Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well yeah, the state is in charge of the prosecution (of any crime basically), but it's still mandated by the feds that state's enforce these laws.
You're wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkfan39126
There have been cases of criminal defamation. I can provide some if you like.
Oh, please do. I won't hold my breath, but since you're so sure of yourself, I *will* ensure that you either cite those cases or admit you were wrong. I'm kind of relentless that way when someone's being an arrogant arse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkfan39126
The 1st Amendment never mentions any of that though.
Look up "reasonable restrictions" as it pertains to Constitutional rights and the Supreme Court.
Not many will argue that there shouldn't be "reasonable restrictions" on the Second Amendment. The debate is about what's considered "reasonable." But you already knew that, right? I mean, you're so smart and all...
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkfan39126
The FCC has fined radio stations/tv channels and threatened them with legal action for "obscenity".
Are you having reading problems today or something? I explained that.
But you agree that there are LIMITS on "freedom of speech" right? I mean, it's pretty obvious...
The only limit to our freedom of speech comes into play when you infringe on the rights of another person.
Now please explain how this correlates to the 2nd amendment?
You said:
Quote:
Why aren't the gun folks so upset over this?
The fact of the matter is if/when our freedom of speech is limited in a case where the speech isn't harming or infringing on another person's rights "gun folks" like myself do get really upset.
Not many will argue that there shouldn't be "reasonable restrictions" on the Second Amendment. The debate is about what's considered "reasonable." But you already knew that, right? I mean, you're so smart and all...
.
A restriction meets the definition of an infringement, and is therefore in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Federal law supersedes all state law by the way, and state laws are required to adhere to The Constitution. Now, the feds can choose not to force states to adhere to federal law, as in these recent marijuana legalization stuff, but they have the right to.
The prohibition of "infringement" of the Second Amendment does not preclude "regulation"; witness all the federal and state laws regulating firearms. The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. Whatever rights, either individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law.
I'm not arguing for more gun control, I'm arguing that there are limits on everything, including free speech.
We are all aware of that, we are also aware that there are already limits on the 2nd amendment and there are even laws against killing people with guns unless it's justified.
Not many will argue that there shouldn't be "reasonable restrictions" on the Second Amendment.
What about the whole no infringement thing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
