Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by chris155au, Nov 10, 2020.

  1. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2020
  2. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is "gay" actually a homophobic slur?
     
  3. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  4. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,672
    Likes Received:
    8,941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pretty sure it is when applied to a horse.
    Unless that horse was ****ing another horse of the same sex when he said it.
     
  5. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2020
    PJO34, chris155au and dairyair like this.
  6. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  7. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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]
     
    joesnagg likes this.
  8. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  9. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,672
    Likes Received:
    8,941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  10. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    joesnagg likes this.
  11. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  12. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,672
    Likes Received:
    8,941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not about offending people. It's about discrimination and intimidation.
     
  13. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  14. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Discrimination and intimidation are actions. Not speech.
     
  15. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are limits. And society determines those limits.
     
  16. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  17. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,672
    Likes Received:
    8,941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Speech is an action.
     
  18. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No wonder the left is so eager to limit free speech. They don’t even know what it is.
     
    joesnagg likes this.
  19. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,672
    Likes Received:
    8,941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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/
     
  20. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your feelings do not support a sound argument for the restriction of my rights.
    Generically speaking, of course.
     
    An Taibhse likes this.
  21. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,672
    Likes Received:
    8,941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You have no right to intimidate.
     
  22. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How do we know that the Constitution means "small arms?"
     
  23. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I really don't think that it's like the N word.
     
  24. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So then anything that is "bearable?" That can include a rocket launcher can't it?
     
  25. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well isn't there a specific relevant part in it that you're referring to?
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2020

Share This Page