A Troubling Ruling for Second Amendment Advocates.

[M14 Shooter]

I believe that any law designed to preempt, restrict, or otherwise curtail any right enumerated in the Bill of Rights should be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest standard of judicial review - including the Second Amendment right to self defense.

Heller and McDonald directly support this position, and it's impossible to argue a sound position to the contrary.

 

[TheBrain]

I believe that any law designed to preempt, restrict, or otherwise curtail any right enumerated in the Bill of Rights should be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest standard of judicial review - including the Second Amendment right to self defense.

I believe I should be able to screw super models. Believing doesnt make it so.

HUH?
WTF?
Is there a right to enslave?

Just because you guys have managed to enslaved the Palestinians doesn't mean that you have the right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

What do the Palestinians have to do with this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

My feeling on this, and indeed many other of our "rights" is that we as a people need to realize that we unfortunately live in a time in which we can't simply trust the average person enough to make a blatant statement that all of our rights are absolute. Every single one of the original Amendments which guaranteed our rights now have restrictions on said rights, and rightfully so.

First Amendment - Taken literally, the government can NOT interfere with my right of free speech nor my freedom of religeon; yet we don't allow people to scream fire in a theater, nor even talk about the Bible, for example.

It just seems odd that everyone is willing to except the fact that these limitations MUST exist except when it comes to a right that THEY care about.

Sorry, but our forefathers never meant for us to literally be able to do anything we want without regards to the consequences.

No one suggests this is the case.

You have the right to do what you want so long as you do not impede the rights of others or cause them injury. Any 2A restriction based on this will likely pass muster; any that is not, will not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Should a person not be able to defend himself just because he was convicted of a crime?

Always been on the fence on this one.

My current thought is that if a felon who has lost the right to arms uses a gun in the direct act of self-defense, he should not have to face a charge for illegal posession.

Otherwise, having a gun could/should, if the relevant governments so choose, be illegal.

 

[jillian]

My feeling on this, and indeed many other of our "rights" is that we as a people need to realize that we unfortunately live in a time in which we can't simply trust the average person enough to make a blatant statement that all of our rights are absolute. Every single one of the original Amendments which guaranteed our rights now have restrictions on said rights, and rightfully so.

First Amendment - Taken literally, the government can NOT interfere with my right of free speech nor my freedom of religeon; yet we don't allow people to scream fire in a theater, nor even talk about the Bible, for example.

It just seems odd that everyone is willing to except the fact that these limitations MUST exist except when it comes to a right that THEY care about.

Sorry, but our forefathers never meant for us to literally be able to do anything we want without regards to the consequences.

no one is prohibited from "talking" about the bible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a states rights issue.

If you don't like the way the state vote went, move.

Except that states do not have the right to violate the Constitution.

 

[jillian]

This is a states rights issue.

If you don't like the way the state vote went, move.

1. the states rights issue was pretty well disposed of by the civil war.

2. whether i agree with this law or not, federal law always takes precedence over conflicting state law. states can give more rights than the fed, but not less.

 

[TheBrain]

My feeling on this, and indeed many other of our "rights" is that we as a people need to realize that we unfortunately live in a time in which we can't simply trust the average person enough to make a blatant statement that all of our rights are absolute. Every single one of the original Amendments which guaranteed our rights now have restrictions on said rights, and rightfully so.

First Amendment - Taken literally, the government can NOT interfere with my right of free speech nor my freedom of religeon; yet we don't allow people to scream fire in a theater, nor even talk about the Bible, for example.

It just seems odd that everyone is willing to except the fact that these limitations MUST exist except when it comes to a right that THEY care about.

Sorry, but our forefathers never meant for us to literally be able to do anything we want without regards to the consequences.

no one is prohibited from "talking" about the bible.

Actually, yes ma'am some are. A teacher can get a school sued if they talk about the Bible.

