Current Events > If banning one reporter violates the 1st amendment you cannot even ban one gun

(+) Yeah! (+)

as precedence

*nibbles*
---

Swims past
---

I just want to point out that the judges ruling on the case was about the 5th amendment. The White House decided to concede before it went any farther to rule on the 1st amendment part.
---

Please fully understand what the second amendment states before making such stupid claims.

Visiting the White House isn't a right, it's a privilege.
---

CommonStar posted...

Please fully understand what the second amendment states before making such stupid claims.

over 21000 people disagree with you

Precedent*

Goddamn its hilarious how consistently illiterate you are
---

RebelElite791 posted...

Precedent*

Goddamn its hilarious how consistently illiterate you are

That's why Joe is that way. It all makes sense.
---

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
versus
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Seems pretty similar to me.
---

Yes you can. The 2nd amendment says that the right is only viable with a "well-regulated militia".
---

RebelElite791 posted...

Precedent*

Goddamn its hilarious how consistently illiterate you are

got eem

Haha I pretended to not know English gotem
---

smoliske posted...

CommonStar posted...

Please fully understand what the second amendment states before making such stupid claims.

over 21000 people disagree with you

there are way more than 21000 stupid people in this country
---

Kineth posted...

Yes you can. The 2nd amendment says that the right is only viable with a "well-regulated militia".

This is a stupid battle to fight. The guy who wrote the fucking amendment also said this:

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

It's pretty clear he did not want this to be restricted to an official state militia. His view was that every American should be able to fight on a moment's notice if they were invaded.

Of course, invasions these days are pretty rare but they were a serious threat back then.
---

Kineth posted...

Yes you can. The 2nd amendment says that the right is only viable with a "well-regulated militia".

How many times do you people need the Supreme Court to affirm the individual right to bear arms?

LesserFaith posted...

Kineth posted...

Yes you can. The 2nd amendment says that the right is only viable with a "well-regulated militia".

How many times do you people need the Supreme Court to affirm the individual right to bear arms?

what sort of people are you referring to exactly?

smoliske posted...

LesserFaith posted...

Kineth posted...

Yes you can. The 2nd amendment says that the right is only viable with a "well-regulated militia".

How many times do you people need the Supreme Court to affirm the individual right to bear arms?

what sort of people are you referring to exactly?

Lefties

Kineth posted...

Yes you can. The 2nd amendment says that the right is only viable with a "well-regulated militia".

Do you have a source stating that the people who wrote the 2nd amendment intended for the words 'well regulated' to mean restrictions on ownership?

LesserFaith posted...

Kineth posted...

Yes you can. The 2nd amendment says that the right is only viable with a "well-regulated militia".

How many times do you people need the Supreme Court to affirm the individual right to bear arms?

Tyranthraxus posted...

Kineth posted...

Yes you can. The 2nd amendment says that the right is only viable with a "well-regulated militia".

This is a stupid battle to fight. The guy who wrote the fucking amendment also said this:

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

It's pretty clear he did not want this to be restricted to an official state militia. His view was that every American should be able to fight on a moment's notice if they were invaded.

Of course, invasions these days are pretty rare but they were a serious threat back then.

I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but the part to focus on in my post was the part I bolded. WELL-REGULATED. I know that the Court has said that the right extended to the citizens as individuals. The point I was making is that it should be well-regulated. Like.. I don't know how you people managed to miss the point of my post especially since I used bold show where the emphasis was.
---

Language changes over time which is why people focus on intent rather than what the common modern definition of certain words means today.

HenryAllbright posted...

Kineth posted...

Yes you can. The 2nd amendment says that the right is only viable with a "well-regulated militia".

Do you have a source stating that the people who wrote the 2nd amendment intended for the words 'well regulated' to mean restrictions on ownership?

I would have cited a legal precedent over that. There is none, afaik.

EDIT: I'll take that back. Because gun bans have been allowed and weren't deemed unconstitutional, that would be all the precedent necessary.

Anyway, my sources would be the dictionary and the ability to read. I'm not even saying that it specifically means that, if at all. I'm saying that TC's attempt at equivalency with the 2 rights is without merit BECAUSE the 2nd amendment states that regulation is necessary for it.

What do you think "well-regulated" means?
---

Kineth posted...

LesserFaith posted...

Kineth posted...

Yes you can. The 2nd amendment says that the right is only viable with a "well-regulated militia".

How many times do you people need the Supreme Court to affirm the individual right to bear arms?

Tyranthraxus posted...

Kineth posted...

Yes you can. The 2nd amendment says that the right is only viable with a "well-regulated militia".

This is a stupid battle to fight. The guy who wrote the fucking amendment also said this:

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

It's pretty clear he did not want this to be restricted to an official state militia. His view was that every American should be able to fight on a moment's notice if they were invaded.

Of course, invasions these days are pretty rare but they were a serious threat back then.

