What Part Of "Shall Not Be Infringed" Does She Not Understand?

[Flash]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."

Our courts agree with her .....even the Heller decision written by Scalia

There is a big big difference to what Scalia thought was reasonable and what the typical Libtard Moon Bat thinks is reasonable.

You can't ever trust the stupid Moon Bats with a definition of reasonable because they are dumbass unreasonable dickheads.

I can give several recent examples of their unreasonableness if you are confused about this point.

 

[paulitician]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

What part of reasonable regulation don't YOU understand?

Isn't a "well regulated militia" a form of regulation

It's a moot point because the right to regulate rights is permissible by well established court precedent.

Sure, then why not just scrap the U.S. Constitution? I mean, rights are only granted and bestowed by Government. What Big Brother giveth, can also taketh away. It all gets back to so many believing that Civil Rights are only granted and bestowed by Government.

But obviously they're sadly mistaken. Civil Rights are human rights bestowed upon us at birth. We don't have to kneel and grovel at the feet of Big Brother to ensure them. We're born with them.

Do you have the right to publish and distribute child pornography under the protection of the 1st Amendment?

Apples & Oranges. And you know that. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution is clear and specific.

 

[paulitician]

The whole idea of a constitutional right is that it limits the "people" unless you get supermajorities to overturn the right in the first place.

People in Mississippi want to ban Gay Marriage and Abortion, is that a case of the "people speaking" as well?

There are restrictions on both gay marriage and abortion
Just like there are restrictions on guns and free speech

$1000 and 3-6 months is not a "restriction", it is a blatant attempt to discourage law abiding people from owning firearms in NYC.

Why don't we apply the NYC firearm standard to voting, or abortion or getting a marriage license? Why is it reasonable for guns, but not for the others?

The court system is fully available to all the citizens of NYC

Nice non-answer.

You just don't like the answer

Your community wants thorough background checks and regulations. There are eight million people in NYC, if they believe those regulations are excessive, they have a court system available to them

Yes, let's allow Judges to run the country. Might as well scrap that pesky Constitution i guess. Seriously, y'all Big Government Authoritarians really do need to think things through a bit more.

 

[rightwinger]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."

Our courts agree with her .....even the Heller decision written by Scalia

Wrong...what you dipsticks think that means is that you have the ability to regulate guns out of existence.......what Scalia and the intelligent justices meant is the bare minimum regulations that do not infringe on the actual Right.......so almost all of your gun control laws are unConstitutional.....

You cannot yell fire in a theater is the one you nuts always use for the first....but you don't have to register first to speak in a theater....you are arrested and your right suspended when you actually yell fire in the theater....


The same applies to guns.....if you use a gun for a crime ....you are arrested....right now, if you are felon in possession of a gun....you are arrested.......that is what scalia meant.....

Not....you can't own or carry a gun unless the government approves and you had better have a reason they like......

Hyperbole on your part

Nobody is trying to regulate guns out of existence, there are 300 million of them out there
The courts allow reasonable gun restrictions....even your favorite Heller decision

You don't have freedom to speak in a theater...they have a right to tell you to shut up, just like they have a right to tell you to keep your gun outside

 

[bendog]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

What part of reasonable regulation don't YOU understand?

You guys don't get the reasonable regulation....you nuts think an outright ban is not unreasonable........and anything up to that is fine too.....

I'm pretty confident only 3 Justices at most would ok a total ban, and that will be down to 2 at most regardless of who wins, although Trump supported NYC's law which is close to a ban

 

[rightwinger]

There are restrictions on both gay marriage and abortion
Just like there are restrictions on guns and free speech

$1000 and 3-6 months is not a "restriction", it is a blatant attempt to discourage law abiding people from owning firearms in NYC.

Why don't we apply the NYC firearm standard to voting, or abortion or getting a marriage license? Why is it reasonable for guns, but not for the others?

The court system is fully available to all the citizens of NYC

Nice non-answer.

You just don't like the answer

Your community wants thorough background checks and regulations. There are eight million people in NYC, if they believe those regulations are excessive, they have a court system available to them

Yes, let's allow Judges to run the country. Might as well scrap that pesky Constitution i guess. Seriously, y'all Big Government Authoritarians really do need to think things through a bit more.