 

[The Rabbi]

My feeling on this, and indeed many other of our "rights" is that we as a people need to realize that we unfortunately live in a time in which we can't simply trust the average person enough to make a blatant statement that all of our rights are absolute. Every single one of the original Amendments which guaranteed our rights now have restrictions on said rights, and rightfully so.

First Amendment - Taken literally, the government can NOT interfere with my right of free speech nor my freedom of religeon; yet we don't allow people to scream fire in a theater, nor even talk about the Bible, for example.

It just seems odd that everyone is willing to except the fact that these limitations MUST exist except when it comes to a right that THEY care about.

Sorry, but our forefathers never meant for us to literally be able to do anything we want without regards to the consequences.

no one is prohibited from "talking" about the bible.

Except teachers in school.

 

[The Rabbi]

I believe I should be able to screw super models. Believing doesnt make it so.

HUH?
WTF?
Is there a right to enslave?

Just because you guys have managed to enslaved the Palestinians doesn't mean that you have the right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

What do the Palestinians have to do with this?

Nothing.
But when you're a brain-dead jew-hater like COndomdelicious everything can have reference back to that. It is like a broken record. And about as coherent.

 

[jillian]

My feeling on this, and indeed many other of our "rights" is that we as a people need to realize that we unfortunately live in a time in which we can't simply trust the average person enough to make a blatant statement that all of our rights are absolute. Every single one of the original Amendments which guaranteed our rights now have restrictions on said rights, and rightfully so.

First Amendment - Taken literally, the government can NOT interfere with my right of free speech nor my freedom of religeon; yet we don't allow people to scream fire in a theater, nor even talk about the Bible, for example.

It just seems odd that everyone is willing to except the fact that these limitations MUST exist except when it comes to a right that THEY care about.

Sorry, but our forefathers never meant for us to literally be able to do anything we want without regards to the consequences.

no one is prohibited from "talking" about the bible.

Actually, yes ma'am some are. A teacher can get a school sued if they talk about the Bible.

she cannot proselytize. she can talk about the bible on her time. not to my kid and not on the government dime. that isn't the same as not being able to talk about the bible.

what would you think about someone complaining they couldn't talk about the koran?

 

[jillian]

My feeling on this, and indeed many other of our "rights" is that we as a people need to realize that we unfortunately live in a time in which we can't simply trust the average person enough to make a blatant statement that all of our rights are absolute. Every single one of the original Amendments which guaranteed our rights now have restrictions on said rights, and rightfully so.

First Amendment - Taken literally, the government can NOT interfere with my right of free speech nor my freedom of religeon; yet we don't allow people to scream fire in a theater, nor even talk about the Bible, for example.

It just seems odd that everyone is willing to except the fact that these limitations MUST exist except when it comes to a right that THEY care about.

Sorry, but our forefathers never meant for us to literally be able to do anything we want without regards to the consequences.

no one is prohibited from "talking" about the bible.

Except teachers in school.

they can talk about the bible when they're out of school. i don't want them *talking* to my kid about *their* beliefs except as part of a comparitive religion class.

and for the record, there are times when they can. kids have projects where they talk about their cultures and holidays. that is appropriate discussion. not preaching to my kid about how he's going to hell because he doesn't believe in jesus.

surely you can't possibly disagree with that.

 

[TheBrain]

no one is prohibited from "talking" about the bible.

Actually, yes ma'am some are. A teacher can get a school sued if they talk about the Bible.

she cannot proselytize. she can talk about the bible on her time. not to my kid and not on the government dime. that isn't the same as not being able to talk about the bible.

what would you think about someone complaining they couldn't talk about the koran?

I've seen schools sued because a teacher was reading a Bible to herself on her lunch break Jillian, you're entirely wrong on this matter. Is it right? Certainly not, but it happens.

 

[jillian]

Actually, yes ma'am some are. A teacher can get a school sued if they talk about the Bible.

she cannot proselytize. she can talk about the bible on her time. not to my kid and not on the government dime. that isn't the same as not being able to talk about the bible.

what would you think about someone complaining they couldn't talk about the koran?

