Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
Big difference, comrade.That's not "speech" per se, but how you use speech.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?
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.
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?
Lots of straw.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.
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.
All the Progressive Leaders who rose to true greatness, Stalin, Mao, etc, did so because their citizens lacked a Second Amendment
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.
Don't forget the "well regulated" part.
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!!!
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.
Would it make you feel better if they were thrown off of tall buildings?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.
Its certainly more important than the lives of the 24-25 people who are killed with guns every single day.
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..
The distinction is not constitutional but semantic.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.
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.
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.
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.
A strict reading of English composition and comprehension blows your lame-assed argument clean out of the water...Don't need case law.The distinction is not constitutional but semantic.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.
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.