Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@oralloy,

"Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws encroaching on a fundamental right generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional."

"The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Amendment rights are not specifically covered under Strict Scrutiny.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights),

Correct.

neptuneblue wrote:

Amendment rights are not specifically covered under Strict Scrutiny.

Amendment rights include rights that are specifically identified in the Bill of Rights.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Again, as described by a discrimination clause.

You should quit this Oralloy....

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

That is incorrect. As listed in the Bill of Rights.

I will never stop defending civil liberties.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Your argument is incorrectly based.

Although I'd never ask you to stop defending civil liberties, I will ask you to at least be accurate. In this case, you're not.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

That is incorrect. Everything that I've said is 100% accurate.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Whatevs, peep.

Enjoy being wrong!

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

I'm not wrong in any way here.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

The Bill of Rights are AMENDMENTS.
Think Prohibition and its repeal, both were amendments presumably voted in , and reviewed.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The Bill of Rights are AMENDMENTS.

I know.

farmerman wrote:

Think Prohibition and its repeal, both were amendments presumably voted in, and reviewed.

I am well aware of the fact that the left wants to abolish freedom and civil liberties.

That is why Mr. Trump is such a great president. He protects us from the leftist menace.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

It’s like watching a librarian try to reason with a gibbon who is determined to eat the reference section. Definitely something lost in translation.

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

It’s like watching a librarian try to reason with a gibbon who is determined to eat the reference section.

Gibbon half a chance.

Sorry.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

😆

0 Replies

@oralloy,

But they explicitly called for a "well regulated militia". Eplain how any moron owning any kind of firearm meets that hurtle?

Militias used to have armories to keep weapons and members would got to sign out rifles to hunt to varmint shoot and used to meet to drill. When was the last time you went to the armory and drilled. When was the last time you supported any sort of regulation, like background checks and registering your weapons?

My home town, Akron still has its armory, though they use it for boxing matches, and the armory at Akron University is now the campus mailboxes.

Militias weren't needed after the US went to a large standing army after WWII.

We used to have a long history of legal possession of opiates and cocaine, too.

2 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

We used to have a long history of legal possession of opiates and cocaine, too.

Not to mention people.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Damn. I missed the obvious one. Of course oralloy thinks owning slaves were just jim dandy.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Damn. I missed the obvious one. Of course oralloy thinks owning slaves were just jim dandy.

As long as the slaves don’t bother the guns

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

It's like watching a librarian try to reason with a gibbon who is determined to eat the reference section. Definitely something lost in translation.

The "gibbons who are trying to eat the books" would be the people who respond to factual arguments by posting silly characterizations of the opposing side.

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

But they explicitly called for a "well regulated militia". Eplain how any moron owning any kind of firearm meets that hurtle?

"People owning their own guns" allows them to be armed when they are called up for militia duty.

"Any kind of firearm" isn't quite accurate. Heller allows for regulations that can pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Militias used to have armories to keep weapons and members would got to sign out rifles to hunt to varmint shoot and used to meet to drill.

Armories are only for government owned weapons. Privately owned weapons are kept at home by their owners.

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

When was the last time you went to the armory and drilled.

I don't know. To my knowledge, the government is not asking me to do so.

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

When was the last time you supported any sort of regulation, like background checks and registering your weapons?

I was willing to compromise on gun laws a couple weeks ago, although I've since changed my mind.

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Militias weren't needed after the US went to a large standing army after WWII.

People still need to protect themselves from criminals and dangerous animals however.

And the existence of rights does not depend on need in any case.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

One of these days you'll need to invest in an education. Every one of your "retorts" are factually incorrect.

Again, ownership of weapons is an assumed right not explicitly guaranteed by any of the Bill of rights, like freedom of the press, religion, free speech, vote, association, movement etc.

You haven't a clue about what a well regulated militia is, do you?

4 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know