Another "assault weapon" hits the streets!

[mattskramer]

No, it doesnt. You just arent willing to admit it.
The 1st has limitations, just like the 2nd.
Both are found in current jurisprudence.

Current jurisprudence dictates that any modern firearm is protected by the 2nd, as I have shown.

You dont have to like it, but you should be honest enough to admit it.

I got it! Jurisprudence may limit the Bill of Rights. That’s the key. It may have limited the 1st amendment but not the 2nd amendment. Okay. We should look to the courts if we want further clarification and understanding of any limits.

See, I like clarity and consistency and I just was not seeing it in people who speak of the Bill of Rights. The Left would be free with the 1st amendment chanting “free speech” but be all to ready to limit the 2nd. People on the right often want to find limits to the 1st amendment with respect to “free speech” and bizarre religious practices while beeing free with the 2nd amendment. Thank for finally clarifying it for me. So, it is okay to look at jurisprudence. Is it also okay to look at legislation such as that limiting assault weopens?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I got it! Jurisprudence may limit the Bill of Rights. That’s the key. It may have limited the 1st amendment but not the 2nd amendment. Okay. We should look to the courts if we want further clarification and understanding of any limits.

Psst... that's what I did.
YOU were under the impression that I had not.
Silly you.

Is it also okay to look at legislation such as that limiting assault weopens?

These -clearly- violate the 2nd, as ALL of the weapons banned by ANY 'assault weapon' ban are considered 'arms'.

 

[mattskramer]

Psst... that's what I did.
YOU were under the impression that I had not.
Silly you.


These -clearly- violate the 2nd, as ALL of the weapons banned by ANY 'assault weapon' ban are considered 'arms'.

Okay. I got it. I’m sorry that I was so dense and difficult. Even Shogun and you seem to be on the same page with this. Courts decide what is constitutional and what is not constitutional. The courts might review legislation and made decisions. They interpret legislation with respect to the Constitution (and Bill of Rights). They might also (legislate from the bench) and decide (without legislation) that certain things should or should not be permitted. I think that I am even beginning to understand why you focus so much on what is instead of imagining what should be.

Yet, it seems as though no legislation or court decision limiting the 2nd amendment would satisfy you. Yet, you would not object to legislation or court decisions limiting parts of the 1st amendment. That is still the fly in the ointment for me.

 

[Shogun]

I've already spoken about limitations on the first.



Comparing him with a lefty like the shogun probably chaffes him too.

hehehehe..

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yet, it seems as though no legislation or court decision limiting the 2nd amendment would satisfy you. Yet, you would not object to legislation or court decisions limiting parts of the 1st amendment.

You have no idea on what I would object to regarding the 1st amendment.

 

[mattskramer]

You have no idea on what I would object to regarding the 1st amendment.

Oh. Okay. So would you support removing laws that make sedition, war protests, anonymous speech, flag burning, obscenity, libel, and slander a crime? After all, they seem to be unconstitutional to me when I read the 1st amendment. Oh. I’m not supposed to rely on my own interpretation or on the literal amendment itself. I need to search out this thing called Jurisprudence to find out if such laws are constitutional – or perhaps hold a séance to find out what the founding fathers originally intended.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh. Okay. So would you support removing laws that make sedition, war protests, anonymous speech, flag burning, obscenity, libel, and slander a crime?

There are no laws that ban flag burning or war protests.
Libel and slander -are- crimes, as they harm those being slandered.
Sedition -is- a crime, in the same vein as treason.
Jurispridence backs up these positions.

So... what's your point, and how does any of this relate to the 2nd amendment?