Second amendment more important?

[onecut39]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

 

[Full-Auto]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

 

[Oddball]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

Red herring.

Murder is already a capital crime in many states, no matter whether you commit the act with a gun, bomb, crossbow or machete.

 

[Sallow]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

I "grasp" the entire amendment..in plain text.

It assures the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.

It does not protect the right to hunt.
It does not protect the right to conceal carry.
It does not protect the right to use arms for home protection.
It does not protect the right to "stand your ground".

That comes from case law.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All the Progressive Leaders who rose to true greatness, Stalin, Mao, etc, did so because their citizens lacked a Second Amendment

 

[The T]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

That pesky Constitution.

 

[onecut39]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

I think so. Infringing on absolute free speech would be the putting of limits on it. Like prohibiting libel or the incitement to riot etc.

Are you maintaining that you have the right to incite riot or to slander. Perhaps your version of free speech would allow you to lie in court?

 

[PredFan]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

There are already reasonable restrictions on guns. You have reasonable restrictions on speech as well.

 

[onecut39]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

I "grasp" the entire amendment..in plain text.

It assure the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.

It does not protect the right to hunt.
It does not protect the right to conceal carry.
It does not protect the right to use arms for home protection.
It does not protect the right to "stand your ground".

That comes from case law.[/QUOTE

I have always found it odd that these learned founders, so knowledgeable in the use of language, so good at saying what they mean, would include the militia and gun ownership in the same sentence if they were not related.

It violates the rules of grammer.

 

[onecut39]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

There are already reasonable restrictions on guns. You have reasonable restrictions on speech as well.

These "reasonable" restrictions on guns have loopholes up the kazoo! Just the way the Colorado shooter amassed his arsenal proves that.

 

[Oddball]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

I think so. Infringing on absolute free speech would be the putting of limits on it. Like prohibiting libel or the incitement to riot etc.

Are you maintaining that you have the right to incite riot or to slander. Perhaps your version of free speech would allow you to lie in court?

That's not "speech" per se, but how you use speech.

But I don't expect leftbats blaming the act on the tool that worked as advertized, rather than the defective person who misused the tool, to recognize such distinctions.

 

[Sallow]

All the Progressive Leaders who rose to true greatness, Stalin, Mao, etc, did so because their citizens lacked a Second Amendment

Neither Stalin nor Mao were "progressive". Quite the opposite..they were pretty conservative populists.

And it wasn't the "lack" of a second amendment that fostered their rise. It was the lack of prosperity for all but the extremely wealthy.

 

[onecut39]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

I "grasp" the entire amendment..in plain text.

It assures the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.

It does not protect the right to hunt.
It does not protect the right to conceal carry.
It does not protect the right to use arms for home protection.
It does not protect the right to "stand your ground".

That comes from case law.

By golly you must be a "literalist" in your reading of the constitution!

 

[onecut39]

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

I think so. Infringing on absolute free speech would be the putting of limits on it. Like prohibiting libel or the incitement to riot etc.

Are you maintaining that you have the right to incite riot or to slander. Perhaps your version of free speech would allow you to lie in court?

That's not "speech" per se, but how you use speech.

But I don't expect leftbats blaming the act on the tool that worked as advertized, rather than the defective person who misused the tool, to recognize such distinctions.

A distinction without a difference.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

I "grasp" the entire amendment..in plain text.

It assures the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.

It does not protect the right to hunt.
It does not protect the right to conceal carry.
It does not protect the right to use arms for home protection.
It does not protect the right to "stand your ground".

That comes from case law.

Almost. It does in fact:

It assures the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.

But the method of insuring the ability to fulfill that right to the militia depends on the individual maintaining his own arms of the respective time (common use clause) at his disposal.

 

[Full-Auto]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

I "grasp" the entire amendment..in plain text.

It assures the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.

It does not protect the right to hunt.
It does not protect the right to conceal carry.
It does not protect the right to use arms for home protection.
It does not protect the right to "stand your ground".

That comes from case law.

No it doesnt. But I have the right to them. You can begin regulation once the militia has been formed which occurs after the call to arms.


Try and best me at this... try!!!

 

[Sallow]

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

I think so. Infringing on absolute free speech would be the putting of limits on it. Like prohibiting libel or the incitement to riot etc.

Are you maintaining that you have the right to incite riot or to slander. Perhaps your version of free speech would allow you to lie in court?

That's not "speech" per se, but how you use speech.

But I don't expect leftbats blaming the act on the tool that worked as advertized, rather than the defective person who misused the tool, to recognize such distinctions.

No such distinction exists in the constitution.

Neither in regards to free speech or assembly exist:

A prohibition in engaging in protest on private property.
The right of the Government to establish "free speech zones".
Protection against Libel.
Protection against Slander.
Protection against Inciteful speech.
Protection against Disrepectful speech.
Time limits on speech.
Time limits on assembly.
Respect for traffic lanes.


That, again, comes from case law.

 

[Sallow]

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

I "grasp" the entire amendment..in plain text.

It assures the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.

It does not protect the right to hunt.
It does not protect the right to conceal carry.
It does not protect the right to use arms for home protection.
It does not protect the right to "stand your ground".

That comes from case law.

No it doesnt. But I have the right to them. You can begin regulation once the militia has been formed which occurs after the call to arms.


Try and best me at this... try!!!

Best you at what?

Find any of the "rights" I listed..and how it is granted to a "person" in the Constitution.

The Constitution makes very distinct and clear differences between "the People" and "Persons".

 

[Full-Auto]

I "grasp" the entire amendment..in plain text.

It assures the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.

It does not protect the right to hunt.
It does not protect the right to conceal carry.
It does not protect the right to use arms for home protection.
It does not protect the right to "stand your ground".

That comes from case law.

No it doesnt. But I have the right to them. You can begin regulation once the militia has been formed which occurs after the call to arms.


Try and best me at this... try!!!

Best you at what?

Find any of the "rights" I listed..and how it is granted to a "person" in the Constitution.

The Constitution makes very distinct and clear differences between "the People" and "Persons".

Now you are having a bad reading comprehension moment.

 

[Oddball]

I think so. Infringing on absolute free speech would be the putting of limits on it. Like prohibiting libel or the incitement to riot etc.

Are you maintaining that you have the right to incite riot or to slander. Perhaps your version of free speech would allow you to lie in court?

That's not "speech" per se, but how you use speech.

But I don't expect leftbats blaming the act on the tool that worked as advertized, rather than the defective person who misused the tool, to recognize such distinctions.

No such distinction exists in the constitution.

Neither in regards to free speech or assembly exist:

A prohibition in engaging in protest on private property.
The right of the Government to establish "free speech zones".
Protection against Libel.
Protection against Slander.
Protection against Inciteful speech.
Protection against Disrepectful speech.
Time limits on speech.
Time limits on assembly.
Respect for traffic lanes.


That, again, comes from case law.

The distinction is not constitutional but semantic.

Words are tools, words can be used as weapons....Slander, libel and incitement have been determined misuse of the tool known as "speech" under the law.

Insofar as guns are concerned, gun grabbers like you are trying to blame the tool and deflecting from the fact that it was misused.