House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines Read more: http://www

[SmarterthanYou]

the speech is limited. that is like saying your right to bear arms is not limited, but you can't use your arms to murder someone. the right is limited. else you could use that arm any way you want. if i lend you my car and place no limits on your use, you can do whatever you want to the car. however, as a friend you would know the unsaid limits and if i said, well, you can't drive more than 100 miles, then your use of the car is limited.

unlimited means exactly that, no limits. no consequences. nothing.

how do the framers disagree?

personal responsibility and respect for the rights of others was a paramount aspect of the framers. the fact that you don't have the right to violate the rights of others does not mean your rights are limited. this is what i meant by blurring the line. your rights are unlimited as they apply to you alone.

 

[Good Luck]

the speech is limited. that is like saying your right to bear arms is not limited, but you can't use your arms to murder someone. the right is limited. else you could use that arm any way you want. if i lend you my car and place no limits on your use, you can do whatever you want to the car. however, as a friend you would know the unsaid limits and if i said, well, you can't drive more than 100 miles, then your use of the car is limited.

unlimited means exactly that, no limits. no consequences. nothing.

how do the framers disagree?

The concept of without limit is a social phrase, not a mathematical one. It means the Government has no authority of PREEMPTIVE action against those who are exercising their rights. This is why the argument always used by liberals defending gun control laws fail. WE can only be held accountable for the effects of mis-using our rights. And since effect FOLLOWS cause, the idea of preventative action on part of government violates the principles that our rights are (or should be) without (governmentally imposed) limit.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

personal responsibility and respect for the rights of others was a paramount aspect of the framers. the fact that you don't have the right to violate the rights of others does not mean your rights are limited. this is what i meant by blurring the line. your rights are unlimited as they apply to you alone.

so the framers placed no limits on any right?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Any American who wants to should be able to take a gun - any gun - anywhere they want to.

Glad you agree.

 

[Good Luck]

so the framers placed no limits on any right?

Our rights are inalienable, derived from the condition of being human, not parceled out by government. By what authority does government limit that which the People possess naturally? Again, any consequences, be they good or bad, derive from the RESULT of exercising rights, not from the right itself. Government ONLY has the authority to be reactive in the consequences of our rights, not proactive.

In short, they CAN punish someone for causing harm in the exercise of our naturally derived rights. They can NOT limit those rights under the mantle of trying to prevent harm.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Our rights are inalienable, derived from the condition of being human, not parceled out by government. By what authority does government limit that which the People possess naturally? Again, any consequences, be they good or bad, derive from the RESULT of exercising rights, not from the right itself. Government ONLY has the authority to be reactive in the consequences of our rights, not proactive.

In short, they CAN punish someone for causing harm in the exercise of our naturally derived rights. They can NOT limit those rights under the mantle of trying to prevent harm.

inalienable does not mean unlimited.

 

[Good Luck]

inalienable does not mean unlimited.

It does when talking about the authority of government to impose limits. in fact, that is EXACTLY what inalienable means - no man, nor group of men (government) have the authority to limit rights which are naturally derived.

If it is assumed that government has the authority to limit naturally derived rights, then it becomes a matter of opinion as to how far those limits can go, and then we have no rights left, because government will ALWAYS argue for more power and authority. But that is NOT the assumption, is it? The assumption is men are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR (ie: NOT permitted by government, but are NATURALLY derived from the condition of being human) with certain inalienable (ie: government has NO authority to interfere with them) rights.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Glad you agree.

Yet in the poll you disagreed, citing the 4th?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Yet in the poll you disagreed, citing the 4th?

And I explained in that in the other thread.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

And I explained in that in the other thread.

????

False. Laws may restrict arms to citizens if they have been removed by prosecution and conviction as per the 4A.

I don't get the relevance.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

????





I don't get the relevance.

It's because of you're emphasis on ANY. In the context here any citizen means law abiding and with legal intent. Your thread did not have such context.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

It's because of you're emphasis on ANY. In the context here any citizen means law abiding and with legal intent. Your thread did not have such context.

I don't get the difference, and I don't understand how the 4th applies.

1. Any American who wants to should be able to take a gun - any gun - anywhere they want to.

2. Any law restricting the possession of any weapon by any US citizen is unconstitutional.

How can statement 1 be true but 2 is false?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I don't get the difference, and I don't understand how the 4th applies.

1. Any American who wants to should be able to take a gun - any gun - anywhere they want to.

2. Any law restricting the possession of any weapon by any US citizen is unconstitutional.

How can statement 1 be true but 2 is false?

