A comparison of two Constitutional rights

[daveman]

It could. But its point is irrelevant.

Nonsense. You claim you support the right to own weapons, then say the government can put a burdensome requirement on gun owners which will limit their usefulness as defensive weapons.

I don't think you know what you want.

I personally dont care if you own a gun or not, with a lock or not. Its not important to me either way.

What im doing is stating the reality of the situation. The government can put these measures in place if they see fit.

My personal opinion really doesnt matter with what the actual laws are.

The reality is that mandating gun locks effectively disarms the owner.

 

[daveman]

I personally dont care if you own a gun or not, with a lock or not. Its not important to me either way.

What im doing is stating the reality of the situation. The government can put these measures in place if they see fit.

My personal opinion really doesnt matter with what the actual laws are.

The reality is that mandating gun locks effectively disarms the owner.

But you are able to own your gun. Shrug. You have nothing but this?

A gun you can't shoot is nothing but a poorly-designed club.

How about this? You have the right to express your own opinion...but only by moving your lips. You're not allowed to say it out loud.

You have no problem with that, right?

 

[daveman]

But you are able to own your gun. Shrug. You have nothing but this?

A gun you can't shoot is nothing but a poorly-designed club.

How about this? You have the right to express your own opinion...but only by moving your lips. You're not allowed to say it out loud.

You have no problem with that, right?

You need a gun to defend your home? How odd.....

So you have anything else beyond gun locks?

I need a gun to defend my home if the intruder has a gun.

Asking him pretty please to leave me alone probably isn't going to work.

Meanwhile, please state your opinion on my application of your logic to the 1st.

 

[daveman]

You need a gun to defend your home? How odd.....

So you have anything else beyond gun locks?

I need a gun to defend my home if the intruder has a gun.

Asking him pretty please to leave me alone probably isn't going to work.

Meanwhile, please state your opinion on my application of your logic to the 1st.

Say what you like, just dont whine if you get trouble.

Meanwhile, please state your opinion on my application of your logic to the 1st.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then you do not believe we actually have rights of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms.

That's me, the guy that doesn't believe I have rights because I refuse to acknowledge the government's ability to regulate my rights.

The government has the authority to exercise its power to protect the safety and security of the people, even if it means that the government must impose limits on rights explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution.

That is one of the reasons we have a judiciary - to arbitrate disputes that might arise when such conflicting interests collide.

The federal government does not have the authority to tell anyone what to do, period. The reason for that is pretty simple, the only authority the government has comes from the consent of the people it governs. When it has to resort to using force it loses consent, and thus all legitimate authority over those it uses force upon. The only reason we have a judiciary is to prevent the government from losing its authority by preventing it from using force on anyone who is not in armed rebellion against it.

Unfortunately, everyone forgot to read the Declaration of Independence, and I am forced to deal with the government idiots like you want to use to bring everyone into line with your idiotic concepts. Feel free to spout and posture, it just makes me look even more intelligent than I am.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nonsense. You claim you support the right to own weapons, then say the government can put a burdensome requirement on gun owners which will limit their usefulness as defensive weapons.

I don't think you know what you want.

I personally dont care if you own a gun or not, with a lock or not. Its not important to me either way.

What im doing is stating the reality of the situation. The government can put these measures in place if they see fit.

My personal opinion really doesnt matter with what the actual laws are.

The reality is that mandating gun locks effectively disarms the owner.

And does nothing to stop gun crime.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's me, the guy that doesn't believe I have rights because I refuse to acknowledge the government's ability to regulate my rights.

The government has the authority to exercise its power to protect the safety and security of the people, even if it means that the government must impose limits on rights explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution.

That is one of the reasons we have a judiciary - to arbitrate disputes that might arise when such conflicting interests collide.

The federal government does not have the authority to tell anyone what to do, period. The reason for that is pretty simple, the only authority the government has comes from the consent of the people it governs. When it has to resort to using force it loses consent, and thus all legitimate authority over those it uses force upon. The only reason we have a judiciary is to prevent the government from losing its authority by preventing it from using force on anyone who is not in armed rebellion against it.

Unfortunately, everyone forgot to read the Declaration of Independence, and I am forced to deal with the government idiots like you want to use to bring everyone into line with your idiotic concepts. Feel free to spout and posture, it just makes me look even more intelligent than I am.

