CDZ Second Amendment Rights Must be Complete and Uncondional!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So back to my question, do you find the requirement of some states to have a permit to carry concealed an infringement of the 2A?

of course its an infringement,,

Wouldn't needing a permit to hold a rally, be a restriction of the 1st amendment akin to a carry permit being a restriction on the 2nd.

Yet how can a secondary amendment, require greater rights than a primary one.

How they can restrict the 1st, says they can place the same upon the the 2nd.

I disagree with the restrictions on the first when it doesnt effect other people,,

now if they want to block a street or take over a campus that requires a permit because it effects other peoples rights,,

Any time a group uses a public space, it's an infringement upon the rest of the people. Whether it's a parade or a demonstration. Hence the 1st amendment can be legally infringed upon for a compelling government interest.

Correct.

Time, place, and manner restrictions by government on the First Amendment are perfectly Constitutional when content-neutral.

Likewise, the Second Amendment is neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute’ and subject to restrictions and regulation by government.

 

[miketx]

Those which the courts have ruled to be in accordance with the Second Amendment – such as UBCs and magazine capacity restriction.

Lol, you lose! At the time of the writing no such thing existed. Lmao! Fail.

Then you have run into a logic wall. At the time of the constitutions writing, the AR-15 did not exist either.

Nope, it just proves you are the rest of your ilk are lying. Like always.

 

[miketx]

So back to my question, do you find the requirement of some states to have a permit to carry concealed an infringement of the 2A?

of course its an infringement,,

Wouldn't needing a permit to hold a rally, be a restriction of the 1st amendment akin to a carry permit being a restriction on the 2nd.

Yet how can a secondary amendment, require greater rights than a primary one.

How they can restrict the 1st, says they can place the same upon the the 2nd.

I disagree with the restrictions on the first when it doesnt effect other people,,

now if they want to block a street or take over a campus that requires a permit because it effects other peoples rights,,

Any time a group uses a public space, it's an infringement upon the rest of the people. Whether it's a parade or a demonstration. Hence the 1st amendment can be legally infringed upon for a compelling government interest.

Correct.

Time, place, and manner restrictions by government on the First Amendment are perfectly Constitutional when content-neutral.

Likewise, the Second Amendment is neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute’ and subject to restrictions and regulation by government.

No such bs regulations or restrictions existed in the 18th century, stop lying.

 

[ding]

If you infringe on another persons rights, then you lose your right..Simple, the founding fathers were geniuses....

Except the constitution doesn't say that. In fact they supported taking away other peoples rights without penalty. It was called supporting slavery.

Slave owners did not suffer any loss, even after denying another the right to life or liberty.

Given that felons can't own guns it seems that the court agreed that the intent of the founders are that inalienable rights - which really mean rights granted for no other reason than we are God's creatures - are not unconditional. That when we violate the rights of others we are not worthy of rights that were given to us for no other reason than we are God's creatures. From a justice perspective this seems pretty damn just. And since the framers themselves believed this was just our laws reflect that justice. Now when the government starts trumping up charges to justify the unjust taking of rights, that is a different matter. But until then, go commit a felony and try to buy a gun and you will see that I am right.

 

[ding]

Hey Donny are you ever going to own your belief that all guns should be banned and confiscated? Or are you going to be a coward about it?

 

[progressive hunter]

Do I have a Constitutional right not to get shot by your gun?

thats a stupid comment,,

Actually it's at the heart of being able to restrict a constitutional right.

As long as it doesn't infringe upon others, was how one person put it, as the reasonable standard.

I didnt say it was wrong,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Any time a group uses a public space, it's an infringement upon the rest of the people. Whether it's a parade or a demonstration. Hence the 1st amendment can be legally infringed upon for a compelling government interest.

not always,,

If not always, give an example. I can wait.

if they are in a public place and no one else is there,,

 

[meaner gene]

That when we violate the rights of others we are not worthy of rights that were given to us for no other reason than we are God's creatures. From a justice perspective this seems pretty damn just. And since the framers themselves believed this was just our laws reflect that justice.

You missed the whole slavery thing. If you allow people to take a mans life liberty from him without penalty. How can you take a right from one group of such people, but not from another.

 

[ding]

That when we violate the rights of others we are not worthy of rights that were given to us for no other reason than we are God's creatures. From a justice perspective this seems pretty damn just. And since the framers themselves believed this was just our laws reflect that justice.

You missed the whole slavery thing. If you allow people to take a mans life liberty from him without penalty. How can you take a right from one group of such people, but not from another.

I guess I did but I don't see how it affects what I am saying. Like I said... when the government starts trumping up charges to justify the unjust taking of rights, that is a different matter.

