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.
What does religion have to do with the 2nd Amendment? The least you can is stay on topic, good grief. I know the crocodile tears you're shedding makes it difficult, but please do make more of an effort to stick to the topic at hand okay? Thanks!
Religion has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, but it's a comparison to point out the flaw in your logic.
Let's just get away from the Constitution for a moment and go back to the founding principles. If you agree that rights are inherent i.e. they do not stem from government, then by that very nature no right is more or less a right than any other i.e. all inherent rights are equally important. Therefore abstractly any right can be dealt with exactly the same as any other, it no more important to have the right to free speech, than to bear arms, or to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure, or to be tried by a jury of peers, or not self-incriminate.
So lets take an abstract right that we believe should not be infringed, then claim that by limiting that right to one single solitary instance of exercise that it has not been infringed, because you still have the right to exercise that right under the circumstances of that one solitary instance. If we agree with the foundational principles, then this abstract should apply in all cases, where we agree there is an inherent right.
Ok lets call that right religion, we can according to your logic limit religion to one single solitary instance of any world religion (and only that world religion), and we have freedom of religion, the right has not been infringed.
Lets call that right speech, we can according to your logic limit speech to one single solitary instance of a word or phrase, lets use "yes" (and only the word yes), we can say yes to anyone, anywhere, at any time and the freedom of speech has not been infringed.
Let's call that right arms, we can according to your logic limit arms to one single solitary instance of a weapon (and only that weapon), and the right to bear arms has not been infringed.
Do you see why this is an inherently flawed argument?
If by only allowing one instance of religion is an infringement on the freedom of religion, and that only allowing one word or phrase to be spoken is an infringement of free speech, then inductively only allowing one type of arm is an infringement of the right to bear arms.
Your rights are not being infringed upon. You can still purchase firearms and ammo.
That's the bottom line. Deal with it.
I can indeed buy firearms and ammunition. Thanks to the Alaska Firearm Freedoms Act of 2010, I can now buy Alaskan made firearms and ammunition without the restrictions imposed by the federal government. That includes purchasing unregistered fully-automatic firearms. Deal with that!
Nothing says "liberty" and "freedom" like using your guns to intimidate a bunch of soccer moms and their kids.
Your attempts to deliberately deceive have already exposed your intent back on post #288. It is a photograph of the exact same people, at the exact same time, just from a different angle.
Yet, you persist with your lies. Presumably hoping to achieve a different result. Is that not the definition of insanity?
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" --- Albert Einstein.
Is it even possible for you to damage your credibility further? You seem to have done an excellent job at completely destroying any chance of anyone believing anything you have to say. Well done. That is a rather dubious accomplishment of a sort, I suppose.
Religion has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, but it's a comparison to point out the flaw in your logic.
Let's just get away from the Constitution for a moment and go back to the founding principles. If you agree that rights are inherent i.e. they do not stem from government, then by that very nature no right is more or less a right than any other i.e. all inherent rights are equally important. Therefore abstractly any right can be dealt with exactly the same as any other, it no more important to have the right to free speech, than to bear arms, or to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure, or to be tried by a jury of peers, or not self-incriminate.
So lets take an abstract right that we believe should not be infringed, then claim that by limiting that right to one single solitary instance of exercise that it has not been infringed, because you still have the right to exercise that right under the circumstances of that one solitary instance. If we agree with the foundational principles, then this abstract should apply in all cases, where we agree there is an inherent right.
Ok lets call that right religion, we can according to your logic limit religion to one single solitary instance of any world religion (and only that world religion), and we have freedom of religion, the right has not been infringed.
Lets call that right speech, we can according to your logic limit speech to one single solitary instance of a word or phrase, lets use "yes" (and only the word yes), we can say yes to anyone, anywhere, at any time and the freedom of speech has not been infringed.
Let's call that right arms, we can according to your logic limit arms to one single solitary instance of a weapon (and only that weapon), and the right to bear arms has not been infringed.
Do you see why this is an inherently flawed argument?
If by only allowing one instance of religion is an infringement on the freedom of religion, and that only allowing one word or phrase to be spoken is an infringement of free speech, then inductively only allowing one type of arm is an infringement of the right to bear arms.
