"for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense in the home". The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008 ), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). " Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016.
It is when a heterosexual uses it - it's fine for a non-heterosexual to use it. You know, like the N word, with respect to colored and non-colored people.
Pretty sure it is when applied to a horse. Unless that horse was ****ing another horse of the same sex when he said it.
The right to bear arms isn’t even absolute. None of the bill of rights are. The final arbiter of the constitution is the Supreme Court, not the NRA, not congress and certainly not anyone here. There is not a square foot in the United states that is not regulated.
Why would you suppose the absurdity of Monty Python had legs in the UK? I was raised in the U.K... while many outside the U.K., including the US found humor in Monty Python’s skits, many missed the connection to context afforded by the weekly broadcasts in relation to the politics and news of the time. For instance, the Dead Parrot skit, funny on it’s own takes on a different meaning as commentary to the debate over a dead bill was reintroduced for a first read in the House of Commons with an essentially obvious rewording of the original version. Then too, many Monty Python clips have lived on as commentary applicable to many absurdities in arguments and debates. Monty Python’s skits were as much commentary of the absurdity of U.K. life experience as they they were factionalized comedy.
Yet, you advocate by that statement, the use of intimidation and discrimination for any individual the utters that which you or anyone find offensive, thus, advocating disallowing free speech. [video][/video]
Few advocating anti gun positions read actual SCOTUS rendered rulings.... they get their understandings from the interpretations of anti gun commentary. The few that do read them don’t know how to understand the rulings and tend to parse and cherry pick the words or phrases not unlike they do when doing that with the words of the second amendment to assert it is refers to protecting a collective right as opposed to an individual right... something Scalia details in his discussion laying the foundation for the logic behind the HELLER decision. But then, few people understand the SCOTUS rarely does comprehensive reviews and judgement beyond the limits defined in the petition for a writ of certiorari “which was granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?” ... Wikipedia While other commentary (dicta) from Scalia has been used as argument in other 2A related cases, beyond the actual ruling in favor of Heller as per the limited question outlined by the Writ of Certionari granted for the case which sets precedent, accompanying dicta does not other than as use in providing background logic for the formulation of rulings in other cases; Heller vs DC did not provide a comprehensive review of the 2A as many on the both sides of the debate often like to assert.
There's no such thing as unlimited free speech, even in the US. The law has made certain, clearly defined, speech illegal. It is not intimidation or discrimination to enforce the law of the land.
There's the difference between the US and where you live. There is no right to not be offended. Nor should there ever be. “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”. ~ John Lydgate It's literally impossible to go through life without offending someone.
IMO, anyone has the right to be offended by any thing I say or right and I will defend that right. But, I draw a line when free speech, or the right to be offended becomes a subjective law for suppressing my protected right of free expression. At one time, saying anything of ill toward those of authority or against state or religious doctrine could result in loss of freedom or life... in fact in some places that still happens.
Arms as in small arms, free speech as in any speech that does not violate any other rights. Yelling fire in a crowded theater with no fire can cause panic resulting in violating property rights and the right to life.
And yet you said "offensive". And from what I understand so does the law. Or at least that is what the spokesman implied in the part that you quoted previously... A cross look can intimidate people. Should a person be put in jail simply for an interpretation of intimidation? Something subjective? I'll address the discrimination part later. Right now I have to get to work.
A section of society that has had centuries of discrimination and still faces it in many forms today could easily be intimidated by offensive speech aimed at them. There was a case in 2018 when a black student was subjected to chants of ''we hate the blacks'' and ''blacks out'' from outside her university accommodation. She was scared shitless and frightened to leave her room. No doubt you would have told her to ''suck it up snowflake'' and explained to her that she had no right to not be offended. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/57543...rific-racist-abuse-chanted-outside-dorm-room/
Your feelings do not support a sound argument for the restriction of my rights. Generically speaking, of course.