 

[progressive hunter]

That when we violate the rights of others we are not worthy of rights that were given to us for no other reason than we are God's creatures. From a justice perspective this seems pretty damn just. And since the framers themselves believed this was just our laws reflect that justice.

You missed the whole slavery thing. If you allow people to take a mans life liberty from him without penalty. How can you take a right from one group of such people, but not from another.

I guess I did but I don't see how it affects what I am saying. Like I said... when the government starts trumping up charges to justify the unjust taking of rights, that is a different matter.

as opposed to your trumped up charges/excuses??

 

[meaner gene]

If not always, give an example. I can wait.

if they are in a public place and no one else is there,,

You just gave an example of if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it.

If there is no public in the public place, there is no need for a permit.

 

[progressive hunter]

If not always, give an example. I can wait.

if they are in a public place and no one else is there,,

You just gave an example of if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it.

If there is no public in the public place, there is no need for a permit.

exactly,,

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The Second Amendment also says well regulated, which mean reasonable restrictions are allowed, which even Justice Scalia acknowledged in the decision of Heller v D.C. The ongoing issue is what is considered to be reasonable.

"Reasonable"?
And that would rule out just about everything and anything Progressives and the radical Left "Democrats" want.

 

[meaner gene]

If there is no public in the public place, there is no need for a permit.

exactly,,

Hence when there is public in the public place, there is a need for a permit.

 

[progressive hunter]

If there is no public in the public place, there is no need for a permit.

exactly,,

Hence when there is public in the public place, there is a need for a permit.

but not always,,depends on if they are effected and how,,

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Felons forfeit their rights to own guns--or even possess them when they commit the crime.

Yes, we know that, but the law can't be applied when there are no background checks in place. And so all the convicted gun murderer must do is keep a straight face when he buys his gun.

Did you have something in mind that could stop the murderer from getting his gun, or indeed a truckload of AR-15's?

I can think of dozens of ways but they would all be infringements on 2nd. amendment rights.

Many on the Left have this notion that Safety and Security are "rights" just as the 2nd amendment describes "rights".

Not so. Security and safety are not guaranteed in a free society. never can be.
But your "RIGHT" to protect yourself and your family ARE guaranteed.

Against government over reach tyranny as well as other criminals and dangerous threats you may encounter.

 

[alang1216]

There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.
This could present risks to society in America but the risks need to be accepted as necessary for the upholding of the intent of the 2nd. amendment. If any American objects to the sacred rights as stated by the 2nd. amendment then they have the option of purchasing their own weapons with which to defend themselves from harm.

The extreme example: A person released from prison who has murdered with his gun has the right to walk straight across the street from the prison and purchase a gun or guns. The only thing stopping him would be a background check being required to purchase a gun.

On the surface it could seem to be counter-productive to a peaceful society. It might be but there is no legitimate means to stop him unless the 2nd. amendment's unconditional rights are infringed upon.

And so for those who are hesitant to accept the full and complete rights as spelled out by their 2nd. amendment, is there any possible law that could be enacted that could curtail the ex-criminal's rights?

I say there is none! The 2nd. amendment isn't open for compromise for any reason or for any socialist cause.

Opinions?

Are there any other rights that can't be restricted in any way?

• Free speech/free press - should we be able to say anything about anyone, true or not?
• Free assembly - any number of people should be able to gather anywhere at anytime, say a parade on main street at rush hour
• Freedom of Religion - anyone should be able to start a religion and practice anything they want, pedeophilia, beastiality, etc.

The practice of Constitutional rights is unrestricted so long as you do not interfere with the Constitutional rights of others.

Do I have a Constitutional right not to get shot by your gun?

No one has the right to discharge a weapon.

In fact there are many laws that restrict when and where firearms can be legally discharged. And you have a 99.9997% chance of not being murdered by a person using a gun so stop being so afraid.

There a lot of crazy people in this world, I would rather they weren't allowed to buy guns. There are a lot of people convicted of violent crimes, I would rather they weren't allowed to buy guns. There are a lot of people connected to radical groups, be they Left or Right, that espouse violence, I would rather they weren't allowed to buy guns.

 

[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.
This could present risks to society in America but the risks need to be accepted as necessary for the upholding of the intent of the 2nd. amendment. If any American objects to the sacred rights as stated by the 2nd. amendment then they have the option of purchasing their own weapons with which to defend themselves from harm.

The extreme example: A person released from prison who has murdered with his gun has the right to walk straight across the street from the prison and purchase a gun or guns. The only thing stopping him would be a background check being required to purchase a gun.