There are a couple of differences.
One, of all the rights listed within the Bill of Rights, only the Second Amendment includes the phrase "shall not be infringed." The right to peacefully assemble, for example, does not include this phrase. Therefore, it is logical to presume that the right to peacefully assemble may be limited or restricted to certain locations or specific times. Such as obtaining a permit to hold a peaceful protest on a specific date, for example.
All the other rights listed within the Bill of Rights are already limited or restricted in some manner. For example, the right to worship your religion freely does not permit human sacrifice. Additionally, the freedom of speech does not permit libel or slander. The Fourth Amendment even has limitations built in, we have the right "to be secure in [our] persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" unless there is probable cause.
Two, the Second Amendment will not be needed until government tries to take it away.
It should also be noted that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of inherent rights. As the Ninth Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Bill of Rights is merely a collection of a select number of inherent rights the federal government is required to acknowledge and protect, and in the specific case of the Second Amendment, not infringe.
Religion has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, but it's a comparison to point out the flaw in your logic.
Let's just get away from the Constitution for a moment and go back to the founding principles. If you agree that rights are inherent i.e. they do not stem from government, then by that very nature no right is more or less a right than any other i.e. all inherent rights are equally important. Therefore abstractly any right can be dealt with exactly the same as any other, it no more important to have the right to free speech, than to bear arms, or to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure, or to be tried by a jury of peers, or not self-incriminate.
So lets take an abstract right that we believe should not be infringed, then claim that by limiting that right to one single solitary instance of exercise that it has not been infringed, because you still have the right to exercise that right under the circumstances of that one solitary instance. If we agree with the foundational principles, then this abstract should apply in all cases, where we agree there is an inherent right.
Ok lets call that right religion, we can according to your logic limit religion to one single solitary instance of any world religion (and only that world religion), and we have freedom of religion, the right has not been infringed.
Lets call that right speech, we can according to your logic limit speech to one single solitary instance of a word or phrase, lets use "yes" (and only the word yes), we can say yes to anyone, anywhere, at any time and the freedom of speech has not been infringed.
Let's call that right arms, we can according to your logic limit arms to one single solitary instance of a weapon (and only that weapon), and the right to bear arms has not been infringed.
Do you see why this is an inherently flawed argument?
If by only allowing one instance of religion is an infringement on the freedom of religion, and that only allowing one word or phrase to be spoken is an infringement of free speech, then inductively only allowing one type of arm is an infringement of the right to bear arms.
TL;DR.
You can still purchase firearms and ammo. Your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is intact.
I can indeed buy firearms and ammunition. Thanks to the Alaska Firearm Freedoms Act of 2010, I can now buy Alaskan made firearms and ammunition without the restrictions imposed by the federal government. That includes purchasing unregistered fully-automatic firearms. Deal with that!
Deal with what? The fact that you've always had the ability to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights? I have no problem with that whatsoever. Matter of fact, I'm happy for you. That's cool that you can buy Alaskan made firearms and ammunition without restriction. Hope that works out for you.
As I keep saying, your 2nd Amendment rights are not being infringed upon as you are still able to purchase firearms and ammo. Maybe this time you'll actually believe me.
You can still purchase firearms therefore your rights aren't being infringed upon. No matter how many times you say that they, the fact of the matter is they aren't and you're just crying crocodile tears because you don't like the regulations being put into place.
Stop it.
If we institute a law and we call it McCall/Feinhold and it regulates political speech to where it says you can't say anything negative about a politician in public 30 days before an election, while you still have the ability to freely speak about other things, were your rights infringed upon?
If we institute a law and we call it McCall/Feinhold and it regulates political speech to where it says you can't say anything negative about a politician in public 30 days before an election, while you still have the ability to freely speak about other things, were your rights infringed upon?
Free speech has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or the ability to purchase firearms and ammunition.
It all has to do with Constitutional Rights. We will note that you have no answer to my question so that everyone else can move on.
1st Amendment =/= 2nd Amendment, so I don't know why we're discussing the 1st Amendment.
Are you still able to purchase firearms and ammo? Then your rights aren't being infringed upon. Go buy some Alaskan made firearms or something if you want to cry that much about it.
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.
