Tell us about your sawed off shotgun. That does not limit your right to bear arms?
Infringement
- Thread starter Evmetro
- Start date
Tell us about your sawed off shotgun. That does not limit your right to bear arms?
Every example limits your right to bear arms. Sorry that you’re too fucking stupid to recognize that.
You’re question as to what law “does not” limit the possession of guns is the height of stupidity. But that’s your MO. Being fucking stupid.
Robo
Verified User
Rights are "INALIENABLE." any gun law without the validation of an amendment to the Constitution therefore is a violation of "INALIENABLE" constitutional rights and an invalid unconstitutional law, regardless of what any court decision says. Honest folks of just principles & integrity, know this full well. "An armed people are a free people."
As long as they are in a well-regulated militia.
Dumber76 got it in post 22. "Every example limits your right to bear arms" is what he posted. I am surprised to see a lefty who is willing to admit that all gun control laws infringe on our right to bear arms. This means that all gun control laws violate the second amendment.
Into the Night
Verified User
You have the right to carry your gun anywhere, anytime, subject to property laws, and even the effect of those laws are limited.
Into the Night
Verified User
Scalia is wrong. He is not allowed to change the Constitution of the United States. You are not either. You cannot declare a portion of the Constitution 'not absolute'.
The Constitution of the United States does not grant rights. There is no such thing as a 'constitutional right'. The purpose of this document is to declare the form and structure of the government and what powers it has. It has NO power or authority outside what the Constitution specifically gives it.
Into the Night
Verified User
You've probably noticed that he has a terrible problem with reading comprehension.
Into the Night
Verified User
He's being stupid for agreeing with you?? You are making his opening point quite clear. Q.E.D.
Thanks for proving my point. What you just admitted was that you DON’T have the right to carry any weapon, any time and anywhere.
Dolt.
Every right is alienable, nitwit. Deal with it.
Are you saying the people in the UK or Japan aren’t free? Better write a letter and let them know.
Into the Night
Verified User
Militias are not a requirement. The 2nd amendment discusses TWO rights, not one.
1) The right of a free State to defend itself by forming militias. Several States currently have active militias. This protects the States from a rogue federal government.
2) The right of a person to defend himself by bearing arms. That means buying, owning, and using guns as well as any other type of arm. This protects the individual from a rogue State or federal government, as well as from wild animals, pests, criminals, etc.
The Constitution does not grant these rights. These rights are inherently a right of Man simply because he is a living breathing thing. States are made up of individuals.
Into the Night
Verified User
You have the right to carry your gun anywhere, anytime, subject to property laws, and even the effect of those laws are limited.
Yep. Thanks for proving my point that you don’t have the right to carry any gun, anytime, anywhere. Just like Scalia told you in Heller.
“Infringed” That just frosts your barrel stroking ass, doesn’t it?
Flounder on, dimwit.
Into the Night
Verified User
You have the right to carry your gun anywhere, anytime, subject to property laws, and even the effect of those laws are limited.
That is not infringement. That is two rights being balanced. You have the right to own property too. You have also a certain right to ban guns on your property if you choose to do so. That doesn't apply to all cases, however.
That is not infringement. That is two rights being balanced. You have the right to own property too. You have also a certain right to ban guns on your property if you choose to do so. That doesn't apply to all cases, however.
Infringe means to limit. Everywhere you are prohibited from obtaining a certain weapon or prohibited from carrying it is an infringement.
Why is English so difficult for you?
Here, let me quote Scalia in Heller again. Choke on it, moron.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in thbopinione historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”
Into the Night
Verified User
WRONG. To infringe means to reduce the right to self defense by government passing laws that directly do so.
WRONG. People have a right to their property. That is not infringement by government.
Inversion fallacy.
Infringe has no connotation to self defense. Did Mommy skip English in homeschool.
People do not have a right to any gun, any place, any time. Try to educate yourself, moron.
You don’t have a fucking clue what inversion fallacy is.
Fucking fool.