Infringement

[progressive hunter]

This thread would be a great place for lefties to justify their anti constitutional stance. C'mon lefties, start listing all the laws that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Please explain which rights are unlimited. I believe all have restrictions.

Why is the 2nd a special case?

because it says so right in the text of it,,,

 

[sparky]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

prove it,,,

the Patriot Act

~S~

 

[pismoe]

second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS carried by individual soldiers [combat soldiers] for military and other legal and lawful purposes

and how is that not redefining the 2nd?

Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .

ok, i'll play

here's a start for you>>

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia

~S~

-------------------------------------------- main thing is that NUKES are unaffordable Sparky .

 

[progressive hunter]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

prove it,,,

the Patriot Act

~S~

doesnt mean its legal,,,and repubes have been pissing on the constitution almost as long as the dems have,,,

 

[EvMetro]

So, do you think a right is unlimited?

Clearly, the law preventing you from having nukes infringes on your "right" to "keep and bear arms". Happy now?

Good.

Glad that right is infringed on.

You continue to evade answering the opening post by listing laws that do infringe. The opening post requests gun control laws that do not.

 

[EvMetro]

the only one doing that is you refusing to accept straight answers

~S~

Please quote an example of a straight answer that I refused to accept. This should be an example of a gun control law that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Natural Citizen]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

Government is strictly limited. That's what the constitution does. It limits government. Strictly. Limited for liberty!

Unfortunately, they function outside its restrictions. This is a consequence of a derelict congress and a complicit electorate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which gun control laws do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?

Any of them that don't completely eliminate the right for anyone, anywhere to own a gun.

 

[sparky]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

Government is strictly limited. That's what the constitution does. It limits government. Strictly. Limited for liberty!

Unfortunately, they function outside its restrictions. This is a consequence of a derelict congress and a complicit electorate.

Thank you for eloquently making my point NC
~S~

 

[sparky]

Which gun control laws do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?

They all 'infringe' , and have done so for almost a century

• Firearm case law in the United States
• Gun law in the United States
• Gun politics in the United States
• Uniform Firearms Act

~S~

 

[EvMetro]

Which gun control laws do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?

Any of them that don't completely eliminate the right for anyone, anywhere to own a gun.

Name one gun control law that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Infringe: To act so as to limit or undermine

 

[EvMetro]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

prove it,,,

the Patriot Act

~S~

Lol, the patriot act is an amazing violation of constitutional rights, especially in the hands of lefties.

 

[sparky]

second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS carried by individual soldiers [combat soldiers] for military and other legal and lawful purposes

and how is that not redefining the 2nd?

Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .

ok, i'll play

here's a start for you>>

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia

~S~

-------------------------------------------- main thing is that NUKES are unaffordable Sparky .

Yes . but it's the concept that is relevant

True story , wife (somewhat beaten at that) calls 911, husband making 'bomb's in the house'

So the PD pulls out all the stops , we've local, sheriffs ,staties, along w/ NG activation all descending on some inebriated redneck playing with substances he shouldn't lawfully have had

Who all knew that they could elevate it to domestic terrorism

All i could think of standing by in the meatwagon was i was somehow in some 'Barney Fife's gone wild' action flick

Turns out the dude wasn't out to blow anyone up, just felt like making a few bombs

I have no idea what his political ideology is/was, but i am sure the official response could care less

Objectively , the 2nd (as well as 4th) were thrown under the bus that day, and i learned that i was, (along with the attending pack) no more than a tool for those in power who would interpret constitutional law any way they desired, no matter how wrong it may appear

This would not have happened at all pre-PA

~S~

 

[sparky]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

prove it,,,

the Patriot Act

~S~

Lol, the patriot act is an amazing violation of constitutional rights, especially in the hands of lefties.

Yet it was the left who howled blue bloody murder at its debut

~S~

 

[Coyote]

second amendment RIGHTS refer to the SMALL ARMS carried by individual soldiers [combat soldiers] for military and other legal and lawful purposes . Nuke have no place in this thread as mention of them are Being used simply to derail any discussion in this thread Coyote .

