What restrictions are inherent to the right to arms?

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

Interesting proposition, that all rights "come with" restrictions -- that certain restrictions exist due to the nature of a right, as opposed to those placed upon it by the state.

What "restrictions" are inherent to the right to arms?
Please be sure to explain your response.

 

[pismoe]

the American has the RIGHT to the basic arms of the American infantryman . No nukes but the rifles , gear , handguns , ammunition and all the other personal items of the American soldier . That's the theory I go by as it fills the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment .

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am astounded that none of the usual anti-gun loons have not stepped up to the plate here...

 

[pismoe]

they know that they have lost , at least on this board anyway but what do you think of my answer to your question M14 ??

 

[pismoe]

and others , I see no problem with owning tanks , cannon and other weapons but that has mostly gone the way of the dodo as people live in cities rather than on farms where those items can be used and stored . I knew people in the 60s that owned cannon but they were farmers and the cannon were their toys until needed but no one ever thought that they would ever be needed !!

 

[M14 Shooter]

they know that they have lost , at least on this board anyway but what do you think of my answer to your question M14 ??

In terms of the inherent limit to the "arms" protected by the 2nd?
Certainly, there is some limit inherent to the term. The limitation you suggest is as reasonable as any, given that the 2nd was written to, among other things, ensure that the militia would always have access to effective and relevant weaponry.

 

[pismoe]

thanks for the reply M14 , glad that you agree , I think that my definition is very understandable because it fills the role of the Second .

 

[2aguy]

What the anti gunners who use the yelling fire in a theater fail to realize....you do not have to go through a government background check in order to be allowed to talk in a theater to make sure you are not going to yell fire in a crowded theater.....you are only punished when you actually do the yelling, not before, and you don't have to ask the government if you can exercise your 1st amendment right.....

Ask them if they think they should have to submit to a government background check before they can log onto the internet....since any number of criminals use the internet for criminal purposes...according to their beliefs...shouldn't we get permission to use it? Same as they want for guns?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What the anti gunners who use the yelling fire in a theater fail to realize....you do not have to go through a government background check in order to be allowed to talk in a theater to make sure you are not going to yell fire in a crowded theater.....you are only punished when you actually do the yelling, not before, and you don't have to ask the government if you can exercise your 1st amendment right.....

Ask them if they think they should have to submit to a government background check before they can log onto the internet....since any number of criminals use the internet for criminal purposes...according to their beliefs...shouldn't we get permission to use it? Same as they want for guns?

^^
All this...

And when they are asked to describe a 2nd-amendment analogue to yelling fire in a theater -- an act not protected as free speech by the 1st amendment because it places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger -- they skulk away.

 

[2aguy]

It will be interesting to see the brave ones try to answer your post.....

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

Interesting proposition, that all rights "come with" restrictions -- that certain restrictions exist due to the nature of a right, as opposed to those placed upon it by the state.

What "restrictions" are inherent to the right to arms?
Please be sure to explain your response.

That is total bullshit

If someone wants to shoot up a theater or massacre a classroom full of first graders, they should have access to their weapon of choice

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

 

[2aguy]

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

Interesting proposition, that all rights "come with" restrictions -- that certain restrictions exist due to the nature of a right, as opposed to those placed upon it by the state.

What "restrictions" are inherent to the right to arms?
Please be sure to explain your response.

That is total bullshit

If someone wants to shoot up a theater or massacre a classroom full of first graders, they should have access to their weapon of choice

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

And yet you would deny the right of everyone else in that theater to have a weapon to stop that law breaker...right? So who really wants that guy to kill those people....the ones who want law abiding citizens to have a chance at stopping him, or the ones who will disarm those citizens knowing full well that the shooter can't be stopped by any law from getting a gun.......just ask the 3 terrorists in France, the masked gunmen in Marseilles France, the gunman in Belgium, the gunmen in Sweden, and on and on in all of those countries with strict gun control laws......

 

[August West]

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

Interesting proposition, that all rights "come with" restrictions -- that certain restrictions exist due to the nature of a right, as opposed to those placed upon it by the state.

What "restrictions" are inherent to the right to arms?
Please be sure to explain your response.

