General Discussion

edhopper

(33,591 posts) Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:02 PM Dec 2012

The First vs the Second Amendments.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

There are laws that regulate religion, speech and assembly. There has never been a serious consideration that there can be no laws pertaining to these areas. From outlawing certain religious behavior to laws against pornography and over the air broadcast, to the requirement for a permit for a protest march, these areas are curtailed at times in ways that have been deemed constitutional.

So why do gun advocates insist that there can be no laws hampering gun ownership?

(this is certainly the NRA's stance)

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The First vs the Second Amendments. (Original Post) edhopper Dec 2012 OP

I don't know of anybody who thinks that Recursion Dec 2012 #1

??? edhopper Dec 2012 #2

Even the NRA doesn't oppose the NFA Recursion Dec 2012 #5

We don't say that hack89 Dec 2012 #3

Almost all gun rights advocates are fine with some regulation. aikoaiko Dec 2012 #4

Simple... virginia mountainman Dec 2012 #6

And when they edhopper Dec 2012 #9

Gun control laws punish people who have done nothing wrong davidn3600 Dec 2012 #7

You might consider studying a topic before posting a broad brush statement that's completely wrong. jody Dec 2012 #8

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

1. I don't know of anybody who thinks that

Reply to edhopper (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:06 PM

Dec 2012

There's no real opposition to the National Firearms Act

edhopper

(33,591 posts)

2. ???

Reply to Recursion (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:08 PM

Dec 2012

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

5. Even the NRA doesn't oppose the NFA

Reply to edhopper (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:13 PM

Dec 2012

Or banning felons from buying guns.

You asked why some people think there should be no laws hampering gun ownership, and I pointed out that nobody actually thinks that.

hack89

(39,171 posts)

3. We don't say that

Reply to edhopper (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:09 PM

Dec 2012

in fact in Heller the supreme court specifically said that guns can be regulated. I support Heller.

aikoaiko

(34,172 posts)

4. Almost all gun rights advocates are fine with some regulation.

Reply to edhopper (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:12 PM

Dec 2012

It's where we draw the line that is the debate.

Even the NRA help us improve the law requiring mental illness reporting about the Virginia Tech massacre.

virginia mountainman

(5,046 posts)

6. Simple...

Reply to edhopper (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:13 PM

Dec 2012

Laws regulating speech, are only enforceable AFTER the offence has occurred. For example...

It is very much against the law to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater..BUT, their is no law stating, that because your mouth can shout fire, you must have a 30 day waiting period, background checks, and because the theater is a "no shouting fire zone" have your mouth sewn shut when you enter.

The law, correctly punishes the BEHAVIOR, not the ability to break the law.

Most gun control laws, punish those that don't commit the crimes.

edhopper

(33,591 posts)

9. And when they

Reply to virginia mountainman (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:47 PM

Dec 2012

make people get a permit to assemble?
Nobody is "punished" before they own a gun, they are punished if they obtain it illegally.
So that's just NRA talking points BS.

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)

7. Gun control laws punish people who have done nothing wrong

Reply to edhopper (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:25 PM

Dec 2012

You can restrict gun ownership on criminals and the mentally insane.

But if you got a responsible person who has done nothing wrong, and is perfectly sane, why must he or she be punished because some psychopath decided to go on a killing spree?

jody

(26,624 posts)

8. You might consider studying a topic before posting a broad brush statement that's completely wrong.

Reply to edhopper (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:31 PM

Dec 2012

Reply to this discussion