Infringement

[Gdjjr]

The Second Amendment is no different.

Except the wording- shall not be infringed-

Definition of infringe
transitive verb

1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Does the right to keep and bear arms sound familiar? There are no caveats, especially in the declarative; shall not be infringed'

Definition of encroach
intransitive verb

1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits the gradually encroaching sea

Black robed idiots who pay others to teach them to lie legally try to pretend it's an esoteric endeavor- it ain't-

Oh, that living constitution bullshit- the constitution is an inert piece of paper- it can't be alive which is prerequisite to living-
It CAN be amended- to that, many will respond- come and take it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ok folks, how many laws were listed here that do not infringe? The commies took us off a different direction, but the question still stands.

And the question has been answered several times.

You placed this thread in the US Constitution sub-forum – it’s therefore reasonable to infer that the discussion would be in the context of the law and the legal process, where there are many firearm regulatory measures that do not infringe on the Second Amendment right and are perfectly Constitutional.

Perhaps you intended this to be a political discussion – politics and the law are not the same; the politics of the Second Amendment is a very different matter than that of the Second Amendment as a matter of law.

And in a political context, there are many firearm regulatory measures that are bad law – laws that are ineffective, unwarranted, and ridiculous.

Examples of bad firearm regulatory measures would include AWBs, waiting periods, registration requirements, magazine capacity restrictions, and some training requirements.

AWBs are particularly inane given the fact nothing is ‘banned,’ where such laws have grandfather provisions for current owners of restricted weapons.

 

[EvMetro]

Ok folks, how many laws were listed here that do not infringe? The commies took us off a different direction, but the question still stands.

And the question has been answered several times.

You placed this thread in the US Constitution sub-forum – it’s therefore reasonable to infer that the discussion would be in the context of the law and the legal process, where there are many firearm regulatory measures that do not infringe on the Second Amendment right and are perfectly Constitutional.

Perhaps you intended this to be a political discussion – politics and the law are not the same; the politics of the Second Amendment is a very different matter than that of the Second Amendment as a matter of law.

And in a political context, there are many firearm regulatory measures that are bad law – laws that are ineffective, unwarranted, and ridiculous.

Examples of bad firearm regulatory measures would include AWBs, waiting periods, registration requirements, magazine capacity restrictions, and some training requirements.

AWBs are particularly inane given the fact nothing is ‘banned,’ where such laws have grandfather provisions for current owners of restricted weapons.

Which law was cited, please direct me to this specific law. My opening post was simple, and it only asked for one simple thing.

 

[pismoe]

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.

Are you suggesting that the second amendment is specifically about self defense?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO , self defennse is just one of the ledal and lawful purposes EV .

 

[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.

Are you suggesting that the second amendment is specifically about self defense?

Are you suggesting that self defense is not included?

I want my suitcase nuke.

 

[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.

correct me if I'm wrong but libel and slander are civil not criminal, and cant be adjudicated if no harm is done,,,and riots are actions not words,,,

They are still against the law - assuming the case is proved. Again - it is a limit on free speech.

Free speech is not just verbal speech, for example contributing money is "free speech". Do you think you can finance a riot?

How about yelling fire in a crowded theatre?

and I have sacrificed many virgins

TMI!

as for nukes,, I say the people that do have them shouldnt,,,

Most likely true.

 

[Coyote]

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?

This thread is not about which rights are unlimited, it simply asks which gun control laws do not limit the right to keep and bear arms. Candle you list some of them?

Can't "candle" anything at the moment.

However, you can't examine rights in a vacuum much as you would like to. No rights are unlimited. You aren't allowed to own a nuke. You can't use your right to free speech to provoke a riot or slander or libel. Your right of assembly doesn't allow you to assemble a riot or take down the government. Your religious freedom does not allow you to keep slaves or conduct human sacrifices.

You can own a nuke.
The second says shall not be infringed. What do you mean it can be limited?

Oh?

I don't think so.

 

[Coyote]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

Where does it say that?

Our legal code.

 

[HenryBHough]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

There are some possibilities in that statement:

1. You are severely retarded.
2. You attend a liberal elementary school where you were forbidden to read The U.S. Constitution.
3. You are being home-schooled by Bernie Sanders.

