Never can Iran have a Nuclear Weapon

Why? Is this because you think that making it illegal would violate free speech principles?

 

Where is Freedom of Association in the Constitution?

 

The same place the right to bear firearms is.

 

Interesting. What does freedom of association have to do with the right to bear arms?

 

Yes.

 

The First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."​

 

But yet you think that Canada has free speech?

 

Overall, they do. More than the U.S. where right-to-work laws limit speech.

 

Neither one “ appears” in the constitution.

 

Not physical speech though, right? You mean they limit freedom of association?

 

The Second Amendment giving the right to bear arms doesn't appear in the Constitution? Surely you can't be serious.

 

Firearms does not appear. It’s a construct from interpretation ust like the freedom of association is.

 

So what is "ARMS" then in your mind?

 

It’s not for me to determine. SC court opinions have, just like the freedom to associate. Funny how that works.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/right-of-association

 

You mean like District of Columbia v. Heller which said that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a FIREARM?

What does this have to do with firearms?

 

It’s good that you read it. But you're still a little shakey. The Heller does not protect the individual right to own a firearm in general, only a handgun, a particular type of firearm. And where did it say the right to own was absolute ? According to Heller, the only way Heller could gain relief, was to register the fiream and be licenced himself. Interesting. We have no problem with requiring anyone who owns a handgun that it has to license and be registered. All your little post showed was, you have problem reading it. So why should we believe what you say about any other amendment ?

 

So then you disagree with the first sentence of the Wikipedia article for the case, which specifies "firearm" in general? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

wiki ? Sure, you go to them for all legal advice. Be my guest.
Besides, it says “a fiream” not “any fiream “.
If you study English vocabulary, you’d know that “a” immediately restricts that type of firearm. And indeed Heller does, to a handgun. Heller doesn’t keep an AR15 in his home; he can’t even if he wanted to.

 

Are you able to find a legal source which says that it is restricted to a handgun?

 

Sure. It’s called the Heller decision. Maybe you should actually read it.

 

Are you able to quote a key line from the Heller case which says that it is restricted to handguns? @Turtledude, @TOG 6, this is complete bullcrap, right?

 

It’s obvious, I’ve read it.
Read paragraph three, majority opinion.

 

OK:

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

Your point?

 

There is no such text anywhere in Heller.

 

yep, any arm that is in common use, and is not unusually dangerous, is protected by the second amendment. Honest people would find that if civilian law enforcement use a weapon in our cities, it is in common use and not unusually dangerous