That's what judges do as well as our legislators...its all in the Constitution

 

[bendog]

There are restrictions on both gay marriage and abortion
Just like there are restrictions on guns and free speech

$1000 and 3-6 months is not a "restriction", it is a blatant attempt to discourage law abiding people from owning firearms in NYC.

Why don't we apply the NYC firearm standard to voting, or abortion or getting a marriage license? Why is it reasonable for guns, but not for the others?

The court system is fully available to all the citizens of NYC

Nice non-answer.

You just don't like the answer

Your community wants thorough background checks and regulations. There are eight million people in NYC, if they believe those regulations are excessive, they have a court system available to them

Yes, let's allow Judges to run the country. Might as well scrap that pesky Constitution i guess. Seriously, y'all Big Government Authoritarians really do need to think things through a bit more.

LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

maybe she got snagged by the 'well regulated militia' part.

The militia wasn't defined by government. So just to be clear, you think they put a right of government in the bill of rights. They were afraid government would take it's own guns away and wanted to make sure that didn't happen? What you you think it means?

Kaz, I cannot argue this issue with anyone. Both sides are hardened beyond reason. All I can do is explain my thought, which doesn't matter to anyone but me, I know. But I favor regulation and I favor a ban on combat-type weapons and clips available to civilians. Although I am not a hunter, several in my family are. And I recognize the need for weapon power for many individuals threatened by critters or by humans. So by regulation I mean background checks and I mean banning weapons beyond hunting or protection needs. Some concentrate on the 'shall not be infringed' part and I concentrate on the 'regulate' and 'militia'. And taking into account the times of the writing, I believe it means militias cannot be banned, as they were under British rule, although I recognize none can really know the thought behind 2A. As far as I know, there was never a weapons ban, even under the Brits, just a ban on joining together in a military force. I wish I could explain better. I own a revolver and it is loaded with hollow-point bullets. May I never use it!

Regulated didn't mean government regulation. You should look up the definition of the word. So think about what you are arguing with "regulated." People can have guns, but only as government decides they can have guns.

So then, why did they put it in the bill of rights? Government will give you the gun rights that it decides to give you. Obviously government can do that anyway, right? That isn't a right at all, think about it

And yet all agree, excepting maybe anarchists, that 1A has a limit...i.e. the old no yelling fire in a crowded theater. Everything has a limit.

misquoted and misused

 

[paulitician]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."

Our courts agree with her .....even the Heller decision written by Scalia

Wrong...what you dipsticks think that means is that you have the ability to regulate guns out of existence.......what Scalia and the intelligent justices meant is the bare minimum regulations that do not infringe on the actual Right.......so almost all of your gun control laws are unConstitutional.....

You cannot yell fire in a theater is the one you nuts always use for the first....but you don't have to register first to speak in a theater....you are arrested and your right suspended when you actually yell fire in the theater....


The same applies to guns.....if you use a gun for a crime ....you are arrested....right now, if you are felon in possession of a gun....you are arrested.......that is what scalia meant.....

Not....you can't own or carry a gun unless the government approves and you had better have a reason they like......

Hyperbole on your part

Nobody is trying to regulate guns out of existence, there are 300 million of them out there
The courts allow reasonable gun restrictions....even your favorite Heller decision

You don't have freedom to speak in a theater...they have a right to tell you to shut up, just like they have a right to tell you to keep your gun outside

But you have the right to carry your gun inside. So, the rights of all have to be respected.

 

[jon_berzerk]

maybe she got snagged by the 'well regulated militia' part.

The militia wasn't defined by government. So just to be clear, you think they put a right of government in the bill of rights. They were afraid government would take it's own guns away and wanted to make sure that didn't happen? What you you think it means?

Kaz, I cannot argue this issue with anyone. Both sides are hardened beyond reason. All I can do is explain my thought, which doesn't matter to anyone but me, I know. But I favor regulation and I favor a ban on combat-type weapons and clips available to civilians. Although I am not a hunter, several in my family are. And I recognize the need for weapon power for many individuals threatened by critters or by humans. So by regulation I mean background checks and I mean banning weapons beyond hunting or protection needs. Some concentrate on the 'shall not be infringed' part and I concentrate on the 'regulate' and 'militia'. And taking into account the times of the writing, I believe it means militias cannot be banned, as they were under British rule, although I recognize none can really know the thought behind 2A. As far as I know, there was never a weapons ban, even under the Brits, just a ban on joining together in a military force. I wish I could explain better. I own a revolver and it is loaded with hollow-point bullets. May I never use it!