Because of the set context of th discussion, as I've already explained. In this thread we have established that obvious illegal activity and felons do not apply. In your thread that context had not been established.

 

[Good Luck]

Because of the set context of th discussion, as I've already explained. In this thread we have established that obvious illegal activity and felons do not apply. In your thread that context had not been established.

Only a submoronic vacuum skull would claim protection of rights protects illegal activity or would apply to convicted felons...

Oh, that's right, you are debating with a submoronic vacuum skull. Carry on....

 

[SmarterthanYou]

so the framers placed no limits on any right?

shall make no law, shall not be infringed, No Soldier shall, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, No person shall be held to answer, nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

That is an awful lot of 'shall nots' with regard to basic rights. This alone should tell people that the founders believed their rights could not be restricted in any way, shape, or form.........like we have the unconstitutional judicial precedents of time, place, and manner, or 'reasonable regulation'.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Because of the set context of th discussion, as I've already explained. In this thread we have established that obvious illegal activity and felons do not apply. In your thread that context had not been established.

How does the 4th apply?

 

[Good Luck]

shall make no law, shall not be infringed, No Soldier shall, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, No person shall be held to answer, nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

That is an awful lot of 'shall nots' with regard to basic rights. This alone should tell people that the founders believed their rights could not be restricted in any way, shape, or form.........like we have the unconstitutional judicial precedents of time, place, and manner, or 'reasonable regulation'.

Exactly correct.

When the Constitution says, specifically, "..shall make NO LAW ... abridging the freedom of speech..." where, exactly is the phrase telling us the GOVERNMENT has the authority to LIMIT free speech? Seems they said SPECIFICALLY that such is forbidden. The right to speak freely does NOT come from government, therefore the government has zero authority to place ANY limits on the right to free speech, except through due process of law. And the same applies to ALL rights, both enumerated and nonenumerated, which are derived through the condition of being human.

This does NOT mean that government cannot protect its citizens from harm caused by others who abuse their liberties. Quite obviously, if one chooses to murder with the firearm they are guaranteed the right to keep and bear, society, through government, has the authority to prosecute the crime of murder, using due process of law to obtain justice for society. Hence we have the example given by the founders about yelling fire in a crowded theater. However, for the umpteenth time, the example is given to explain one cannot escape the consequences for one's actions, and NOT any kind of limit placed on the right of free speech. IF one causes harm with their speech, then and only then are they responsible to individuals and/or society for the harm they caused. (And, no, being "offended" is not real harm. Sorry all you weak minded twits.)

The limit is against causing harm, NOT free speech. For example, if one can yell fire in a crowded theater WITHOUT causing harm, then any objection against yelling fire in a crowded theater is automatically voided. Another demonstration of the limit being about effect, and not speech itself.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

shall make no law, shall not be infringed, No Soldier shall, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, No person shall be held to answer, nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

That is an awful lot of 'shall nots' with regard to basic rights. This alone should tell people that the founders believed their rights could not be restricted in any way, shape, or form.........like we have the unconstitutional judicial precedents of time, place, and manner, or 'reasonable regulation'.

i can't recall, do you believe the government shall not infringe our right to nuclear arms? should people be able to practice human sacrifice as part of their religion?

i don't see how the rulings are unconstitutional. technically they are not. and why have the states or congress overruled the decisions by amending the constitution? imo, it is because rights are not unlimited.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

i can't recall, do you believe the government shall not infringe our right to nuclear arms? should people be able to practice human sacrifice as part of their religion?

any weapon that the government would employ against it's citizens can be owned by the citizens. human sacrifice? you don't think that violates the right of another individual?

i don't see how the rulings are unconstitutional. technically they are not.

whether the courts 'technically' declare something unconstitutional or not, it's up to us, WE THE PEOPLE, to maintain our rights. The constitution doesn't allow for the courts to change the scope of any right.

and why have the states or congress overruled the decisions by amending the constitution? imo, it is because rights are not unlimited.

if we the people wrote the constitution, how can the states and/or congress change it?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

any weapon that the government would employ against it's citizens can be owned by the citizens. human sacrifice? you don't think that violates the right of another individual?

whether the courts 'technically' declare something unconstitutional or not, it's up to us, WE THE PEOPLE, to maintain our rights. The constitution doesn't allow for the courts to change the scope of any right.

if we the people wrote the constitution, how can the states and/or congress change it?

are you saying the amendment process is unconstitutional? why do you support amendments?

what if the person is a willing sacrifice?

we the people have given power to the scotus to determine constitutional issues.