States Fight? TN Vows Payback on New Yorkers After 9/11 Memorial Gun Arrest

Onceler said:
Okay, we disagree then. Very few rights are unlimited. Free speech and the classic "shouting fire", for example, or slander.
Click to expand...
blind acceptance of that clearly unconstitutional ussc ruling is what has allowed the majority to have tyrannical rule over the minority. If rights were not meant to be absolute, the founders would not have mentioned so many absolute restrictions on the government within the constitution.

Onceler said:
Your intrepretation of the constitution is extreme, and I'd wager not shared by very many.
Click to expand...
all that means is that a majority of this country no longer care to live by the constitution and would rather have 9 black robed tyrants tell them what they can and cannot do.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not the point I'm making. First, just because someone doesn't follow the NRA party line doesn't make them anti-gun. Some of us out here in civilization don't want people carrying guns in public places. What yal'l do in bum fuck Texas is up to you but keep in mind not everyone shares the NRA's views and worships guns as a religion.

But that aint even my point. My point is would you go to the New York 911 memorial carrying a concealed weapon to make a point about your right to carry a concealed fire arm there? No, you wouldn't. Why not? Cause you don't want to spend 3.5 years in prison to make a point. That would be stupid. Dead right but still dead.
Click to expand...

No Mott, your point is you do not view all rights equally. You piss and moan about states rights all the time, but here you are, saying one state can deprive the rights of people based solely on OPINION, and that's ok. If it had ben a law mandating felons lose their vocal cords, or stating that you need two weeks of public speaking classes and a $800 'fee' to speak in public, you'd be up in arms. "That's tyranny!" You'd say, and you'd be right. So how isn't it tyranny when the same standard is applied to another right?

No, rights aren absolute. I can't yell fire in a theater and I can't shoot my gun around in a theater. Both direct action with direct ability to cause harm. But why can I walk into a NY theater with the ability to do one and not the other? That's a disparity in the application of government restrictions, without a proven benefit. Therefore, it is tyranny.
 
General Sheridan said:
No Mott, your point is you do not view all rights equally. You piss and moan about states rights all the time, but here you are, saying one state can deprive the rights of people based solely on OPINION, and that's ok. If it had ben a law mandating felons lose their vocal cords, or stating that you need two weeks of public speaking classes and a $800 'fee' to speak in public, you'd be up in arms. "That's tyranny!" You'd say, and you'd be right. So how isn't it tyranny when the same standard is applied to another right?

No, rights aren absolute. I can't yell fire in a theater and I can't shoot my gun around in a theater. Both direct action with direct ability to cause harm. But why can I walk into a NY theater with the ability to do one and not the other? That's a disparity in the application of government restrictions, without a proven benefit. Therefore, it is tyranny.
Click to expand...

What if there is a fie in the theater?
 
General Sheridan said:
Sigh....false equivelancy Yurt. We'll say yes, you'll say something about a fire, I'll say that it's a direct action, that can directly be shown to cause harm, etc etc.
Click to expand...

it is not false equivelancy. we are talking about rights and whether they are unlimited. but in order to avoid any sense of "false equivelancy"....is the second amendment unlimited? nukes?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
blind acceptance of that clearly unconstitutional ussc ruling is what has allowed the majority to have tyrannical rule over the minority. If rights were not meant to be absolute, the founders would not have mentioned so many absolute restrictions on the government within the constitution.


all that means is that a majority of this country no longer care to live by the constitution and would rather have 9 black robed tyrants tell them what they can and cannot do.
Click to expand...

so the government cannot abridge any speech? i forget, do you believe anyone should be allowed to own nukes?
 
icedancer2theend said:
They intended no restrictions with regards to how many or what kind of arms- that said: Do states have a right to implement restrictions in public settings?
Click to expand...

1) states do not have rights. they have powers assigned to them via their own state constitutions. Just like the feds.

2) it would depend upon their state constitutions whether or not they have the power to implement restrictions in public settings.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
1) states do not have rights. they have powers assigned to them via their own state constitutions. Just like the feds.

2) it would depend upon their state constitutions whether or not they have the power to implement restrictions in public settings.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification on States rights v powers- though I understood that to be the case.

So, then the question over Meredith Graves being charged for unlawful gun possession, rests on the Constitution for the state of N.Y. and more specifically its relationship to the gun laws of N.Y.C.?
 
Last edited:
icedancer2theend said:
Thanks for the clarification on States rights v powers- though I understood that to be the case.

So, then the question over Meredith Graves being charged for unlawful gun possession, rests on the Constitution for the state of N.Y. and more specifically its relationship to the gun laws of N.Y.C.?
Click to expand...
of which, the NY state constitution right to bear arms I posted on page 1.

Bill of Rights, Article II Section 4

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top