Regulated didn't mean government regulation. You should look up the definition of the word. So think about what you are arguing with "regulated." People can have guns, but only as government decides they can have guns.

So then, why did they put it in the bill of rights? Government will give you the gun rights that it decides to give you. Obviously government can do that anyway, right? That isn't a right at all, think about it

And yet all agree, excepting maybe anarchists, that 1A has a limit...i.e. the old no yelling fire in a crowded theater. Everything has a limit.

misquoted and misused

you should really read U.S. v. Schenck

which was over turned 40 + years ago

 

[paulitician]

Big Government Authoritarians, both Democrat and Republican, just don't get it. Civil Rights are human rights. They're not only granted and bestowed upon us by Government.

We're all born with inalienable rights. Government isn't merely doing us a 'favor' by 'allowing' us Civil Rights. We possess them regardless. Big Government Authoritarians are very dangerous folks leading us down a very dark path.

 

[rightwinger]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."

Our courts agree with her .....even the Heller decision written by Scalia

Wrong...what you dipsticks think that means is that you have the ability to regulate guns out of existence.......what Scalia and the intelligent justices meant is the bare minimum regulations that do not infringe on the actual Right.......so almost all of your gun control laws are unConstitutional.....

You cannot yell fire in a theater is the one you nuts always use for the first....but you don't have to register first to speak in a theater....you are arrested and your right suspended when you actually yell fire in the theater....


The same applies to guns.....if you use a gun for a crime ....you are arrested....right now, if you are felon in possession of a gun....you are arrested.......that is what scalia meant.....

Not....you can't own or carry a gun unless the government approves and you had better have a reason they like......

Hyperbole on your part

Nobody is trying to regulate guns out of existence, there are 300 million of them out there
The courts allow reasonable gun restrictions....even your favorite Heller decision

You don't have freedom to speak in a theater...they have a right to tell you to shut up, just like they have a right to tell you to keep your gun outside

But you have the right to carry your gun inside. So, the rights of all have to be respected.

No you don't

 

[bendog]

Big Government Authoritarians, both Democrat and Republican, just don't get it. Civil Rights are human rights. They're not only granted and bestowed upon us by Government.

We're all born with inalienable rights. Government isn't merely doing us a 'favor' by 'allowing' us Civil Rights. We possess them regardless. Big Government Authoritarians are very dangerous folks leading us down a very dark path.

Ah should vote whereevah ah wannA VOTE. iT'S AH RAT

 

[paulitician]

$1000 and 3-6 months is not a "restriction", it is a blatant attempt to discourage law abiding people from owning firearms in NYC.

Why don't we apply the NYC firearm standard to voting, or abortion or getting a marriage license? Why is it reasonable for guns, but not for the others?

The court system is fully available to all the citizens of NYC

Nice non-answer.

You just don't like the answer

Your community wants thorough background checks and regulations. There are eight million people in NYC, if they believe those regulations are excessive, they have a court system available to them

Yes, let's allow Judges to run the country. Might as well scrap that pesky Constitution i guess. Seriously, y'all Big Government Authoritarians really do need to think things through a bit more.

That's what judges do as well as our legislators...its all in the Constitution

Follow the Constitution. It's the road map for true Freedom & Liberty. That's what our Founding Fathers intended.

 

[paulitician]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."

Our courts agree with her .....even the Heller decision written by Scalia

Wrong...what you dipsticks think that means is that you have the ability to regulate guns out of existence.......what Scalia and the intelligent justices meant is the bare minimum regulations that do not infringe on the actual Right.......so almost all of your gun control laws are unConstitutional.....

You cannot yell fire in a theater is the one you nuts always use for the first....but you don't have to register first to speak in a theater....you are arrested and your right suspended when you actually yell fire in the theater....


