Infringement

[EvMetro]

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

"Limiting" the right to use of firearms as you say, is infringement in its purest form. Limiting the right to keep and bear arms in ANY way is the very definition of infringement.

I demand my nuke.

That's very commie of you to demand goods like that. When I want something, my instinct is to pay for it or otherwise earn it.

 

[EvMetro]

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.

in·fringe·ment
/inˈfrinjmənt/

1. The action of limiting or undermining something.

hmmm. How does banning concealed carry limit your ability to carry arms?

It doesn't.

If open carry is allowed it does not but open carry is not allowed in many places

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

"Shall not be infringed" means that we have the right to open carry, conceal carry, or carry any way we want. Think about what "shall not be infringed" really means. Not what any ideology dogma dictates, not what you or I want it to mean, just think about what that term means. Anybody who argues for even a second that there is a place for any kind of gun control laws after reading and UNDERSTANDING that term is wanting to violate the rights of americans. "Shall not be infringed" means that "arms" shouldn't even be taxed.

 

[EvMetro]

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.

Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.

Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom. Assuming I can find any.

Another stupid argument my owning firearms does not in any way impact any ones rights. I'm a law abiding citizen that's not hurting or killing anyone with my firearms unless I'm protecting me and mine. The 2nd Amendment is clear I don't give a fuck what you or the courts say "Shall not be infringed" that's the end of the argument.
What the hell do you ignorant bastards think is going to happen when you come for our firearms, oh right it won't be people like yourself.

It's a right like any other under the constitution. That means it isn't unlimited.

The second amendment specifies that the right to keep and bear arms is in fact unlimited. It specifically says "shall not be infringed". Any interpretation of "shall not be infringed" that limits, governs, taxes, bans, forbids, or regulates the right to keep and bear arms is infringement.

 

[EvMetro]

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.

in·fringe·ment
/inˈfrinjmənt/

1. The action of limiting or undermining something.

hmmm. How does banning concealed carry limit your ability to carry arms?

It doesn't.

"Banning" is infringement.

 

[Coyote]

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.

in·fringe·ment
/inˈfrinjmənt/

1. The action of limiting or undermining something.

hmmm. How does banning concealed carry limit your ability to carry arms?

It doesn't.

"Banning" is infringement.

No it isn’t. No one is banning guns.

 

[Coyote]

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

"Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.

Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.

Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom. Assuming I can find any.

Another stupid argument my owning firearms does not in any way impact any ones rights. I'm a law abiding citizen that's not hurting or killing anyone with my firearms unless I'm protecting me and mine. The 2nd Amendment is clear I don't give a fuck what you or the courts say "Shall not be infringed" that's the end of the argument.
What the hell do you ignorant bastards think is going to happen when you come for our firearms, oh right it won't be people like yourself.

It's a right like any other under the constitution. That means it isn't unlimited.

The second amendment specifies that the right to keep and bear arms is in fact unlimited. It specifically says "shall not be infringed". Any interpretation of "shall not be infringed" that limits, governs, taxes, bans, forbids, or regulates the right to keep and bear arms is infringement.

You need to educate the courts then. They appear to disagree. Get to it girl!

 

[Coyote]

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

"Limiting" the right to use of firearms as you say, is infringement in its purest form. Limiting the right to keep and bear arms in ANY way is the very definition of infringement.

I demand my nuke.

That's very commie of you to demand goods like that. When I want something, my instinct is to pay for it or otherwise earn it.

Who said I wasn’t going to pay? You and your rightist assumptions.

 

[EvMetro]

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

"Limiting" the right to use of firearms as you say, is infringement in its purest form. Limiting the right to keep and bear arms in ANY way is the very definition of infringement.

I demand my nuke.

That's very commie of you to demand goods like that. When I want something, my instinct is to pay for it or otherwise earn it.

Who said I wasn’t going to pay? You and your rightist assumptions.

No, you demanded your nuke like commies do. Demanding is not a form of payment.

 

[EvMetro]

"Shall not be infringed". Its that simple.

Courts don't seem to agree with your whacko interpretations.

Pardon me while I go look for virgins to sacrifice under my right to religious freedom. Assuming I can find any.

Another stupid argument my owning firearms does not in any way impact any ones rights. I'm a law abiding citizen that's not hurting or killing anyone with my firearms unless I'm protecting me and mine. The 2nd Amendment is clear I don't give a fuck what you or the courts say "Shall not be infringed" that's the end of the argument.
What the hell do you ignorant bastards think is going to happen when you come for our firearms, oh right it won't be people like yourself.

It's a right like any other under the constitution. That means it isn't unlimited.

The second amendment specifies that the right to keep and bear arms is in fact unlimited. It specifically says "shall not be infringed". Any interpretation of "shall not be infringed" that limits, governs, taxes, bans, forbids, or regulates the right to keep and bear arms is infringement.

You need to educate the courts then. They appear to disagree. Get to it girl!

No need to, the second amendment is clear. Even if a court says up is the new down, up will always be up. Come and take them!

 

[Blues Man]

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.

in·fringe·ment
/inˈfrinjmənt/

1. The action of limiting or undermining something.

hmmm. How does banning concealed carry limit your ability to carry arms?

It doesn't.

