrict guns through regulation

The government cannot restrict the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
I just happen to be a part like millions of Americans are a part of the unorganized militia.

Quick question Little Retarded Rebecca, if you're part of the unorganized militia, how can you possibly consider yourself in compliance with the Second Amendment which clearly calls for a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"?

If you were actually part of the military as you've claimed before, you'd understand that well regulated and unorganized aren't the same thing.

BTW....................the military has full access to full auto weapons. They're called machine guns and they come in all sizes, even 50 caliber. Those weapons (as in full automatic machine guns) were outlawed a while ago. Why aren't you calling for the legalization of those as well?

And...................finally..................I did not realize until a recent newscast that armor piercing bullets are legal to buy and own in this country. My question is..................what do you REALLY need armor piercing bullets, other than to kill people? Deer and other game don't wear armor. Only criminals robbing banks, the police, and military in a war zone need that kind of ammo.

And.......................I think that keeping it out of the hands of the criminals and only allowing it to the military and the police makes sense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

oh jesus fucking christ, we have been over this already.
I never claimed they could.

The government can not ban a weapon from the public, It can regulate how you get that weapon, require you to have it stored in a case or with a gun lock. Give you massive amounts of paperwork to get said gun. heller

You literally are to fucking retarded to understand what i am saying.

Are you thast stupid that you don't recall saying this?

The government can restrict guns through regulation

The government cannot restrict the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
I just happen to be a part like millions of Americans are a part of the unorganized militia.

Quick question Little Retarded Rebecca, if you're part of the unorganized militia, how can you possibly consider yourself in compliance with the Second Amendment which clearly calls for a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

BTW....................the military has full access to full auto weapons. They're called machine guns and they come in all sizes, even 50 caliber. Those weapons (as in full automatic machine guns) were outlawed a while ago.

False. It is perfectly legal, under federal law, to purchase, own and posess machineguns, even .50 caliber.

And...................finally..................I did not realize until a recent newscast that armor piercing bullets are legal to buy and own in this country. My question is..................what do you REALLY need armor piercing bullets, other than to kill people?

Given that standard hunting rifle rounds will defeat 99% of body armor, your shock and outrage is heavy with ignorance.
Never mind that the purpose behind the 2nd amendment is killing people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rights may be taken away for whatever reason one makes up. Rights are never ever a guarantee.

One could limit the right to guns based off their color if they had enough support for it. The reason for banning things do not have to fall into your 3 sections.

If we are to use your three examples, then you could easily use numbers 1, 2, or 3.

Rights cannot be taken away, that is what makes them rights.

Lol ok you keep thinking that dipshit.

Tell that to anyone asian in WWII or Lincoln.

You fucking retard.

You are the one that is confused here, as usual. If rights are fictions granted by the government then nothing that the government can do is ever wrong. The only way that you can argue that the government was wrong to lock up Americans who look funny is if you accept the fact that rights are inherent in people who look funny.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i never said the law doesn't interest me. Do you always get everything wrong? Seriously you have a problem don't you?

You did not just state that law, and the justice system, aren't interesting? Was someone posting using your account? Did you call Weiner for advice on how to deal with your account being not hacked?

No I said that forum has no interest to me. Jesus are you stupid.

That is what I said the first time, and you said you didn't say it. Color me not surprised.

 

[M14 Shooter]

okie dokie, its more like i just don't care at all. The government can restrict guns through regulation, but not infringe on your right by banning them.
Its rather cut and dry.
Speech is a different issue.

Because you do not have the background necessary to meaningfully carry on this conversation you have absolutely no way to show that these statements are sound.

Well I could point to Scalia's opinion in heller that ended up being the courts opinion, so sure I got nothing besides that which says exactly that.

You could point that out, but you'd only prove yourself wrong because Scalia says no such thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well I could point to Scalia's opinion in heller that ended up being the courts opinion, so sure I got nothing besides that which says exactly that.

You could point that out, but you'd only prove yourself wrong because Scalia says no such thing.

yes he did.

Feel free to cite the text.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I've yet to see sane, fair, reasonable, and rational comparison.

 

[M14 Shooter]

yes he did.

Feel free to cite the text.

Go read heller. Since you dont think its in there ill assume you have never read it. Otherwise you know scalia stated the state can regulate guns but not ban them.

As you refuse to post the text in question - because you know you cannot - I accept your concession of the point.

Glad to see you can admit when you're wrong, even whein doing so unwittingly.

 

[logical4u]

I don't know? I don't think they are the same.

You're arging that because we restrict free spech, we can also restrict guns.
We restrict free speech for specific reasons, established above - the only way your argument works is if the restrictions on guns are for the same reasons.

That is, you cannot argue that because we can restrict right A because of reason B, we can then restrict right Y for reason Z.

So... the questions I asked -- your answers?

Do you even know my position on regulating guns?

Look the reality of America as we stand is this. The government as of right now can regulate that you have your gun in a case, lock, Or you have to pass whatever background checks they make up, Or license.

The government at this time can not ban you from having a gun, Unless you do not meet the proper checks, are a criminal, or mentally unfit to handle a firearm.

If we look at Heller we Scalia stating that the Government can take such measures against guns, but can not out right ban a weapon from the public.

My personal opinion is that you should be able to buy whatever gun you like, buy a tank for all i care. All you must do is pay or pass the proper background checks in order to use these items.

If a state, city, or town vote that you must own a gun lock or case in order to have said firearm, that is in their right to do so. Owning your gun has not been infringed at all if these measures are adopted. If said State, city or town do not adopt that you must have a case or lock, then that is also their choice.

I would also tighten up gun shows where you must have back ground checks in order to buy a gun. There is zero reason why we can't have these.

Why anyone would be against this shit is beyond me. Typically the only people against this are the diehard gun nuts.

The second amendment says the right to bear arms should have no infringement. Any law made making it harder to own "arms" is an infringement. In the case of "background" checks, passing more laws that will not (or cannot be reasonably enforced) is STUPID.

Please contact your representatives and tell them to ensure the laws already passed are being enforced, BEFORE PASSING NEW LAWS THAT WILL ALSO NOT BE ENFORCED (so more laws can be passed, until, they can legally take guns from law abididng citizens). Passing laws on top of laws that will not be enforced is taking freedom and liberty. It is a gov't out of control, not of governence, but of subjugation. Stop the tyranny, already.