CDZ gun magazine bullet limits...they only effect law abiding gun owners so why do we need them.

[2aguy]

Sorry but a gun and a virus are not analogous at all

They can both kill

A hammer can kill
A fist can kill
A baseball bat can kill

need I go on?

Only until you get to the point. You're saying a gun is analogous to many dangerous things. True, but that hardly negates my analogy.

Of course it does.

A gun cannot propagate and spread through a population

A hammer can't shoot a bullet
A fist can't shoot a bullet
A baseball can't shoot a bullet

need I go on?

Fists and hammers kill more people than all rifles combined...yet you guys want to ban those rifles........

 

[2aguy]

When your action hams someone or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, sure.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm does neither of these things

And if someone perceives a danger from a stranger carrying a gun?

I'm sorry -- you'll have to demonstrate how simple possession of a gun harms anyone or places anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Your question indicates you know you cannot do this.

If I perceive a danger it is real to me. Can you guarantee that I'll never see someone with a gun that places me in real danger?

Blacks voting was perceived as a danger to democrats.....so they did what you want...they enacted Poll Taxes and Literacy tests for voting...was that right? Since they perceived a danger from blacks having the vote?

 

[2aguy]

Sorry.....you can't have a test of any kind for a basic Right......that isn't how Rights work....do you propose that all journalists register with the government and have their sources and stories vetted by federal agents? Basic Rights do not have to be applied for ....they exist wether you like them or not.

Actually you can and should have a test in some cases. The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" is usually restricted for reasons of public safety. In order to hold a large rally you must first prove you can provide for sanitation and security of the assemblage.

The 2nd as you interpret it is something new to the US, pretty much invented in 2008.

• In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."[86]

• In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[87]

• In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".[88]

Yes....others have tried to use the Right to assemble...the problem....is when you are assembling...you are doing so in a communal spot...where more than one set of citizens can lay a claim for use.....so you have to schedule it...they do not require a test to use it.....there is no relation to assembling in a public space and the Right to bear arms.

You failed to address the public safety component.

Nope...I did.......the government provides the police protection of the public space......the group doesn't provide their own security.....

 

[alang1216]

I gave an example of a "right" which requires a prior test (safety) before it can exercised.

No, you tried to create a false equivalence, probably because you know you have nothing else.
Time/place/manner permits are in no way competency tests, especially the oral/written tests you referred to.
And, I see you quickly gave up the court cases you cited. Smart of you.

I'll stand behind my analogy, you have the right to reject it.

No. You have to demonstrate your analogy sound.

Please compare and contrast the particulars of time/place/manner permits with written/oral exams to demonstrate competency as a condition for the plenary exercise of a right, and show that they are similar enough so that the constitutional permissibly of the former necessary extends to the latter.

I eagerly await your response that shall demonstrate your inability to do so.

No thanks.

I happily accept your concession of the point, that your 'analogy' is indeed a false equivalence.
Thank you .

And I'll happily accept your admission that you can't demonstrate that one "right" which requires a prior test is different from any other right.

 

[alang1216]

What Right requires a prior test? The democrats tried to do that with blacks and voting and were told to stop.........

You must show you can provide for the public safety before you can get a permit to hold a rally.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, you tried to create a false equivalence, probably because you know you have nothing else.
Time/place/manner permits are in no way competency tests, especially the oral/written tests you referred to.
And, I see you quickly gave up the court cases you cited. Smart of you.

I'll stand behind my analogy, you have the right to reject it.

No. You have to demonstrate your analogy sound.

Please compare and contrast the particulars of time/place/manner permits with written/oral exams to demonstrate competency as a condition for the plenary exercise of a right, and show that they are similar enough so that the constitutional permissibly of the former necessary extends to the latter.

I eagerly await your response that shall demonstrate your inability to do so.

No thanks.

I happily accept your concession of the point, that your 'analogy' is indeed a false equivalence.
Thank you .

And I'll happily accept your admission that you can't demonstrate that one "right" which requires a prior test is different from any other right.

We're discussing YOUR analogy, not some claim that I did not make.
You analogy failed, your point failed with it, and you know this to be true.

 

[alang1216]

Nope...I did.......the government provides the police protection of the public space......the group doesn't provide their own security.....

Often they will have to pay for the police and the porta-potties, they have to show they can.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What Right requires a prior test? The democrats tried to do that with blacks and voting and were told to stop.........

You must show you can provide for the public safety before you can get a permit to hold a rally.

Absolutely false. This condition does not exist.

 

[alang1216]

I'll stand behind my analogy, you have the right to reject it.

No. You have to demonstrate your analogy sound.

Please compare and contrast the particulars of time/place/manner permits with written/oral exams to demonstrate competency as a condition for the plenary exercise of a right, and show that they are similar enough so that the constitutional permissibly of the former necessary extends to the latter.

I eagerly await your response that shall demonstrate your inability to do so.

No thanks.

I happily accept your concession of the point, that your 'analogy' is indeed a false equivalence.
Thank you .

And I'll happily accept your admission that you can't demonstrate that one "right" which requires a prior test is different from any other right.

We're discussing YOUR analogy, not some claim that I did not make.
You analogy failed, your point failed with it, and you know this to be true.