Where in the Constitution does it say that? The Constitution is very vague on the 2nd, and the idea that it means what we think it does today is a relatively modern interpretation.

Politics Changed the Reading of the Second Amendment—and Can Change It Again

For about two hundred years, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear and mostly undisputed, despite the gnarled syntax of the text itself: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Generations of Supreme Court and academic opinion held that the amendment did not confer on individuals a right “to keep and bear Arms” but, rather, referred only to the privileges belonging to state militias. This was not a controversial view.​

Frankly, not being allowed to have a nuke is a clear infringement and I think we ought to do something about it. I demand my right to have a suitcase nuke for self defense.

 

[Coyote]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

prove it,,,

Already did.

There are laws on slander and libel.

There are laws on instigating riots.

You can't own a nuke.

You can't sacrifice virgins.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Thank you for eloquently making my point NC
~S~

Sadly, I think it's a waste of time, sparky. The best days of what was once a great nation are in the rear view now. And it's only going to get worse. The congress is not only derelict of its responsibility, those who occupy it are clueless of what the oath they took actually means. They do not understand the constitution. The office of the President has basically become a throne for a king. And the electorate, for the most part, is an intellectual embarassment and not fit to be involved in the process, assuming the process was actually functioning correctly.

Both parties are big government, big spending, anti-constitution, thugs.

My only satisfaction in all of it is that I know how it will end. They'll get precisely what it is that they want. I just hope they get it nice and good.

 

[Coyote]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

Government is strictly limited. That's what the constitution does. It limits government. Strictly. Limited for liberty!

Unfortunately, they function outside its restrictions. This is a consequence of a derelict congress and a complicit electorate.

Thank you for eloquently making my point NC
~S~

Sadly, I think it's a waste of time, sparky. The best days of what was once a great country are in the rear view now. And it's only going to get worse. The congress is not only derelict of its responsibility, those who occupy it are clueless of the what the oath they took actually means. They do not understand the constitution. The office of the President has basically become a throne for a king. And the electorate, for the most part, is an embarassment and not fit to be involved in the process, assuming the process was actually functioning correctly.

Both parties are big government, big spending, anti-constitution, thugs.

My only satisfaction in all of it is that I know how it will end. They'll get precisely what it is that they want. I just hope they get it nice and good.

Get big money out of politics.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Get big money out of politics.

It's too late to do anything, coyote.

Freedom in America is dead. Our system of checks and balances is dead. And few care.

The last straw for me was watching my so-called conservative peers literally worship a king who now has the power to wage war anywhere in the world he pleases for any arbitrary reason he wants without any constitutional congressional approval. Our derelict congress, btw, gave him that power.

Making America great again, they call it. But my democratic friends agree, after all they just funded it all. But their policies are no different.

Our king can also put the electorate in cages indefinitely without any charge or change of trial should he just feel like it. And they love him for it.

We're 24 trillion in debt. Our dollar is collapsing.

I could keep going all afternoon. But what's to be had?

The next nation to fall will be this one. And now I just don't care. There's too many other nice places in the world to live. I just hope that wall keeps the electorate in and contained. I've had enough of em already. But they have militarized police, facial recognition, and eventually rfid national identification database, so they likely won't be getting out without heavy scrutiny, I don't think.

 

[EvMetro]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

Government is strictly limited. That's what the constitution does. It limits government. Strictly. Limited for liberty!

Unfortunately, they function outside its restrictions. This is a consequence of a derelict congress and a complicit electorate.

Thank you for eloquently making my point NC
~S~

Sadly, I think it's a waste of time, sparky. The best days of what was once a great country are in the rear view now. And it's only going to get worse. The congress is not only derelict of its responsibility, those who occupy it are clueless of the what the oath they took actually means. They do not understand the constitution. The office of the President has basically become a throne for a king. And the electorate, for the most part, is an embarassment and not fit to be involved in the process, assuming the process was actually functioning correctly.

Both parties are big government, big spending, anti-constitution, thugs.

My only satisfaction in all of it is that I know how it will end. They'll get precisely what it is that they want. I just hope they get it nice and good.

Get big money out of politics.

Can you list a single gun control law that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?