The same applies to guns.....if you use a gun for a crime ....you are arrested....right now, if you are felon in possession of a gun....you are arrested.......that is what scalia meant.....

Not....you can't own or carry a gun unless the government approves and you had better have a reason they like......

Hyperbole on your part

Nobody is trying to regulate guns out of existence, there are 300 million of them out there
The courts allow reasonable gun restrictions....even your favorite Heller decision

You don't have freedom to speak in a theater...they have a right to tell you to shut up, just like they have a right to tell you to keep your gun outside

But you have the right to carry your gun inside. So, the rights of all have to be respected.

No you don't

I do. And i expect my right to be respected. You don't wanna carry a gun, than so be it. I respect that.

 

[bendog]

The court system is fully available to all the citizens of NYC

Nice non-answer.

You just don't like the answer

Your community wants thorough background checks and regulations. There are eight million people in NYC, if they believe those regulations are excessive, they have a court system available to them

Yes, let's allow Judges to run the country. Might as well scrap that pesky Constitution i guess. Seriously, y'all Big Government Authoritarians really do need to think things through a bit more.

That's what judges do as well as our legislators...its all in the Constitution

Follow the Constitution. It's the road map for true Freedom & Liberty. That's what our Founding Fathers intended.

The founders America included regulation. see heller.

 

[paulitician]

Big Government Authoritarians, both Democrat and Republican, just don't get it. Civil Rights are human rights. They're not only granted and bestowed upon us by Government.

We're all born with inalienable rights. Government isn't merely doing us a 'favor' by 'allowing' us Civil Rights. We possess them regardless. Big Government Authoritarians are very dangerous folks leading us down a very dark path.

Ah should vote whereevah ah wannA VOTE. iT'S AH RAT

You Authoritarians, both Democrat and Republican, are very confused misinformed folks. We are born with inalienable rights. Those rights aren't merely 'favors' allowed to us by Government.

We don't have to kneel and grovel at the feet of Big Brother praising and thanking him for his gracious 'favors.' We have these rights regardless. Read up on the Constitution. Y'all Authoritarians really do need think on this stuff a bit more.

 

[paulitician]

Nice non-answer.

You just don't like the answer

Your community wants thorough background checks and regulations. There are eight million people in NYC, if they believe those regulations are excessive, they have a court system available to them

Yes, let's allow Judges to run the country. Might as well scrap that pesky Constitution i guess. Seriously, y'all Big Government Authoritarians really do need to think things through a bit more.

That's what judges do as well as our legislators...its all in the Constitution

Follow the Constitution. It's the road map for true Freedom & Liberty. That's what our Founding Fathers intended.

The founders America included regulation. see heller.

Just follow the road map. We'll be fine. The problem is, too many are steering us off the road map.

 

[martybegan]

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation."
- Hillary Clinton

Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

What part of reasonable regulation don't YOU understand?

Explain to me why having to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 in NYC to simply get a revolver for home use is "reasonable".

Your point doesn't support the OP's assertion.

Answer the question.

I did, asshole. I said it was debatable.

No, you didn't. why would such a restriction be considered reasonable?

 

[martybegan]

Regulated didn't mean government regulation. You should look up the definition of the word. So think about what you are arguing with "regulated." People can have guns, but only as government decides they can have guns.

So then, why did they put it in the bill of rights? Government will give you the gun rights that it decides to give you. Obviously government can do that anyway, right? That isn't a right at all, think about it

And yet all agree, excepting maybe anarchists, that 1A has a limit...i.e. the old no yelling fire in a crowded theater. Everything has a limit.

There is no limit to the 1A. You may yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater to your heart's content, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences.

It's not a constitutional matter, but a criminal one.

Yes, it's not the words that are illegal, it's the intent to cause panic which could cause harm. You could say the same words in a different way, like as a joking aside to a bud and it's perfectly fine. You could indicate in non-verbal form there is a fire, like as a message on the screen, with the intent to cause panic and it's not. It's the causing panic that's the crime, not the medium. Just like just because guns are legal doesn't mean it's legal to go around shooting people with them

Don't go and try to explain prior restraint to these people, the concept is above them.

Prior restraint is a gun nut as applied to gun rights.

Thank you for proving my point, oxygen thief.