CDZ Second Amendment Rights Must be Complete and Uncondional!

[alang1216]

There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.

The Second Amendment was duly proposed and ratified as part of the Constitution.

Why is this even a question in the United States court system?

Every right in the Constitution has ended up in the courts as laws are enacted to define it. We have the 1st Amendment and we have laws defining slander and libel. The 2nd is no different.

 

[progressive hunter]

There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.

The Second Amendment was duly proposed and ratified as part of the Constitution.

Why is this even a question in the United States court system?

Every right in the Constitution has ended up in the courts as laws are enacted to define it. We have the 1st Amendment and we have laws defining slander and libel. The 2nd is no different.

its very different,,

 

[alang1216]

all guns are military grade,, and what the 2nd was specifically for,,

So you believe the 2nd covers fully automatic weapons like m-2s, gatling guns, artillery, m-1 tanks, A-10s, and rail guns?

are you saying its intent wasnt to defend the country from all threats foreign or domestic???

be kinda hard to defend it if you werent properly armed,,,

I'd wager that even among 2nd amendment lovers, your position is considered extreme. Some of our enemies have nukes, should US citizens be allowed to possess nukes?

why is it you idiots always go to the most extreme???

no one should have nukes,, including dems and repubes,,

So where do you draw the line?

with any weapon that can be used against us personally,, equality and all that,,

If you include defending against foreign threats, that would include nukes then.

 

[alang1216]

There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.

The Second Amendment was duly proposed and ratified as part of the Constitution.

Why is this even a question in the United States court system?

Every right in the Constitution has ended up in the courts as laws are enacted to define it. We have the 1st Amendment and we have laws defining slander and libel. The 2nd is no different.

its very different,,

How so?

 

[progressive hunter]

all guns are military grade,, and what the 2nd was specifically for,,

So you believe the 2nd covers fully automatic weapons like m-2s, gatling guns, artillery, m-1 tanks, A-10s, and rail guns?

are you saying its intent wasnt to defend the country from all threats foreign or domestic???

be kinda hard to defend it if you werent properly armed,,,

I'd wager that even among 2nd amendment lovers, your position is considered extreme. Some of our enemies have nukes, should US citizens be allowed to possess nukes?

why is it you idiots always go to the most extreme???

no one should have nukes,, including dems and repubes,,

So where do you draw the line?

with any weapon that can be used against us personally,, equality and all that,,

If you include defending against foreign threats, that would include nukes then.

except I said no one should have them,,

 

[progressive hunter]

There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.

The Second Amendment was duly proposed and ratified as part of the Constitution.

Why is this even a question in the United States court system?

Every right in the Constitution has ended up in the courts as laws are enacted to define it. We have the 1st Amendment and we have laws defining slander and libel. The 2nd is no different.

its very different,,

How so?

libel and slander are civil matters and have to prove harm occurred,,
the laws against the 2nd are criminal and no harm has to be done to violate them,,

 

[alang1216]

all guns are military grade,, and what the 2nd was specifically for,,

So you believe the 2nd covers fully automatic weapons like m-2s, gatling guns, artillery, m-1 tanks, A-10s, and rail guns?

are you saying its intent wasnt to defend the country from all threats foreign or domestic???

be kinda hard to defend it if you werent properly armed,,,

I'd wager that even among 2nd amendment lovers, your position is considered extreme. Some of our enemies have nukes, should US citizens be allowed to possess nukes?

why is it you idiots always go to the most extreme???

no one should have nukes,, including dems and repubes,,

So where do you draw the line?

with any weapon that can be used against us personally,, equality and all that,,

If you include defending against foreign threats, that would include nukes then.

except I said no one should have them,,

Is that where do you draw the line, nukes? M-2s, gatling guns, artillery, m-1 tanks, A-10s, etc., they are all fine I guess.

 

[alang1216]

There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.

The Second Amendment was duly proposed and ratified as part of the Constitution.

Why is this even a question in the United States court system?

Every right in the Constitution has ended up in the courts as laws are enacted to define it. We have the 1st Amendment and we have laws defining slander and libel. The 2nd is no different.

its very different,,

How so?

libel and slander are civil matters and have to prove harm occurred,,
the laws against the 2nd are criminal and no harm has to be done to violate them,,

You can't hold a major protest march without a permit. That restricts your 1st Amendment freedom of assembly before you assemble. If you do without a permit, it is now a criminal matter.

 

[progressive hunter]

all guns are military grade,, and what the 2nd was specifically for,,

So you believe the 2nd covers fully automatic weapons like m-2s, gatling guns, artillery, m-1 tanks, A-10s, and rail guns?

are you saying its intent wasnt to defend the country from all threats foreign or domestic???

be kinda hard to defend it if you werent properly armed,,,

I'd wager that even among 2nd amendment lovers, your position is considered extreme. Some of our enemies have nukes, should US citizens be allowed to possess nukes?

why is it you idiots always go to the most extreme???

no one should have nukes,, including dems and repubes,,

So where do you draw the line?

with any weapon that can be used against us personally,, equality and all that,,

If you include defending against foreign threats, that would include nukes then.

except I said no one should have them,,

Is that where do you draw the line, nukes? M-2s, gatling guns, artillery, m-1 tanks, A-10s, etc., they are all fine I guess.

if you can afford it and plan on using it to defend the country I see no problem,, and many of those things are already owned by people,,

 

[progressive hunter]

There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.

The Second Amendment was duly proposed and ratified as part of the Constitution.

