Second amendment more important?

[BlindBoo]

The militias went home at certain time of the year as there were no standing army. This gave them the right to take their weapons home.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Stalin and Mao were darlings of FDR because they were "Democratic" and "Progressive"

Uncle Joe? What a sweet name!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The militias went home at certain time of the year as there were no standing army. This gave them the right to take their weapons home.

You mean besides the fact that it was their weapons in the first place, right?

 

[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.

A distinction without a difference.

Big difference, comrade.

But making such distinctions doesn't comport with your collectivist authoritarian central planner political bent, so you disregard it.

 

[kwc57]

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?

You are free to say anything you want.

You are free to own a gun.

How you use them can have consequences.

 

[Si modo]

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.

Lots of straw.

And the SCOTUS already ruled on persons as it relates to the 2nd.

 

[onecut39]

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.

Don't forget the "well regulated" part.

 

[kiwiman127]

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

I think there was more to Stalin's and Mao's power than that! Back in those days and in those countries, guns as toys weren't a happening thing like they are in the US today. If you are familiar with the history of both countries, armed citizens defeated the Czar's and the Emporer's armies. Then they had the military might to put down and further revolutions as they learned from their own rise to power. In other words, have such a powerful army that any revolutionist would think twice about having a revolution.
I know alot about Russia's revolution because I watched Doctor Zhivago the other night with my wife.

 

[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.

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

You asked a question, I answered it. Now you want to venture into the realm of hyperbole. Have fun with that.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Don't forget the "well regulated" part.

Yes the militia is indeed well regulated to prevent its use in a tyrannical fashion or to promote un-Constitutional ideas by force.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Absolutely true but way too much for rw's to "grasp".

As to the question, is the second amendment more important?

Yes, it is.

Its certainly more important than the lives of the 24-25 people who are killed with guns every single day.

 

[Sallow]

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.

You posted that you have "Bested" me..

Well that would mean that you have won you "argument". You do that by providing supporting documentation and not by insulting the person you are having discourse with..

 

[Oddball]

Absolutely true but way too much for rw's to "grasp".

As to the question, is the second amendment more important?

Yes, it is.

Its certainly more important than the lives of the 24-25 people who are killed with guns every single day.

Would it make you feel better if they were thrown off of tall buildings?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Its certainly more important than the lives of the 24-25 people who are killed with guns every single day.

Would be more if only criminals had guns.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

You posted that you have "Bested" me..

Well that would mean that you have won you "argument". You do that by providing supporting documentation and not by insulting the person you are having discourse with..

I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and read the actual words.

 

[Sallow]

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.

No it is Constitutional.

A strict reading of the Constitution proves my point.

You guys want to be "strict" sometimes..and not so strict other times.

Even in your second amendment argument. Outside of the flaws I've pointed out in your argument..some arms are restricted. Like switchblades. Or brass knuckles.

That again..comes from case law. And neither arms have big lobbyists protecting the right to bear them.

 

[Sallow]

Now you are having a bad reading comprehension moment.

You posted that you have "Bested" me..

Well that would mean that you have won you "argument". You do that by providing supporting documentation and not by insulting the person you are having discourse with..

I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and read the actual words.

Another failure on your part.

You're not or have ever been very good at this. Because generally you have to rely on base language to refute points..without anything substantive. Here's a tip. Insults don't work in bar fight either.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Even in your second amendment argument. Outside of the flaws I've pointed out in your argument..some arms are restricted. Like switchblades. Or brass knuckles.

You can carry a switchblade and brass knuckles in Florida if you have a concealed weapons permit.

You seem out of your lane on this subject.

 

[Meister]

Anyone wonder just how many repeat offenders there are for crimes commited with weapons?
Has anyone wondered how many of those offenders were tried and released with a lesser crime, had the time reduced down to no more than a slap on the wrist.
We have laws in place that hits the perp hard with a harsh sentence with crimes using weapons. Only to be reduced or overturned by liberal courts.
If the courts would start enforcing these laws with the mandatory sentences it would keep the perps in prison for a long time and also, it would deter a lot of the criminals from using deadly weapons in crimes.
Not saying it would eliminate the crimes, but it would reduce them.
As for this nut in Aurora......there was nothing going to stop him, hell, he had the makings for bombs.

 

[Oddball]

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.

No it is Constitutional.

A strict reading of the Constitution proves my point.

You guys want to be "strict" sometimes..and not so strict other times.

Even in your second amendment argument. Outside of the flaws I've pointed out in your argument..some arms are restricted. Like switchblades. Or brass knuckles.

That again..comes from case law. And neither arms have big lobbyists protecting the right to bear them.

A strict reading of English composition and comprehension blows your lame-assed argument clean out of the water...Don't need case law.

Only your legendary intellectual dishonesty prevents you from recognizing such points.