Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes, they wouldn't play, "Relax, don't do it if you want to cum" by Frankie and the Hollywood on Top of the Tops decades ago. You could still buy it on record etc.. But that's the BBC, not the government. The BBC licence fee wants scrapped, that'll happen in a few years to come, they're out of date.Yeah, but the beeb won't play it. Ever.
The BBC is a licence fee payment system. They tend to push their ideas through against the licence fee population. They often ban songs on the TV, but you can still buy them and listen to them on the radio that's not controlled by the BBC.Yeah it was in pretty good rotation back in the 80's on MTV in the US. I don't know about how it was treated in the UK though.
There's no such thing as an ex-felon but, even so, the restriction is unconstitutional. There's no exception clause in the 2nd Amendment and those who accept bans on felons owning guns must, likewise, accept a ban on anyone the government chooses to ban.The restrictions on ex-felons seems illegal to me.
You can not have a 2 tiered society.
Either we all have equal rights or none.
How can ex-felons not be allowed to vote and yet still pay taxes, since that is taxation without representation?
If defense of right to life is inherent, then how can anyone force an ex-felon to remain unarmed?
Justice Barrett is about to annihilate the left's precious "judicial Second Amendment”.‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.
"Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."
Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, also said the Second Amendment is losing its legal relevance in distinguishing lawful policies from unlawful ones as the gap between what he calls the "judicial Second Amendment” and the "aspirational Second Amendment" widens.
Winkler defines the "judicial Second Amendment" as how courts interpret the constitutional provision in their decisions, and the "aspirational Second Amendment" as how the amendment is used in political dialogue. The latter is "far more hostile to gun laws than the judicial one," he said -- and also more prevalent.
"The aspirational Second Amendment is overtaking the judicial Second Amendment in American law," he wrote in the Indiana Law Journal in 2018, a sentiment he repeated in a recent interview with ABC News. "State law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America's gun laws."’
Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate
In the bitter debate over gun control, battle lines are often drawn around the Second Amendment, with many in favor of gun rights pointing to it as the source of their constitutional authority to bear arms, and some in favor of tighter gun control disagreeing with that interpretation. Joseph...www.yahoo.com
This is why meaningful, constructive, good faith debate concerning the Second Amendment, its meaning, and its application as a matter of regulatory law is impossible.
The judicial Second Amendment camp and the political Second Amendment camp will always be at odds, never finding consensus or agreement – with the former following Second Amendment jurisprudence as determined by the Supreme Court and the latter having nothing but contempt for the Court and its decisions concerning the Second Amendment.
The political camp does no such thing. We are happy to force state and local governments to follow the Constitution."The Bill of Rights, by its terms, only applies to the federal government, but the Supreme Court, through a doctrine known as incorporation, has made almost all of its guarantees applicable against state and local governments as well. That's what the question was in McDonald," Blocher said. "But some states have chosen to go above and beyond what the court laid out." ibid
Another point of conflict between the two camps.
The judicial camp recognizes incorporation doctrine and the application of the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.
The political camp rejects incorporation doctrine
States do not have a right to violate the Constitution.but is inconsistent with its advocacy of “states’ rights” – advocating that the Supreme Court invalidate state measures such as assault weapon bans and universal background checks.
Pointless to tell us that, because it isn't true. What you refer to as the "political/aspirational Second Amendment" is the only correct way of interpreting the Constitution.‘It goes back to that widening gap between the judicial Second Amendment as the courts interpret it and the aspirational Second Amendment as used in politics, according to Winkler and Blocher.
"There's a difference between the Second Amendment as interpreted and applied by courts and the Second Amendment as it's invoked in political discussions. And for many gun rights advocates, the political version of the Second Amendment is quite a bit more gun protective than the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court and lower courts have applied it," he said.’ ibid
And it’s pointless to tell purveyors of the political/aspirational Second Amendment that although they are entitled to their opinions, those opinions are subjective, irrelevant and devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.
Only for one more month. Justice Barrett is about to make the "political/aspirational second amendment" the absolute law of the land once and for all.Only the judicial Second Amendment carries the force of Constitutional law, authorizing government to regulate firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
So is carrying a gun.No. those things are a reasonable precaution,
Only leftist Freedom Haters consider carrying a gun to be appropriate only in war zones.Being armed as if you were in a war zone to go to the convince store for a soda and some double A batteries for the remote is not reasonable.
