- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Cite one instance.From past experience, the freedom of speech has a rational basis applied to it, and it works just fine.
Yhen how could you possibly, with any credibility, make the statement, above?I haven't heard of the three levels of scrutiny....
No. Your understanding of this is utterly deficient.but from what you're telling me, a rational basis is allowable, under the compelling state interest requirement, and further under the narrowly tailored requirement, it comes down to the semantics of a law.
That's not really your fault nor is it a point of degradation for you -- but it does mean that you really cannot have this conversation,
Fundamental rights should be subject to the whim of a simple majority?Screw "strict scrutiny" then. If you can convince the majority of Americans...
Arent you, in a single-minded attempt to justify infringemens of the right to arms, throwing the baby out with th ebath water?
That government, local state and federal, has been able to funtion w/o this restriction for more than a couple centuries indicates that this is not true,There are plenty of compelling interests in this case