 

[Coyote]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

There are some possibilities in that statement:

1. You are severely retarded.
2. You attend a liberal elementary school where you were forbidden to read The U.S. Constitution.
3. You are being home-schooled by Bernie Sanders.

4. You are about to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.

 

[bodecea]

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 does the 2nd Amendment specify the size of arms?

 

[bodecea]

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 .

Part of what makes lefties what they are is the ability to evade. If you look at any lefty post that is a response to a a righty, you will see that it is one of the standard evasion techniques from my list: Dodge, deflect, divert, invert, convert, ignore, redefine, or otherwise evade. Coyote's evasion of the opening post reminds me of what a cat does when it is being shoved into a toilet. I saw a big kid do that to a poor cat when I was in elementary school, and it is quite a fight.

No evasion here...an example of a law that restricts your right to arms is the very laws that prevent you from buying nukes.

 

[bodecea]

Dodge, deflect, divert, invert, convert, ignore, redefine, or otherwise evade.

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

~S~

Remember his "lefties hate Christmas" thread?

 

[bodecea]

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.

He literally answered your question in that post you quoted. Is English not your first language?

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

correct me if I'm wrong but libel and slander are civil not criminal, and cant be adjudicated if no harm is done,,,and riots are actions not words,,,

They are still against the law - assuming the case is proved. Again - it is a limit on free speech.

Free speech is not just verbal speech, for example contributing money is "free speech". Do you think you can finance a riot?

How about yelling fire in a crowded theatre?

and I have sacrificed many virgins

TMI!

as for nukes,, I say the people that do have them shouldnt,,,

Most likely true.

I challenge you to show me one law against libel or slander thats stated as a crime,,,

and as I said a riot is call to action not speech,,,

and sorry but its not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater,,if so show me that law,,

 

[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.

He literally answered your question in that post you quoted. Is English not your first language?

No, he talked of a law that DOES infringe. The opening post asks for a law that does not. Either way, he did not actually cite any law at all.

You will not be citing any gun control law that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms as the opening post requests because you are just a commie who is here to derail the thread as a way to support lefty ideology. Go ahead, post something besides a law that does not what was requested in the opening post. It's all you can do.

 

[EvMetro]

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 .

Part of what makes lefties what they are is the ability to evade. If you look at any lefty post that is a response to a a righty, you will see that it is one of the standard evasion techniques from my list: Dodge, deflect, divert, invert, convert, ignore, redefine, or otherwise evade. Coyote's evasion of the opening post reminds me of what a cat does when it is being shoved into a toilet. I saw a big kid do that to a poor cat when I was in elementary school, and it is quite a fight.

No evasion here...an example of a law that restricts your right to arms is the very laws that prevent you from buying nukes.

I did not ask for laws that restrict rights, I asked for laws that do not.

 

[pismoe]

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 .

Part of what makes lefties what they are is the ability to evade. If you look at any lefty post that is a response to a a righty, you will see that it is one of the standard evasion techniques from my list: Dodge, deflect, divert, invert, convert, ignore, redefine, or otherwise evade. Coyote's evasion of the opening post reminds me of what a cat does when it is being shoved into a toilet. I saw a big kid do that to a poor cat when I was in elementary school, and it is quite a fight.

No evasion here...an example of a law that restricts your right to arms is the very laws that prevent you from buying nukes.

--------------------------------------------------------- Just guessing as I know nothing about availability of NUKES . But I believe that with enough money and correctly done paperwork that NUKES are available for sale through legal or illegal means . And with illegal nuke sales paperwork is not required . ------------------------- just saying .

 

[CWayne]

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?

Any right that requires permission from the government is not a right, it is a license.

There is ONLY one permissible limitation on any right.

Due Process.

 

[pismoe]

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 does the 2nd Amendment specify the size of arms?

------------------------------------- agree , but generally speaking Americans should be fully outfitted with the SMALL ARMS 0f the American combat soldier . Nothing to do with size relly but Small Arms are a class of weapons that are not Crew Served and are individually carried Bode .