Why is this even a question in the United States court system?

Every right in the Constitution has ended up in the courts as laws are enacted to define it. We have the 1st Amendment and we have laws defining slander and libel. The 2nd is no different.

its very different,,

How so?

libel and slander are civil matters and have to prove harm occurred,,
the laws against the 2nd are criminal and no harm has to be done to violate them,,

You can't hold a major protest march without a permit. That restricts your 1st Amendment freedom of assembly before you assemble. If you do without a permit, it is now a criminal matter.

because a large scale protest like that infringes on other peoples rights,,

me carrying a gun infringes on no one,,

 

[progressive hunter]

There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.

The Second Amendment was duly proposed and ratified as part of the Constitution.

Why is this even a question in the United States court system?

Every right in the Constitution has ended up in the courts as laws are enacted to define it. We have the 1st Amendment and we have laws defining slander and libel. The 2nd is no different.

its very different,,

How so?

libel and slander are civil matters and have to prove harm occurred,,
the laws against the 2nd are criminal and no harm has to be done to violate them,,

You can't hold a major protest march without a permit. That restricts your 1st Amendment freedom of assembly before you assemble. If you do without a permit, it is now a criminal matter.

and keep in mind thats a planned protest,, if a bunch of people randomly show up theres no crime involved,,

 

[alang1216]

all guns are military grade,, and what the 2nd was specifically for,,

So you believe the 2nd covers fully automatic weapons like m-2s, gatling guns, artillery, m-1 tanks, A-10s, and rail guns?

are you saying its intent wasnt to defend the country from all threats foreign or domestic???

be kinda hard to defend it if you werent properly armed,,,

I'd wager that even among 2nd amendment lovers, your position is considered extreme. Some of our enemies have nukes, should US citizens be allowed to possess nukes?

why is it you idiots always go to the most extreme???

no one should have nukes,, including dems and repubes,,

So where do you draw the line?

with any weapon that can be used against us personally,, equality and all that,,

If you include defending against foreign threats, that would include nukes then.

except I said no one should have them,,

Is that where do you draw the line, nukes? M-2s, gatling guns, artillery, m-1 tanks, A-10s, etc., they are all fine I guess.

if you can afford it and plan on using it to defend the country I see no problem,, and many of those things are already owned by people,,

So any weapon, except nukes, is covered by the 2nd and we should be able to own it? I think you would love to live in Afghanistan.

 

[progressive hunter]

all guns are military grade,, and what the 2nd was specifically for,,

So you believe the 2nd covers fully automatic weapons like m-2s, gatling guns, artillery, m-1 tanks, A-10s, and rail guns?

are you saying its intent wasnt to defend the country from all threats foreign or domestic???

be kinda hard to defend it if you werent properly armed,,,

I'd wager that even among 2nd amendment lovers, your position is considered extreme. Some of our enemies have nukes, should US citizens be allowed to possess nukes?

why is it you idiots always go to the most extreme???

no one should have nukes,, including dems and repubes,,

So where do you draw the line?

with any weapon that can be used against us personally,, equality and all that,,

If you include defending against foreign threats, that would include nukes then.

except I said no one should have them,,

Is that where do you draw the line, nukes? M-2s, gatling guns, artillery, m-1 tanks, A-10s, etc., they are all fine I guess.

if you can afford it and plan on using it to defend the country I see no problem,, and many of those things are already owned by people,,

So any weapon, except nukes, is covered by the 2nd and we should be able to own it? I think you would love to live in Afghanistan.

why would you think that??

theres a lot more to life than what weapons you are allowed to have,,

 

[alang1216]

You can't hold a major protest march without a permit. That restricts your 1st Amendment freedom of assembly before you assemble. If you do without a permit, it is now a criminal matter.

and keep in mind thats a planned protest,, if a bunch of people randomly show up theres no crime involved,,

No crime but you have no 'right' to assemble there. The cops can tell you to disperse and you must do so.

 

[alang1216]

So any weapon, except nukes, is covered by the 2nd and we should be able to own it? I think you would love to live in Afghanistan.

why would you think that??

theres a lot more to life than what weapons you are allowed to have,,

That is the only part of life we're discussing and I'm trying you understand your thinking.

 

[progressive hunter]

You can't hold a major protest march without a permit. That restricts your 1st Amendment freedom of assembly before you assemble. If you do without a permit, it is now a criminal matter.

and keep in mind thats a planned protest,, if a bunch of people randomly show up theres no crime involved,,

No crime but you have no 'right' to assemble there. The cops can tell you to disperse and you must do so.

where is "there"??

 

[progressive hunter]

So any weapon, except nukes, is covered by the 2nd and we should be able to own it? I think you would love to live in Afghanistan.

why would you think that??

theres a lot more to life than what weapons you are allowed to have,,

That is the only part of life we're discussing and I'm trying you understand your thinking.

then why are you talking about me and where I would like to live??

 

[alang1216]

me carrying a gun infringes on no one,,

Until you use it.

 

[progressive hunter]

me carrying a gun infringes on no one,,

Until you use it.

exactly,, when that happens we can discuss the reason for it,,

 

[alang1216]

You can't hold a major protest march without a permit. That restricts your 1st Amendment freedom of assembly before you assemble. If you do without a permit, it is now a criminal matter.

and keep in mind thats a planned protest,, if a bunch of people randomly show up theres no crime involved,,

No crime but you have no 'right' to assemble there. The cops can tell you to disperse and you must do so.

where is "there"??

Anywhere a bunch of people randomly show up