If open carry is allowed it does not but open carry is not allowed in many places

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

"Shall not be infringed" means that we have the right to open carry, conceal carry, or carry any way we want. Think about what "shall not be infringed" really means. Not what any ideology dogma dictates, not what you or I want it to mean, just think about what that term means. Anybody who argues for even a second that there is a place for any kind of gun control laws after reading and UNDERSTANDING that term is wanting to violate the rights of americans. "Shall not be infringed" means that "arms" shouldn't even be taxed.

The second only protects the right to own and carry so a law that restricts concealed carry doesn't violate the second if open carry is allowed everywhere but that is not the case these days.

And it the second in no way protects your right so discharge a firearm

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[EvMetro]

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

in·fringe·ment
/inˈfrinjmənt/

1. The action of limiting or undermining something.

hmmm. How does banning concealed carry limit your ability to carry arms?

It doesn't.

If open carry is allowed it does not but open carry is not allowed in many places

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

"Shall not be infringed" means that we have the right to open carry, conceal carry, or carry any way we want. Think about what "shall not be infringed" really means. Not what any ideology dogma dictates, not what you or I want it to mean, just think about what that term means. Anybody who argues for even a second that there is a place for any kind of gun control laws after reading and UNDERSTANDING that term is wanting to violate the rights of americans. "Shall not be infringed" means that "arms" shouldn't even be taxed.

The second only protects the right to own and carry so a law that restricts concealed carry doesn't violate the second if open carry is allowed everywhere but that is not the case these days.

And it the second in no way protects your right so discharge a firearm

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Wrong, you want to infringe on the rights of others.

"Shall not be infringed" means that we have the right to open carry, conceal carry, or carry any way we want. Think about what "shall not be infringed" really means. Not what any ideology dogma dictates, not what you or I want it to mean, just think about what that term means. Anybody who argues for even a second that there is a place for any kind of gun control laws after reading and UNDERSTANDING that term is wanting to violate the rights of americans. "Shall not be infringed" means that "arms" shouldn't even be taxed.

 

[Blues Man]

in·fringe·ment
/inˈfrinjmənt/

1. The action of limiting or undermining something.

hmmm. How does banning concealed carry limit your ability to carry arms?

It doesn't.

If open carry is allowed it does not but open carry is not allowed in many places

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

"Shall not be infringed" means that we have the right to open carry, conceal carry, or carry any way we want. Think about what "shall not be infringed" really means. Not what any ideology dogma dictates, not what you or I want it to mean, just think about what that term means. Anybody who argues for even a second that there is a place for any kind of gun control laws after reading and UNDERSTANDING that term is wanting to violate the rights of americans. "Shall not be infringed" means that "arms" shouldn't even be taxed.

The second only protects the right to own and carry so a law that restricts concealed carry doesn't violate the second if open carry is allowed everywhere but that is not the case these days.

And it the second in no way protects your right so discharge a firearm

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Wrong, you want to infringe on the rights of others.

"Shall not be infringed" means that we have the right to open carry, conceal carry, or carry any way we want. Think about what "shall not be infringed" really means. Not what any ideology dogma dictates, not what you or I want it to mean, just think about what that term means. Anybody who argues for even a second that there is a place for any kind of gun control laws after reading and UNDERSTANDING that term is wanting to violate the rights of americans. "Shall not be infringed" means that "arms" shouldn't even be taxed.

I want no such thing I am looking at the language and telling you what I think the lawyers will say.

Keep and bear is all that is said the manner in which you can bear a weapon is not.

And regardless of how you carry you still have no protected right to discharge any firearms

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Coyote]

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



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

"Limiting" the right to use of firearms as you say, is infringement in its purest form. Limiting the right to keep and bear arms in ANY way is the very definition of infringement.

I demand my nuke.

That's very commie of you to demand goods like that. When I want something, my instinct is to pay for it or otherwise earn it.

Who said I wasn’t going to pay? You and your rightist assumptions.

No, you demanded your nuke like commies do. Demanding is not a form of payment.

It is absent of any references for or against payments. Like you demand your rights... or what you perceive to be them. I am demanding my rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Laws that prohibit those who do not have the right to keep and bear arms from buying/possessing a firearm

 

[M14 Shooter]

No right is unlimited or unrestricted.

Which, of course, in no way means than any and every limitation and/or restriction on a right is constitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Its not - the 2nd continues to protect 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.

It is, however, a definition of the term "arms" as used in the 2nd, just like the jurisprudence that defines the term "free speech" as used in the 1st.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.​

Not a single ruling form the USSC supports this claim.​

Not a single ruling from a federal appeals court prior to 1930 supports this claim.
Thus, the claim is unsupportable nonsense.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State specifically not the unorganized militia. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Only the unorganized militia of the People complain about gun control laws.

don't be lazy gun lovers, get well regulated.

 

[EvMetro]

Only well regulated militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State specifically not the unorganized militia. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Only the unorganized militia of the People complain about gun control laws.

don't be lazy gun lovers, get well regulated.

Because we need a well regulated militia to secure a free state, our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It didn't specify that anybody is required to be part of a militia, well regulated or unorganized. The right to keep and bear arms without having to worry about infringement is all that is needed to secure a free state. We know what to do with arms.

 

[EvMetro]

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

Laws that prohibit those who do not have the right to keep and bear arms from buying/possessing a firearm

How can you infringe on the right of someone who doesn't even have that right?