My analogy was of another right which requires a prior test. Claiming it fails it not the same as demonstrating it is false.

 

[alang1216]

What Right requires a prior test? The democrats tried to do that with blacks and voting and were told to stop.........

You must show you can provide for the public safety before you can get a permit to hold a rally.

Absolutely false. This condition does not exist.

Not universal but true in some places and legal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. You have to demonstrate your analogy sound.

Please compare and contrast the particulars of time/place/manner permits with written/oral exams to demonstrate competency as a condition for the plenary exercise of a right, and show that they are similar enough so that the constitutional permissibly of the former necessary extends to the latter.

I eagerly await your response that shall demonstrate your inability to do so.

No thanks.

I happily accept your concession of the point, that your 'analogy' is indeed a false equivalence.
Thank you .

And I'll happily accept your admission that you can't demonstrate that one "right" which requires a prior test is different from any other right.

We're discussing YOUR analogy, not some claim that I did not make.
You analogy failed, your point failed with it, and you know this to be true.

My analogy was of another right which requires a prior test.

Your analogy failed because you cannot illustrate the"prior test" for a parade permit and demonstrate that it is substantially the same "prior test" as the competency requirement you seek to place on the right to arms; absent this illustration and demonstration, you cannot show that the constitutional acceptability for the former carries over to the latter.
You know all of this is true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What Right requires a prior test? The democrats tried to do that with blacks and voting and were told to stop.........

You must show you can provide for the public safety before you can get a permit to hold a rally.

Absolutely false. This condition does not exist.

Not universal but true in some places and legal.

Noting here supports your claim that "You must show you can provide for the public safety before you can get a permit to hold a rally"

This condition does not exist; you cannot cite an example of a denial of permit because the organization that applied for the permit could not provide security for the event, nor can you cite an example of any such security as a condition of the issuance of a permit.

You clearly do not understand that part of the constitutional permissibly of a time/place/manner permit is so the STATE has ample opportunity to provide the necessary security.

 

[alang1216]

Your analogy failed because you cannot illustrate the"prior test" for a parade permit and demonstrate that it is substantially the same "prior test" as the competency requirement you seek to place on the right to arms; absent this illustration and demonstration, you cannot show that the constitutional acceptability for the former carries over to the latter.
You know all of this is true.

Permits are complex and often under local authorities so rules differ dramatically. It is legal for them to require certain things before a permit is issued. One common example is insurance so you must prove you have obtained the insurance prior to being issued a permit. As I see it, this is substantially the same "prior test" or hurdle as the competency requirement I seek to place on the right to arms.

 

[alang1216]

What Right requires a prior test? The democrats tried to do that with blacks and voting and were told to stop.........

You must show you can provide for the public safety before you can get a permit to hold a rally.

Absolutely false. This condition does not exist.

Not universal but true in some places and legal.

Noting here supports your claim that "You must show you can provide for the public safety before you can get a permit to hold a rally"

This condition does not exist; you cannot cite an example of a denial of permit because the organization that applied for the permit could not provide security for the event, nor can you cite an example of any such security as a condition of the issuance of a permit.

You clearly do not understand that part of the constitutional permissibly of a time/place/manner permit is so the STATE has ample opportunity to provide the necessary security.

The public safety requirement is indirect since you may be required to obtain insurance before a permit is granted and the insurance company would set the public safety requirements.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As I see it, this is substantially the same "prior test" or hurdle as the competency requirement I seek to place on the right to arms.

You are simply lying to yourself.
There;s no rational basis for this statement.
As you are cleanly more than happy to lie to yourself, you plainly illustrate there is no need to waste further time on you.

 

[alang1216]

As I see it, this is substantially the same "prior test" or hurdle as the competency requirement I seek to place on the right to arms.

You are simply lying to yourself.
There;s no rational basis for this statement.

We'll have to agree to differ.

 

[2aguy]

What Right requires a prior test? The democrats tried to do that with blacks and voting and were told to stop.........

You must show you can provide for the public safety before you can get a permit to hold a rally.

Wrong....you let the town, or city know and they provide the police protection...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong....you let the town, or city know and they provide the police protection...

Don;t feed the troll.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When your action hams someone or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, sure.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm does neither of these things

And if someone perceives a danger from a stranger carrying a gun?

I'm sorry -- you'll have to demonstrate how simple possession of a gun harms anyone or places anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Your question indicates you know you cannot do this.

If I perceive a danger it is real to me. Can you guarantee that I'll never see someone with a gun that places me in real danger?

A person legally carrying a concealed weapon that you cannot see or have any way of perceiving poses no threat to you whatsoever.

 

[2aguy]

When your action hams someone or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, sure.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm does neither of these things

And if someone perceives a danger from a stranger carrying a gun?

I'm sorry -- you'll have to demonstrate how simple possession of a gun harms anyone or places anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Your question indicates you know you cannot do this.

If I perceive a danger it is real to me. Can you guarantee that I'll never see someone with a gun that places me in real danger?

A person legally carrying a concealed weapon that you cannot see or have any way of perceiving poses no threat to you whatsoever.

A weapon in a holster is no threat to him.....