YOU not minding your rights being infringed does not create an argument that is is OK to infringe on the rights of everyone else.I can understand that. Personally though, I don't mind proving that I am eligible for the right if it helps remove the ability to get easily get gun for those illegal to posses guns.
Registration is pursuant to an inherent part of the right to vote - primarily, the determination of WHERE you shold vote. Voter registration is, therefore not an an infringement.The same way I prove I have the right to vote (registering)...
Explain how the 14th amendment does not apply the protection of the 2nd to actions taken by the states.With the 2nd amendment it is a infringement on the right if the federal government denies the right.
The part where you said that "the right to bare arms is the only right that you can be legally denied".What's there to change?
I can understand that. Personally though, I don't mind proving that I am eligible for the right if it helps remove the ability to get easily get gun for those illegal to posses guns. The same way I prove I have the right to vote (registering) or enter the country as a citizen when traveling internationally.
The part where you said that "the right to bare arms is the only right that you can be legally denied".
Its BEAR arms, BTW.
You can play servant to the government all you want. I won't stop you. But I do mind having any of my rights infringed upon and I will not accept government treason against me.
It does when your argument is based on the claim that the ONLY right that is legally denied....If there are other rights that are legally denied does it change this topic?
As noted before:....My goal is to somehow stop those who have an intent to do harm from owning guns and this is the only way I can see doing this. I am definitely open to other suggestions.
YOU not minding your rights being infringed does not create an argument that is is OK to infringe on the rights of everyone else.
I'll accept that as you agreeing that requiring a license to exercise a 2nd amendment right is an infringement of same.
It also denies the right to vote if you are not eligible for the right (no being of age). Are you accepting of this infringement on the right to vote? You seem to be against this same check of denying people the right to the 2nd amendment.Registration is pursuant to an inherent part of the right to vote - primarily, the determination of WHERE you shold vote. Voter registration is, therefore not an an infringement.
I'll get back to you on this. Have to do research, which I don't have time do now.Explain how the 14th amendment does not apply the protection of the 2nd to actions taken by the states.
It does when your argument is based on the claim that the ONLY right that is legally denied....
And thus:
Its amazing, the double-standard held by most on the left, when dealing with rights.
And the great thing about having a Constitution?Which is one of the great things about living in a Democracy. Law isn't created by an individual.
Explain how the 14th amendment does not apply the protection of the 2nd to actions taken by the states.By the federal government. Yes.
That's not an infringement of the right to vote, as all the things you're describing are limitations on the right -inherent- to that right.It also denies the right to vote if you are not eligible for the right (no being of age). Are you accepting of this infringement on the right to vote?
Yes... for the reason I have stated three times, each time left unaddressed by you.You seem to be against this same check of denying people the right to the 2nd amendment.
Again, not so. Abortions are legally denied under numerous conditions.Ok sorry. Let me rephrase. "Of the rights; bear arms, free speech, and abortion (though abortion itself is not technically a right stated in the constitution?), bear arms is the only right that is legally denied."
That's not an infringement of the right to vote, as all the things you're describing are limitations on the right -inherent- to that right.
Again, not so. Abortions are legally denied under numerous conditions.
You are talking about two different things here.So being of age to vote is a limitation of the right to vote. So it is accepted and not an infringement. So it is ok for the citizen to prove they are of age before they are given their right to vote.
How is are not being a convicted criminal, being of age, and not being mentally handicapped infringements but not limitations of the right to bear arms like the above with voting?
-You- included abortion in -your- list.I didn't know abortions were called out specifically in the constitution. Where is "right to an abortion" in the constitution?
You are talking about two different things here.
LICENSING is a precondition not inherent to the right, and thus, an infringement.
BACKGROUND CHECKS are a form of prior restraint, and thus, an infringement.
-You- included abortion in -your- list.
Its amazing, the double-standard held by most on the left, when dealing with rights.
If someone even suggests adding the restrictions they'd like to place on the right to arms to rights such as free speech or abortion, they go aspe****.
What part of my explanation of you not understand?How are they two different things?
Ok sorry. Let me rephrase. "Of the rights; bear arms, free speech, and abortion (though abortion itself is not technically a right stated in the constitution?), bear arms is the only right that is legally denied."
If you have examples of people being legally denied their right to free speech please let me know and I'll retract the statement.
:roll:
What part of my explanation of you not understand?
One infringement derives from a precondition not inherent to a right
The other infrinvemenr defives from a prior restraint.
These are different on their face.
Again:Both have age restrictions. How is proving you are a specific age a "not inherent right" for one and a "prior restraint" of the other?
Licensing is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same. This is an infringement. This differes from the precondition of voter registration because voter registration determines, most imnportantly, where your vote is to be cast, which IS an inherent part of the right to vote -- and so, is NOT an infringement.
A secondary effect of voter registration is to determine the identity of the voter. This determines name, age, residency, etc -- all inherent parts of the right to vote, and therefore, not an infringement. This is the same as presenting an ID when buying a gun.
Background check is not to check that you "might" commit a crime. It is to see that you you have not committed a crime in the past (removing your right to bare arms). It is a check to see 'just in case' it is illegal for you to own a gun.Background checks create a form of prior restraint. This is an infringement. Prior restraint is the condition of the government preventing you from exercising your right on the basis that you MIGHT commit a crime if you were to be free to act -- your right is withheld 'just in case'. This is exactly what a background check does, 'just in case' you are a felon, etc.
I have the right to vote as long as I meet specific requirements (age, registered in area, citizen, etc.). I am denied my right to vote until I can prove I meet these requirements.No one has ever argued that voter registration is prior restraint, becase, of its face, it is not.
These things have been explained to you in the simplest terms possible.How are those not the same prior-restraints?
These things have been explained to you in the simplest terms possible.
If you do not yet understand, there's nothing I can do for you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?