That is total bullshit

If someone wants to shoot up a theater or massacre a classroom full of first graders, they should have access to their weapon of choice

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

And yet you would deny the right of everyone else in that theater to have a weapon to stop that law breaker...right? So who really wants that guy to kill those people....the ones who want law abiding citizens to have a chance at stopping him, or the ones who will disarm those citizens knowing full well that the shooter can't be stopped by any law from getting a gun.......just ask the 3 terrorists in France, the masked gunmen in Marseilles France, the gunman in Belgium, the gunmen in Sweden, and on and on in all of those countries with strict gun control laws......

Every one of those countries are safer than this one. What makes you think that moviegoers and second graders even WANT to carry a gun with them everywhere they go?

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

Interesting proposition, that all rights "come with" restrictions -- that certain restrictions exist due to the nature of a right, as opposed to those placed upon it by the state.

What "restrictions" are inherent to the right to arms?
Please be sure to explain your response.

That is total bullshit

If someone wants to shoot up a theater or massacre a classroom full of first graders, they should have access to their weapon of choice

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

And yet you would deny the right of everyone else in that theater to have a weapon to stop that law breaker...right? So who really wants that guy to kill those people....the ones who want law abiding citizens to have a chance at stopping him, or the ones who will disarm those citizens knowing full well that the shooter can't be stopped by any law from getting a gun.......just ask the 3 terrorists in France, the masked gunmen in Marseilles France, the gunman in Belgium, the gunmen in Sweden, and on and on in all of those countries with strict gun control laws......

I'm with you on this one brother

If someone wants to massacre a bunch of first graders, the gun he chooses is none of your damned business

 

[rightwinger]

Suppose I am batshit crazy and the voices in my head are telling me I need to kill as many people as I can as fast as I can......I can't do that with a musket

Thankfully, I have a second amendment and hopefully a knowledgeable gun dealer to help me pick out the right weapon

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What the anti gunners who use the yelling fire in a theater fail to realize....you do not have to go through a government background check in order to be allowed to talk in a theater to make sure you are not going to yell fire in a crowded theater.....you are only punished when you actually do the yelling, not before, and you don't have to ask the government if you can exercise your 1st amendment right.....

Ask them if they think they should have to submit to a government background check before they can log onto the internet....since any number of criminals use the internet for criminal purposes...according to their beliefs...shouldn't we get permission to use it? Same as they want for guns?

^^
All this...

And when they are asked to describe a 2nd-amendment analogue to yelling fire in a theater -- an act not protected as free speech by the 1st amendment because it places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger -- they skulk away.

I answered your questions in this same type thread two weeks ago.

A) it's boring to keep having the same discussion over and over
B) You're an idiot who believes the government has the right to regulate all rights except the right to bare arms, so why bother?

 

[Skylar]

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

Interesting proposition, that all rights "come with" restrictions -- that certain restrictions exist due to the nature of a right, as opposed to those placed upon it by the state.

What "restrictions" are inherent to the right to arms?
Please be sure to explain your response.

I'd say any arm that would be standard for a militia man would be within the 2nd amendment. But something outside the militia would probably be beyond the 2nd amendment.

For example, a rifle and ammo would be militia man material. An Apache helicopter, probably not so much.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Every one of those countries are safer than this one. What makes you think that moviegoers and second graders even WANT to carry a gun with them everywhere they go?

What "restrictions" are inherent to the right to arms?
Please be sure to explain your response.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I answered your questions in this same type thread two weeks ago.

This is the first time I asked the question. Please give it a shot.
What "restrictions" are inherent to the right to arms?
Please be sure to explain your response

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

Interesting proposition, that all rights "come with" restrictions -- that certain restrictions exist due to the nature of a right, as opposed to those placed upon it by the state.

What "restrictions" are inherent to the right to arms?
Please be sure to explain your response.

I'd say any arm that would be standard for a militia man would be within the 2nd amendment. But something outside the militia would probably be beyond the 2nd amendment.
For example, a rifle and ammo would be militia man material. An Apache helicopter, probably not so much.

Fair enough.
Any other restrictions inherent to the right to arms?