SgtSpiderMan
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Posts
- 25,570
Dorothy & Toto called...
...they'd like to know if you're free to travel next week.
Gun ownership is also a privilege in Kansas.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dorothy & Toto called...
...they'd like to know if you're free to travel next week.
It's a right in the United States.
Gun ownership is also a privilege in Kansas.
Try clicking your heels and see if that comes true...
We routinely (if subtextually) apply a proportional algorithm to our weapons restrictions--the more damage a single person could do with a single weapon, the more likely we are to restrict it. So why shouldn't we apply that algorithm in a consistent manner across all "arms," side- or otherwise? Would doing so result in a different selection of available firearms? If so, what is the compelling argument for ignoring that fact--even celebrating the subversion of it?
Justice Breyer chides us for leaving so many applications of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for not providing extensive historical justification for those regulations of the right that we describe as permissible. See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879) , our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.
No one in America has a right to own a gun. Gun ownership is a privilege.
I don't suppose it matters to you in the least that the Supreme Court of the United States says you're flat-ass wrong?
Gun ownership is not a right. If government can say you can't legally own a gun, it isn't a right.
No they don't. Gun ownership is not a right. If government can say you can't legally own a gun, it isn't a right.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
From District of Columbia v. Heller:
The fact that a "right" has limitations does not linguistically prevent its accurate categorization as a right. If the word usage of a SCOTUS justice is insufficient for you, go ask your English teacher.
You don't seem to understand the definition of the word limitation. While rights may be limited, they can never be fully taken away from you, that's what makes them rights. Since can ownership can be legally revoked it fits the definition of a privilege. No need to ask an English teacher.
You don't seem to understand the definition of the word limitation. While rights may be limited, they can never be fully taken away from you, that's what makes them rights. Since gun ownership can be legally revoked it fits the definition of a privilege. No need to ask an English teacher.
By that definition there is no such thing as a right at all because any and all of them can be taken away by the government on a case-by-case basis.
No they can't.
No they can't.
Yes they can, right down to your right to life....how many people does TX put down each year like 300??
Number one mass murderer of all time??? Statistics say......GUBBMINT!!
Don't worry....gubbmint is your friend.....here to help you....they would never lie either....go watch some more MSN/FOX
What do you think happens to prisoners?
So, the notion that armed guards will prevent shootings
So which amendment protects your right to remain alive?