I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but the part to focus on in my post was the part I bolded. WELL-REGULATED. I know that the Court has said that the right extended to the citizens as individuals. The point I was making is that it should be well-regulated. Like.. I don't know how you people managed to miss the point of my post especially since I used bold show where the emphasis was.

The "regulations" ignorant pathetic leftists want are actually disguised infringements though. The Marxist plan is to seize weapons so it's easy for them to seize the means.

LesserFaith posted...

Stop wasting my time with arguments that other people made.
---

In 1791 arms were not the same thing we have today. It was clearly not written with any foresight to what firearms would become. No one is going on a mass shooting with a musket.
---

Nice
---

ImmatureContent posted...

In 1791 arms were not the same thing we have today. It was clearly not written with any foresight to what firearms would become. No one is going on a mass shooting with a musket.

In 1791 the press wasn't the same as today. Free speech clearly wasn't written with the Internet in mind.

Should I keep going?

LesserFaith posted...

ImmatureContent posted...

In 1791 arms were not the same thing we have today. It was clearly not written with any foresight to what firearms would become. No one is going on a mass shooting with a musket.

In 1791 the press wasn't the same as today. Free speech clearly wasn't written with the Internet in mind.

Should I keep going?

What is fundamentally different about free speech today? It is a principle. It is not about the technology. In regards to firearms, the technology is important. Even the biggest gun nut would draw the line somewhere as to what is too much firepower.
---

LesserFaith posted...

ImmatureContent posted...

In 1791 arms were not the same thing we have today. It was clearly not written with any foresight to what firearms would become. No one is going on a mass shooting with a musket.

In 1791 the press wasn't the same as today. Free speech clearly wasn't written with the Internet in mind.

Should I keep going?

And Chelsea Manning went to jail for giving a journalist documents. Clearly you can't just claim to be a journalist.
---

The second amendment doesn't say anything about guns. It just mentions arms.

PSXer_D5_MkIII posted...

The second amendment doesn't say anything about guns. It just mentions arms.

More specifically it mentions bear arms.
---

Guns are not people. Besides I am against banning guns. I'm in favor of regulating guns and gun safty.
---

You people act like the writers couldn't anticipate that firearms tech wouldn't advance. Even back then weapons like cannons existed as well as primitive automatic weaponry.
---

Kineth posted...

HenryAllbright posted...

Kineth posted...

Yes you can. The 2nd amendment says that the right is only viable with a "well-regulated militia".

Do you have a source stating that the people who wrote the 2nd amendment intended for the words 'well regulated' to mean restrictions on ownership?

I would have cited a legal precedent over that. There is none, afaik.

EDIT: I'll take that back. Because gun bans have been allowed and weren't deemed unconstitutional, that would be all the precedent necessary.

Anyway, my sources would be the dictionary and the ability to read. I'm not even saying that it specifically means that, if at all. I'm saying that TC's attempt at equivalency with the 2 rights is without merit BECAUSE the 2nd amendment states that regulation is necessary for it.

What do you think "well-regulated" means

The point of bringing up intent is to point out why the courts have often ruled incorrectly in terms of adhering to the constitution.

The first listed definition of 'regulate' is to keep something maintained and functioning properly. And they are talking about a militia anyway, so even if we do go with the modern political definition of 'regulate' then the amendment would only be stating that the militia itself should be subject to regulations which doesn't make any sense.

Also...don't you think an amendment calling for government imposed restrictions seems a little out of place in the Bill of Rights?

Delta_F14 posted...

You people act like the writers couldn't anticipate that firearms tech wouldn't advance. Even back then weapons like cannons existed as well as primitive automatic weaponry.

It was an amendment. Maybe they assumed that future generations would have the common sense to further amend it if it needed. I guess they were wrong.
---

Why do we care so much about what someone 2000 years ago thought about gun rights

"Also...don't you think an amendment calling for government imposed restrictions seems a little out of place in the Bill of Rights?"

To the lowly socialist, the entire Bill of Rights is a way to oppress people. They scoure it for vagueness and grasp at straws to subvert and undermine. They fill that vagueness with their lame ideology and think they're smart while doing it because they went to state uni, where they were programmed by sociology "professors."

LesserFaith posted...

"Also...don't you think an amendment calling for government imposed restrictions seems a little out of place in the Bill of Rights?"

To the lowly socialist, the entire Bill of Rights is a way to oppress people. They scoure it for vagueness and grasp at straws to subvert and undermine. They fill that vagueness with their lame ideology and think they're smart while doing it because they went to state uni, where they were programmed by sociology "professors."

This topic needs an enema to clean out all the shit after this post
---

Kineth posted...

LesserFaith posted...

Stop wasting my time with arguments that other people made.

---

This whole debate has shown to me that the majority of CE doesn't understand constitutional rights nearly as much as they think they do.
---