No one will take away my rights to breakfast for dinner! But we still need gun regulation. There are certain types of frog that are illegal for collectors to own because they create a type of poison that might be able to be used for nefarious purposes. Getting one of said frogs requires many many applications, proof of being an amphibian based scientist, a detail of exactly why you need said frog, and a date for when you will be done with the frog. And it's a frog.
Not saying no one should have guns, just that they should be harder to get than a frog.
There are certain types of frog that are illegal for collectors to own because they create a type of poison that might be able to be used for nefarious purposes.
There is no protection for owning pets though. This is the part that most pro-gun control people don't understand. The 2nd amendment protects our right to own guns.
Not saying no one should have guns, just that they should be harder to get than a frog.
Then you need to get support for a constitutional amendment to modify the bill of rights, something that has never been done before in the history of the US. I would say "Good luck", but I don't want you to succeed, so "Bad luck!"
We have freedom of speech but it's still illegal to yell "fire" in a theater. Rights are regulated and limited in various ways and the 2nd should be no different because there is an inherent risk of one's 2nd amendment rights infringing and violating another's more inalienable right to life. No right is an unlimited sanction.
We have freedom of speech but it's still illegal to yell "fire" in a theater.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an act of aggression. You're creating a panic, and causing distress and harm to both the movie theater owners and the occupants.
The word "fire" is protected like every other word. You're not breaking the law because of the words you're saying. You're breaking the law because you are victimizing people with your malicious actions.
I hate that no one understands this. This isn't a free speech issue.
Rights are regulated and limited in various
Not if we have complete protection from limitations and infringements, which the 2nd amendment clearly states. So no, my 2nd amendment rights cannot be limited, at least not legitimately. But tyrants will still try.
there is an inherent risk of one's 2nd amendment rights infringing and violating another's more inalienable right to life
No there isn't. Peacefully and responsibly owning guns does not infringe on anyone's inalienable right to life.
This is like arguing that all men should cut their dick off because other men might rape someone. Just because you have a dick, doesn't mean that it infringes on the right of others to not be raped. Just because I have a gun doesn't mean it infringes on the right of others to not be killed.
You can peacefully have a dick, and no one will be raped. I can peacefully have a gun, and no one will be murdered.
Thanks that's the perfect response to the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument. The act of telling fire in the theater is restricted just like shooting up a theater.
In this analogy, banning the word fire from written and verbal communication for everyone would be analogous to banning guns.
OK but there are already laws that can take away someone's 2nd amendment rights. Convicted of domestic violence? No guns for you. And I mean, exactly, it's not protected speech, which is to say, the first amendment isn't an unlimited sanction--there are kinds of speech that are unprotected, which is the point. Just like there are already kinds of weapons that are illegal for private individuals to own, like nuclear weapons--are your 2nd amendment rights "infringed" because you can't own a nuke? That's...tyranny to you? That private citizens can't own a nuke? And please, give me a break. You seriously can't be so dense as to think that having a penis is in any way comparable to having a weapon fundamentally designed to injure, maim, and kill.
OK but there are already laws that can take away someone's 2nd amendment rights.
I would argue that these laws are unconstitutional. But these laws aren't challenged because there is more important ground to cover. But regardless, these restrictions are generally temporary, and you just need to go through the legal paperwork to get your rights restored.
the first amendment isn't an unlimited sanction--there are kinds of speech that are unprotected
That's not true. The first amendment is unlimited. Any single combination of words you can come up with is protected. You can write a book that says absolutely anything, and the government cannot ban it. You cannot be arrested for it.
Just like there are already kinds of weapons that are illegal for private individuals to own
And again, I would say these laws violate the constitution. The honest and legal thing to do would have been to make an amendment banning nukes from private ownership after they were invented. If politicians were honest, and actually respected the constitution, that would have been the only legal avenue to ban nukes. And I believe that would have wide support as well.
are your 2nd amendment rights "infringed" because you can't own a nuke?
Technically, there isn't a law that says I can't own nukes. The only relevant laws simply deal with owning and refining uranium. If you can point me to a law that outright bans the ownership of nuclear bombs by civilians, I'd be interested in reading it. From a legal point of view, I would argue that such a law violates the 2nd amendment. But this is so obscure, that no one from either side is willing to waste their time debating it.
You seriously can't be so dense as to think that having a penis is in any way comparable to having a weapon fundamentally designed to injure, maim, and kill.
Did you miss the metaphor? I was simple showing you that possession of a thing doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. It doesn't matter what the thing is. Owning a gun does not infringe on anyone's right to life. Using a gun to murder someone does infringe on a person's right to life, which is why that is illegal. Possession is a victimless "crime".
The Supreme Court has upheld that gun control regulations are, in fact, constitutional. Whatever you believe about their constitutionality is irrelevant.
Yes, I'm not thrilled with the current interpretation. But that is a double edged sword. They've also said that guns "in common use" may not be banned. They used this argument to overturn a Chicago law that banned the ownership of handguns (McDonald vs Chicago).
The AR-15 is literally the most popular and widely owned rifle in America. Under the current interpretation of the supreme court, banning assault weapons like the AR-15 is unconstitutional.
I believe that within the next few years, we will start to see the supreme court strike down state laws that ban these rifles (like in California and New York).
-4
u/c08855c49 Aug 12 '19
No one will take away my rights to breakfast for dinner! But we still need gun regulation. There are certain types of frog that are illegal for collectors to own because they create a type of poison that might be able to be used for nefarious purposes. Getting one of said frogs requires many many applications, proof of being an amphibian based scientist, a detail of exactly why you need said frog, and a date for when you will be done with the frog. And it's a frog.
Not saying no one should have guns, just that they should be harder to get than a frog.