It is noteworthy that the 9/11 hijackers hated our freedom just as much as progressives do. That's probably why progressives were so happy about the 9/11 attacks.It's the action of a coward gun nut with mental problems.
Thank you. If anyone was thinking you might be less than batshit crazy, that last remark, alone proved that is not the ase.So is carrying a gun.
Only leftist Freedom Haters consider carrying a gun to be appropriate only in war zones.
It is noteworthy that the 9/11 hijackers hated our freedom just as much as progressives do. That's probably why progressives were so happy about the 9/11 attacks.
Ok....you can be dead and brave.Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?
And you can be armed and stupid.Ok....you can be dead and brave.
Ok....you can be dead and braveYep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?
But aliveAnd you can be armed and stupid.
Justice Barrett is about to annihilate the left's precious "judicial Second Amendment”.
In another month, Second Amendment case law will require following the US Constitution.
The political camp does no such thing. We are happy to force state and local governments to follow the Constitution.
States do not have a right to violate the Constitution.
Pointless to tell us that, because it isn't true. What you refer to as the "political/aspirational Second Amendment" is the only correct way of interpreting the Constitution.
That makes the "political/aspirational Second Amendment" objective, relevant, and chock full of legal Constitutional merit.
Only for one more month. Justice Barrett is about to make the "political/aspirational second amendment" the absolute law of the land once and for all.
And rightly so. As I said, it is the only correct way of interpreting the Constitution.
I am not saying that. There are a lot of gun laws that are blocked by the Second Amendment, but some gun laws can pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.But it sounds like you are claiming the 2nd amendment bans all firearm laws, and that can not be true.
Perhaps, but the Fourteenth Amendment changed that.The original 2nd amendment was intended just to ban any federal gun laws.
The Second Amendment mentions individual firearms rights.The 14th amendment then is where individual firearm rights are mentioned in the constitution, but it is not very specific.
Those laws will probably pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.For example, can there be municipal laws preventing the sale of firearms to minors?
And of course there can be.
I am not saying that. There are a lot of gun laws that are blocked by the Second Amendment, but some gun laws can pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Perhaps, but the Fourteenth Amendment changed that.
The Second Amendment mentions individual firearms rights.
Those laws will probably pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.
And you can be armed and stupid.
I would further argue that there is no militia activity without the individual right. Since all militia activity begins on an individual to individual basis and moves forward to organize from there it stands to reason that the right to bear arms also is an individual right. If that was not the case one could also argue that it was unconstitutional to form a militia and that simply is not true. There is no specification in the law that says the right only attaches after the militia has been organized. There is such a thing as a militia of one. Granted that's not ideal but there it is nonetheless.But it sounds like you are claiming the 2nd amendment bans all firearm laws, and that can not be true.
The original 2nd amendment was intended just to ban any federal gun laws.
The 14th amendment then is where individual firearm rights are mentioned in the constitution, but it is not very specific.
For example, can there be municipal laws preventing the sale of firearms to minors?
And of course there can be.
So your argument is way too broad.
Neither the 2nd nor 14th amendments prevent all local firearm laws.
I am not saying that. There are a lot of gun laws that are blocked by the Second Amendment, but some gun laws can pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia
Perhaps, but the Fourteenth Amendment changed that.
The Second Amendment mentions individual firearms rights.
Those laws will probably pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.
But it sounds like you're claiming that certain gun restrictions are allowed, and that IS NOT true. A firearm law that requires the chamber hold up to the pressures of the round is ok. Any law restricting the ability to purchase a firearm is unconstitutional.But it sounds like you are claiming the 2nd amendment bans all firearm laws, and that can not be true.
The original 2nd amendment was intended just to ban any federal gun laws.
The 14th amendment then is where individual firearm rights are mentioned in the constitution, but it is not very specific.
For example, can there be municipal laws preventing the sale of firearms to minors?
And of course there can be.
So your argument is way too broad.
Neither the 2nd nor 14th amendments prevent all local firearm laws.