You really are an idiot. The federal government has the authority to tell people what to do because the people delegate that authority to the federal government.

Stop talking.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When the government stays the exercise of a right so it can make sure that said exercise is legal, the government has engaged in prior restraint.
This violates the constitution.

lol, daveman agrees with your post but earlier said he supports background checks.

Which is it, daveman?

Background checks are a necessary evil.

But you need to acknowledge that only law-abiding citizens are going to go through the process. Criminals who illegally obtain guns are not going to bother.

Ok, so you think M14 Shooter is full of shit when he says they are both unnecessary and unconstitutional. Finally you are smart enough to agree with me on something.

What is evil about them? Is it evil to have background checks for hiring at a daycare center to screen out convicted pedophiles?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The government has the authority to exercise its power to protect the safety and security of the people, even if it means that the government must impose limits on rights explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution.

That is one of the reasons we have a judiciary - to arbitrate disputes that might arise when such conflicting interests collide.

The federal government does not have the authority to tell anyone what to do, period. The reason for that is pretty simple, the only authority the government has comes from the consent of the people it governs. When it has to resort to using force it loses consent, and thus all legitimate authority over those it uses force upon. The only reason we have a judiciary is to prevent the government from losing its authority by preventing it from using force on anyone who is not in armed rebellion against it.

Unfortunately, everyone forgot to read the Declaration of Independence, and I am forced to deal with the government idiots like you want to use to bring everyone into line with your idiotic concepts. Feel free to spout and posture, it just makes me look even more intelligent than I am.

You really are an idiot. The federal government has the authority to tell people what to do because the people delegate that authority to the federal government.

Stop talking.

The federal government has the authority to act within its enumerated powers and it never has the authority to violate our inalienable rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's funny how you think you're so clever.

Whoever told you you were did you no favor.

But continue your flailing. It's quite amusing.

Personal insults don't help the fact that you can't refute what I'm saying.

I have. Do keep up.

Maybe you can suggest background checks for churchgoers again.

You're the one who said all rights are the same and have to be treated the same. So why can a convicted felon become priest or minister, but can't own a gun?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.
But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

When the government stays the exercise of a right so it can make sure that said exercise is legal, the government has engaged in prior restraint.
This violates the constitution.

Prior restraint has nothing to do with criminal background checks. I don't know where you heard that nonsense, or why you keep repeating it.

A background check to determine one's qualification to own a firearm is not prior restraint because:

The person who is qualified to own a firearm is not prevented from doing so.

The person who is not qualified to own a firearm does not have a right to exercise, so he is not being denied a right. He has already disqualified himself before the fact.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.
But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

When the government stays the exercise of a right so it can make sure that said exercise is legal, the government has engaged in prior restraint.
This violates the constitution.

Prior restraint has nothing to do with criminal background checks. I don't know where you heard that nonsense, or why you keep repeating it.

A background check to determine one's qualification to own a firearm is not prior restraint because:

The person who is qualified to own a firearm is not prevented from doing so.

The person who is not qualified to own a firearm does not have a right to exercise, so he is not being denied a right. He has already disqualified himself before the fact.

The second amendment does not limit the right to keep and bear arms only to some people.

 

[daveman]

lol, daveman agrees with your post but earlier said he supports background checks.

Which is it, daveman?

Background checks are a necessary evil.

But you need to acknowledge that only law-abiding citizens are going to go through the process. Criminals who illegally obtain guns are not going to bother.

Ok, so you think M14 Shooter is full of shit when he says they are both unnecessary and unconstitutional. Finally you are smart enough to agree with me on something.

What is evil about them? Is it evil to have background checks for hiring at a daycare center to screen out convicted pedophiles?

You really should stop trying to be condescending. You simply can't pull it off.

Background checks for weapons purchases (which criminals won't bother with -- did I mention that? Because you didn't acknowledge it) are a necessary evil because they ARE an infringement of rights. Just the same as there are certain infringements on 1st Amendment rights.

 

[daveman]

Personal insults don't help the fact that you can't refute what I'm saying.

I have. Do keep up.

Maybe you can suggest background checks for churchgoers again.