On the surface it could seem to be counter-productive to a peaceful society. It might be but there is no legitimate means to stop him unless the 2nd. amendment's unconditional rights are infringed upon.

And so for those who are hesitant to accept the full and complete rights as spelled out by their 2nd. amendment, is there any possible law that could be enacted that could curtail the ex-criminal's rights?

I say there is none! The 2nd. amendment isn't open for compromise for any reason or for any socialist cause.

Opinions?

Are there any other rights that can't be restricted in any way?

• Free speech/free press - should we be able to say anything about anyone, true or not?
• Free assembly - any number of people should be able to gather anywhere at anytime, say a parade on main street at rush hour
• Freedom of Religion - anyone should be able to start a religion and practice anything they want, pedeophilia, beastiality, etc.

The practice of Constitutional rights is unrestricted so long as you do not interfere with the Constitutional rights of others.

Do I have a Constitutional right not to get shot by your gun?

No one has the right to discharge a weapon.

In fact there are many laws that restrict when and where firearms can be legally discharged. And you have a 99.9997% chance of not being murdered by a person using a gun so stop being so afraid.

There a lot of crazy people in this world, I would rather they weren't allowed to buy guns. There are a lot of people convicted of violent crimes, I would rather they weren't allowed to buy guns. There are a lot of people connected to radical groups, be they Left or Right, that espouse violence, I would rather they weren't allowed to buy guns.

I'd rather my dog shit gold coins,,,

 

[alang1216]

There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.
This could present risks to society in America but the risks need to be accepted as necessary for the upholding of the intent of the 2nd. amendment. If any American objects to the sacred rights as stated by the 2nd. amendment then they have the option of purchasing their own weapons with which to defend themselves from harm.

The extreme example: A person released from prison who has murdered with his gun has the right to walk straight across the street from the prison and purchase a gun or guns. The only thing stopping him would be a background check being required to purchase a gun.

On the surface it could seem to be counter-productive to a peaceful society. It might be but there is no legitimate means to stop him unless the 2nd. amendment's unconditional rights are infringed upon.

And so for those who are hesitant to accept the full and complete rights as spelled out by their 2nd. amendment, is there any possible law that could be enacted that could curtail the ex-criminal's rights?

I say there is none! The 2nd. amendment isn't open for compromise for any reason or for any socialist cause.

Opinions?

Are there any other rights that can't be restricted in any way?

• Free speech/free press - should we be able to say anything about anyone, true or not?
• Free assembly - any number of people should be able to gather anywhere at anytime, say a parade on main street at rush hour
• Freedom of Religion - anyone should be able to start a religion and practice anything they want, pedeophilia, beastiality, etc.

all those effect other people and are bad examples,,

try using the 5th and say a state can change it and execute people without trial,,,

Many guns are sold explicitly to affect other people, as in to stop them from living.

wrong,,,

that is what people do with them,, just like knives, bats or even a rock,, do we need permits for those??

Guns are sold for self-defense. Otherwise why would you need to carry one if you're not going hunting or to a shooting range?

 

[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.
This could present risks to society in America but the risks need to be accepted as necessary for the upholding of the intent of the 2nd. amendment. If any American objects to the sacred rights as stated by the 2nd. amendment then they have the option of purchasing their own weapons with which to defend themselves from harm.

The extreme example: A person released from prison who has murdered with his gun has the right to walk straight across the street from the prison and purchase a gun or guns. The only thing stopping him would be a background check being required to purchase a gun.

On the surface it could seem to be counter-productive to a peaceful society. It might be but there is no legitimate means to stop him unless the 2nd. amendment's unconditional rights are infringed upon.

And so for those who are hesitant to accept the full and complete rights as spelled out by their 2nd. amendment, is there any possible law that could be enacted that could curtail the ex-criminal's rights?

I say there is none! The 2nd. amendment isn't open for compromise for any reason or for any socialist cause.

Opinions?

Are there any other rights that can't be restricted in any way?

• Free speech/free press - should we be able to say anything about anyone, true or not?
• Free assembly - any number of people should be able to gather anywhere at anytime, say a parade on main street at rush hour
• Freedom of Religion - anyone should be able to start a religion and practice anything they want, pedeophilia, beastiality, etc.

all those effect other people and are bad examples,,

try using the 5th and say a state can change it and execute people without trial,,,

Many guns are sold explicitly to affect other people, as in to stop them from living.

wrong,,,

that is what people do with them,, just like knives, bats or even a rock,, do we need permits for those??

Guns are sold for self-defense. Otherwise why would you need to carry one if you're not going hunting or to a shooting range?

I will give you a minute to read your comment and edit it so it makes sense,,