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?

You are free to say anything you want.

You are free to own a gun.

How you use them can have consequences.

So you are saying that restrictions are necessary? Or not?

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

Why is it you must credit me with words I did not type.

Because you are intellectually bankrupt.

I could speculate as to why you suddenly went weak kneed. But that would serve no purpose.

 

[onecut39]

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.

Got it Oddball. You don't need no steenking case law. Facts seem to muddle your already murky thought processes.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Not out of my lane at all.

In many states those arms are illegal. And you may want to back up your claim with a link.

Like this one.

Florida Court Broadly Interprets Ban on Ballistic Knives to Outlaw Automatics : American Knife and Tool Institute

Florida bans "ballistic" blades.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

Got it Oddball. You don't need no steenking case law. Facts seem to muddle your already murky thought processes.

If you are so fucking smart, and you are not.

Why dont you tell us which weapon is credited with the most deaths.

IDIOT.........

 

[Leweman]

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.

So you are saying that restrictions are necessary? Or not?

There are restrictions. What kind of restrictions would you like? I agree there should be some as well. ID and background checks and waiting periods.

 

[The T]

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.

And apparently had been planning it for awhile. People are going to do what they will. How society reacts or more precisely, the Law...is the deterrent. Making an example of the person for the ACT is the issue. Banning intstruments does nothing. Very good point.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Got it Oddball. You don't need no steenking case law. Facts seem to muddle your already murky thought processes.

Fact is that "speech" and "guns" are inanimate objects that can be used to good or bad ends....The fact that you can pick up a gun doesn't change this.

Case law is a deflection.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Why is it you must credit me with words I did not type.

Because you are intellectually bankrupt.

I could speculate as to why you suddenly went weak kneed. But that would serve no purpose.

Not "weak kneed" at all.

If all you want to do is trade insults..I am always up for that..

You poopy headed diaper monger..

 

[PredFan]

I say we ban the gun that Timothy McVey used to kill all of those people in Oklahoma City.

 

[Sallow]

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.

And this is the point where Oddball's argument falls apart.

 

[Si modo]

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.

And this is the point where Oddball's argument falls apart.

Only when simple sentence structure and English no longer mean what they say.

Damn, you try, though. You really DO have no issues looking like a moron and/or dishonest.

 

[Sallow]

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.

And this is the point where Oddball's argument falls apart.

Only when simple sentence structure and English no longer mean what they say.

Damn, you try, though. You really DO have no issues looking like a moron and/or dishonest.

First post in thread.

No substance.

Lots of insult.

I score it +10 on the troll board.

 

[HUGGY]

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

You, as usual, are an idiot. Russia and China had no constitution.

The REAL reason that the peasants ...citizens of those "countries" had no guns is that they could not afford them. Guns were a luxury. They had NO luxuries.

There was also no communication to speak of at the times of those political transformations. People did what they were told to do because they had no choice..CHOICES...no resources... Most of the population already lived at the will of the rulers. The rulers in both instances owned everything. That is by the way something that is happening here now with the vast majority of wealth going into the hands of a very few greedy self serving individuals.

You Frankie are an idiot for carrying thier water.

 

[candycorn]

The word "militia" is in the 2nd amendment. Somehow it has translated into anyone who wants to buy a gun can do so but only on the condition that they have enough money and never consider joining the required militia.

If we banned automatic weapons--not mentioned in the constitution--more Americans would be alive today.

I think Meister had it right sort of. Make mandatory minimums much stiffer; make criminals serve their full sentences but also just take away access to ridiculous weaponry that no one in their right mind would ever need.

Yes some criminals would be able to access them. Many would-be criminals would not however.

 

[Liability]

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. You clearly do not "grasp" the meaning of the Second Amendment very well at all.

The right of the People is not intended to convey some collectivist tripe. You have the right as a person. I have the right as a person. Together, we have it as people. But the plural doesn't erase the singular.

That is a strained and irrational interpretation you offer. It makes NO sense. And I will now prove it:

The FIRST Amendment (among other things) guarantees the right of the "people" to petition the Government for the redress of grievances. Are YOU suggesting that we can petition the gubmint but only if we do it in groups of two or more?

 

[Shelzin]

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?

The only limit on your freedoms is when you use your freedoms to infringe on someone else's freedom. Or at least... that's how it's supposed to work.

 

[Oddball]

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. You clearly do not "grasp" the meaning of the Second Amendment very well at all.

The right of the People is not intended to convey some collectivist tripe. You have the right as a person. I have the right as a person. Together, we have it as people. But the plural doesn't erase the singular.

That is a strained and irrational interpretation you offer. It makes NO sense. And I will now prove it:

The FIRST Amendment (among other things) guarantees the right of the "people" to petition the Government for the redress of grievances. Are YOU suggesting that we can petition the gubmint but only if we do it in groups of two or more?

It's not even that esoteric.

Both "speech" and "arms" maintain the position in the sentence structure know as "object".

Neither "speech" nor "arms" can act independently...They require humans to use or misuse them.

Shallow's completely spurious and specious deflection to case law is a diversion from the fact that his argument fails the basic rules of 3rd-grade English composition.

Yet, somehow or another, we never hear howling from the leftbats for more speech control, every time that Al Sharpton shoots off his big fat bigoted mouth or Doris Kearns Goodwin gets caught plagiarizing.

 

[Si modo]

The word "militia" is in the 2nd amendment. Somehow it has translated into anyone who wants to buy a gun can do so but only on the condition that they have enough money and never consider joining the required militia.

If we banned automatic weapons--not mentioned in the constitution--more Americans would be alive today.

I think Meister had it right sort of. Make mandatory minimums much stiffer; make criminals serve their full sentences but also just take away access to ridiculous weaponry that no one in their right mind would ever need.

Yes some criminals would be able to access them. Many would-be criminals would not however.

"Somehow it has translated"? Yeah, that 'somehow' is the SCOTUS.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

He had a loophole in his brain.