I've seen schools sued because a teacher was reading a Bible to herself on her lunch break Jillian, you're entirely wrong on this matter. Is it right? Certainly not, but it happens.

i don't believe that's the case. i know there were instances where the teacher was reading the bible IN CLASS. otherwise no one would have known about it.

again, what would you say if a muslim was whining they couldn't "talk" abut the koran?

 

[TheBrain]

she cannot proselytize. she can talk about the bible on her time. not to my kid and not on the government dime. that isn't the same as not being able to talk about the bible.

what would you think about someone complaining they couldn't talk about the koran?

I've seen schools sued because a teacher was reading a Bible to herself on her lunch break Jillian, you're entirely wrong on this matter. Is it right? Certainly not, but it happens.

i don't believe that's the case. i know there were instances where the teacher was reading the bible IN CLASS. otherwise no one would have known about it.

again, what would you say if a muslim was whining they couldn't "talk" abut the koran?

First , let's be clear. I do NOT want CHristians teaching the Bible in schools. I get the idea that you are somehow mistaken in believing that is what I am saying. No, that's not a school's job, and a teacher is in a position of authority whether they are using that position or not, I don't want them teaching Christianity nor Islam to my kids (nor do I want them teaching that homosexuality is a okay, but that's another thread entirely, I only mention it because I wrote the same exact same thing in THAT thread - there are just certain areas a school doesn't belong in)

That being said, I think a teacher absolutely should have the right to read their holy book on their breaks on school property, and wear religious garb (within reason on that one ) and again, that's no matter the religion.

Certianly I do not advocate that my religion be given "rights" that others do not enjoy. Instead I say they should be treated exactly the same .

 

[Wingsofwind]

Yes, that's exactly what I said. People don't think ANY restrictions are reasonable when it comes to the right that matters most to them. ANYONE who is honest and reasonable would admit that there are valid reasons to limit what weapons people may use. For instance, if we had NO limits then a felon couldn't even be barred from owning a weapon, because the COTUS says that the government may not pass ANY laws. Are you suggesting that you support allowing convicted felons to own firearms?

Should a person not be able to defend himself just because he was convicted of a crime?

If a person has paid their debt to socity he should not have to pay it his whole life time.

This reminds me of an incident that happened not too long ago around here. A guy who was a convicted felon who paid his debt and was no longer on probation/parole ended up shooting a dog that attacked him(pit bull). He is now in prison on a firearms possession charge. He is in his 60s and have paid his debt back when he was in his 30s.

Should he have just let the dog attack him and end up in the hospital or possibly dead just because he was a convicted felon?

 

[TheBrain]

Should a person not be able to defend himself just because he was convicted of a crime?

If a person has paid their debt to socity he should not have to pay it his whole life time.

This reminds me of an incident that happened not too long ago around here. A guy who was a convicted felon who paid his debt and was no longer on probation/parole ended up shooting a dog that attacked him(pit bull). He is now in prison on a firearms possession charge. He is in his 60s and have paid his debt back when he was in his 30s.

Should he have just let the dog attack him and end up in the hospital or possibly dead just because he was a convicted felon?

NO, he should not have committed a felony to begin with.

 

[Wingsofwind]

If a person has paid their debt to socity he should not have to pay it his whole life time.

This reminds me of an incident that happened not too long ago around here. A guy who was a convicted felon who paid his debt and was no longer on probation/parole ended up shooting a dog that attacked him(pit bull). He is now in prison on a firearms possession charge. He is in his 60s and have paid his debt back when he was in his 30s.

Should he have just let the dog attack him and end up in the hospital or possibly dead just because he was a convicted felon?

NO, he should not have committed a felony to begin with.

People make mistakes and some actually learn from them. A mistake should not mean you can not protect yourself later in life.

 

[editec]

Some gun control is a good idea...that doesn't really work all that well.

I suspect most of us can agree with that, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Some gun control is a good idea...that doesn't really work all that well.

I suspect most of us can agree with that, right?

Like what?