Infringement

[pismoe]

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.

--------------------------------------- always thought that the yelling fire was a bad example as any person can yell fire all he likes in a crowded movie theatre . Arrests may be made after fire is yelled if there is no fire .

 

[Jitss617]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

Where does it say that?

Our legal code.

So not the constitution, so you added to it

 

[EvMetro]

Still no gun control laws cited that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms...

 

[Jitss617]

We need to go back to the original law of the land on gun, this is what makes America great. It’s not fit everyone and you can leave if you dont like it

 

[Blues Man]

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

Here we go again.

I have been trying to explain to you people that the right to keep and bear arms is in no way the right to use those arms.

The Constitution clearly states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms or in other words own and carry. There is no express or implied right to use that firearm but for very specific instances.

Among these are legally sanctioned hunting as spelled out by your local and state laws, target shooting which is also subject to state and local laws. and last but most importantly in defense of one's, person, property or the defense of another person.

These are the only legally sanctioned uses of firearms and self defense comes with the caveat that requires the person using a firearm in self defense is responsible for justifying that use to the satisfaction of the law.

So to answer your question any law that stops a person from owning and carrying firearms infringes on the second amendment. The laws that restrict the use of firearms do not.

 

[Blues Man]

Still no gun control laws cited that do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms...

No law that restricts the use of firearms infringes the right to keep and bear arms

 

[Coyote]

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.

One that doesn't infringe? Banning conceal carry.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Irrelevant to what I said. You don't read so good, son.

 

[EvMetro]

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

Irrelevant to what I said. You don't read so good, son.

The opening post is the benchmark of relevance for this thread.

 

[Gdjjr]

I'm confused. I thought words meant things- clearly asking a question and getting non pertinent responses and straw man arguments represents "not" doesn't exist- oops- doesn't is the contraction of does not- how you gonna keep em down on the farm once they been "officially" edgumacated--

Good lord people, it was a simple question- the simple answer is none- all the postulating doesn't make it esoteric- it's simple English for crying out loud.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Should a right have limitations?

Why don't you start a thread about this? In the meantime, you are evading the opening post like a cat evades being shoved into a toilet. You can't name a single law that does not infringe, and you can't admit that you cant.

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.

"Do you want people to own nukes" is the dumbest response in the history of the gun control debate.

 

[Blues Man]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

Which is why there is no right to use firearms but for a few very specific instances



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[EvMetro]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.

This says it all.

 

[Coyote]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.

This says it all.

Banning concealed carry is not infringement.

And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.

Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".

Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).

 

[EvMetro]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.

This says it all.

Banning concealed carry is not infringement.

And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.

Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".

Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).

You just used the words "banning" and "restricting". Both of those words are infringement.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[Coyote]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.

This says it all.

Banning concealed carry is not infringement.

And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.

Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".

Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).

You just used the words "banning" and "restricting". Both of those words are infringement.

Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right. I will wait.

 

[Blues Man]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.

This says it all.

Banning concealed carry is not infringement.

And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.

Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".

Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).

Keep and bear

Own and carry

If you ban concealed carry and do not allow open carry that is an infringement

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

Shall not be infringed is pretty specific.

This says it all.

Banning concealed carry is not infringement.

And neither is restricting what constitutes arms.

Case law heavily support that reasonable restrictions as not "infringement".

Just like it is against the law to libel and slander (though the bar is, rightfully high, in order to protect free speech).

You just used the words "banning" and "restricting". Both of those words are infringement.

Explain exactly how banning concealed carry infringes on the right. I will wait.

"Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.