A license/permit required to exercise certain or all 1st amendment rights
A license/permit required to exercise certain or all 2nd amendment rights
Registration requirement of some or all of your books and other 1st amendment related things
Registration requirement of some or all of your firearms and other weapons.
A ban on certain books,religions, what the press can report and etc.
A ban on certain weapons.
A ban on certain individuals from exercising 1st amendment rights
A ban on certain individuals form exercising 2nd amendment rights
A total ban on 1st amendment rights
A total ban on 2nd amendment rights
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Thus, Apples and apples.
The restrictions on 'free speech' are all based on actions that directly cause harm to others, or place others in a condition of slear, present and immediate danger. This is based on the concept that your rights end when they affect the rights of others.
So, again, given the constitutional basis for the formers, what are your argument for the lattesr?
Support this with something meaningful.They simply don't match up that way, and trying to make them is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Last edited by Goobieman; 04-02-10 at 09:07 AM.
and frankly I couldn't care less if you believe me or not. If you can disprove what I say feel free to do it but I highly suspect you cannot come close.
Consider what I say expert opinion-as I said feel free to find someone who has an emperical disagreement with what I said when I stated cops are more likely to miss bad guys than non LEO civilians and more likely to hit innocent people
Here is one such citation to what I have said
In confrontational shootings, studies show police hit their targets between 13 percent and 25 percent of the time. Of the incidents analyzed in this study, civilians hit their targets 84 percent of the time. This comparison does not account for the number of shots fired, only hits or misses. Nevertheless, it gives us a statistical basis to refute claims that only police should have firearms or that civilian shooters are largely ineffective in emergencies
Who Is The Armed Citizen? :The Armed Citizen
The only two things I can see as reasonable for firearms would be an inexpensive federal license for full automatics, no registration of those arms and psych/safety testing, and that violent felony offenders must be cleared legally to own firearms. On speech, nothing is banned which poses no dangers to the public, we can fight out those details individually.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
The Second Amendment reads: “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.”
The word "regulated" actually appears in the text of the second amendment, but yet the gun freaks and gun makers and sellers say it is unconstitutional to "regulate" anything when it comes to guns. Once more, I believe a few on the fringe are leading the country around by the nose.