By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 27 May 2022
Edit Thread
cyberninja45 said:
JWeinCom said:

Always fun when people with know knowledge of the law try to make arguments about it.

First off, the amendments are not ranked. Freedom of speech is not more important to the right to a speedy trial. The order is irrelevant.

More importantly, the government can absolutely infringe on any constitutional right. Even ignoring the vast interpretation issues of holding the second amendment to protect modern weapons, rights are not absolute. Statutes that potentially infringe on constitutional rights are subject to strict scrutiny, generally. If a statute is related to a legitimate public concern and is the narrowest away to achieve that goal, then it can be passed. Because common sense. Only a complete putz would think freedom of speech means you can say anything anywhere at anytime, or that the right to bear arms means you could have any weapon at any time in any place. Gun free zones have repeatedly been upheld as constitutional. And of course the second Amendment is an AMENDMENT. That means we changed the constitution, and we could do so again. We've done it 34 times. The Constitution isn't a tablet from mount sinai. 

As for school free zones, the last shootings have been at a McDonalds, not a gun free zone, a church, not a gun free zone, a supermarket, not a gun free zone, a private residence, not a gun free zone, at a small, not a gun free zone, the New York City subway, not a gun free zone, downtown Sacramento, not a gun free zone, a park, not a gun free zone, a high school, gun free zone, a supermarket, not a gun free zone, a concert, not a gun free zone, the VTA, not a gun free zone to my knowledge, a trailer park, not a gun free zone, a Fed Ex, not a gun free zone, a private residence, not a gun free zone, an office building, not a gun free zone, a supermarket, not a gun free zone, and a spa, not a gun free zone.

So, at best, abolishing gun free zones would have prevented 2 of the last 20 mass shootings.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. 

Can the Federal government "infringe" to the scale where they follow other countries (e.g. license to bear arms). No? OK

Did you read where I said and "or zones with low arms bearing"(which is just an unintended gun free zone) and this should be discouraged/avoided. No? OK

You really believe the constuition is not written in order of importance? No? Ok

Yes, I believe the constitution is not written in order of importance, because I've studied constitutional law. Please find me one source that indicates freedoms guaranteed by an amendment that comes first is more protected. The right to not have the government lock you in prison, take all your shit, and kill you for no reason is in the fifth amendment. You think the right not to quarter soldiers is more important? "Fine, lock me in jail, take everything I owen, and put a spike through my head, but YOU BETTER NOT MAKE ME LET A SOLDIER SLEEP ON MY FOUTON!!!" LMAO. Stop embarassing yourself. 

A gun free zone is a zone where it is illegal to own a firearm. There is no such thing as an unintented gun free zone. We have less low arms bearing zones than any other country, and the most gun violence. We already have more gun owners than anywhere else, so encouraging more doesn't seem to be a viable solution. And by the way, why do you think a supermarket in South Carolina, a McDonalds in fucking Chicago, or a supermarket in Tennessee are particularly low gun areas? Do you have any evidence of a correlation between low gun ownership areas and high mass shootings? Because in states where there are more guns, where you would naturally have less, "unintended gun free zones LMFAO" tend to have more mass shootings. So, stop pulling shit out of your ass.

I did not say the government could change the laws to match other countries, but they could get a lot closer. There are plenty of laws that would be constitutional, but are blocked because they are politically unpopular. Background checks have been upheld as constitutional. Justice fucking Alito wrote a decision that background checks are ok, and he ain't exactly a liberal.

You don't have any fucking idea what you're talking about, and you're embarassing yourself. 

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 27 May 2022