You're the one who said all rights are the same and have to be treated the same. So why can a convicted felon become priest or minister, but can't own a gun?

Why can't a convicted felon legally vote in some states?

Note I said "legally". Democrats love to get them to vote illegally.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The federal government does not have the authority to tell anyone what to do, period. The reason for that is pretty simple, the only authority the government has comes from the consent of the people it governs. When it has to resort to using force it loses consent, and thus all legitimate authority over those it uses force upon. The only reason we have a judiciary is to prevent the government from losing its authority by preventing it from using force on anyone who is not in armed rebellion against it.

Unfortunately, everyone forgot to read the Declaration of Independence, and I am forced to deal with the government idiots like you want to use to bring everyone into line with your idiotic concepts. Feel free to spout and posture, it just makes me look even more intelligent than I am.

You really are an idiot. The federal government has the authority to tell people what to do because the people delegate that authority to the federal government.

Stop talking.

The federal government has the authority to act within its enumerated powers and it never has the authority to violate our inalienable rights.

I certainly don't remember having ever delegated to the federal government the authority to ignore my basic civil rights. Pretty sure the social contract I signed on to involved the federal government functioning as a servant of ME, not the other way around.

 

[ABikerSailor]

When the government stays the exercise of a right so it can make sure that said exercise is legal, the government has engaged in prior restraint.
This violates the constitution.

Prior restraint has nothing to do with criminal background checks. I don't know where you heard that nonsense, or why you keep repeating it.

A background check to determine one's qualification to own a firearm is not prior restraint because:

The person who is qualified to own a firearm is not prevented from doing so.

The person who is not qualified to own a firearm does not have a right to exercise, so he is not being denied a right. He has already disqualified himself before the fact.

The second amendment does not limit the right to keep and bear arms only to some people.

So, in other words, you don't have a problem with people like Cho and Laughtner (who were proven to have mental problems) owning guns?

How about convicted felons? Can they own guns too? I mean, they ARE U.S. citizens, who according to you, have the right to bear arms, because everyone is allowed to have a gun.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When the government stays the exercise of a right so it can make sure that said exercise is legal, the government has engaged in prior restraint.
This violates the constitution.

Prior restraint has nothing to do with criminal background checks. I don't know where you heard that nonsense, or why you keep repeating it.

A background check to determine one's qualification to own a firearm is not prior restraint because:

The person who is qualified to own a firearm is not prevented from doing so.

The person who is not qualified to own a firearm does not have a right to exercise, so he is not being denied a right. He has already disqualified himself before the fact.

The second amendment does not limit the right to keep and bear arms only to some people.

Well it probably does just like it limits the right of free speech to some people in some places. It seems we live on a slippery slope and there is nothing we can do about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Prior restraint has nothing to do with criminal background checks. I don't know where you heard that nonsense, or why you keep repeating it.

A background check to determine one's qualification to own a firearm is not prior restraint because:

The person who is qualified to own a firearm is not prevented from doing so.

The person who is not qualified to own a firearm does not have a right to exercise, so he is not being denied a right. He has already disqualified himself before the fact.

The second amendment does not limit the right to keep and bear arms only to some people.

So, in other words, you don't have a problem with people like Cho and Laughtner (who were proven to have mental problems) owning guns?

Were they disquialified from purchasing/ownership/posession by federal law?

How about convicted felons? Can they own guns too?

Due Process.

 

[g5000]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

Several amendments to the Constitution together state that no citizen 18 or over may be denied the right to vote without due process.

The left vehemently opposes the suggestion that voters show ID to the government in order to vote.


Can someone explain this dichotomy to me?

I am opposed to Voter ID and gun registration.

I believe in voter registration and gun buyer registration. Pre-register to exercise either of those rights, so all the vetting is done ahead of time to stop dead illegal aliens shooting up the polling place.

BLARRRRG!!!

Jesus, that G5000 might be onto something!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

Several amendments to the Constitution together state that no citizen 18 or over may be denied the right to vote without due process.

The left vehemently opposes the suggestion that voters show ID to the government in order to vote.


Can someone explain this dichotomy to me?

Sure, people who cant get an ID, vote liberal so liberals love them

people who have guns want to defend themsleves against liberals so liberals hate them, oppose them, and restrict them any way possible including requiring ID and much more.