Open Carry March on Washington DC July 4th

[Bottle]

I don't think that most people want a full-up repeal of the Second Amendment - they just want reasonable, commonsense limits put on it. You know, just like every other single right that we have has reasonable, commonsense limits put on them.

How many constitutional rights do you have that you can only exercise with a background check, and, in certain cities, cannot be exercised in public at all?

Right to privacy. But only if you're female.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

And Prohibition was repealed. If you're looking to argue for repeal of the 2nd amendment, that's an entirely different topic.

I don't think that most people want a full-up repeal of the Second Amendment - they just want reasonable, commonsense limits put on it. You know, just like every other single right that we have has reasonable, commonsense limits put on them.

I do.

[Galloism]

How many constitutional rights do you have that you can only exercise with a background check, and, in certain cities, cannot be exercised in public at all?

Right to privacy. But only if you're female.

.... a point you have grasshopper.

We're working to change that. Some of us anyway.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I don't think that most people want a full-up repeal of the Second Amendment - they just want reasonable, commonsense limits put on it. You know, just like every other single right that we have has reasonable, commonsense limits put on them.

How many constitutional rights do you have that you can only exercise with a background check, and, in certain cities, cannot be exercised in public at all?

Alcohol.
Smoking.
Protest.
Speech.
Privacy.

[Galloism]

How many constitutional rights do you have that you can only exercise with a background check, and, in certain cities, cannot be exercised in public at all?

Alcohol.
Smoking.

Neither of those are rights.

Protest.
Speech.
Privacy.

None of which require a background check, and cannot be banned. Cities must make reasonable accommodation for protest. The other two aren't even close.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Alcohol.
Smoking.

Neither of those are rights.

Protest.
Speech.
Privacy.

None of which require a background check, and cannot be banned. Cities must make reasonable accommodation for protest. The other two aren't even close.

The, uh, 18th and 21st say otherwise.

Are you familiar with Free Speech zones? Many cities have taken to placing them.

[Norstal]

I don't think that most people want a full-up repeal of the Second Amendment - they just want reasonable, commonsense limits put on it. You know, just like every other single right that we have has reasonable, commonsense limits put on them.

How many constitutional rights do you have that you can only exercise with a background check, and, in certain cities, cannot be exercised in public at all?

Freedom of the press. Can't make libels or slanders.

[Galloism]

Neither of those are rights.


None of which require a background check, and cannot be banned. Cities must make reasonable accommodation for protest. The other two aren't even close.

The, uh, 18th and 21st say otherwise.

Are you familiar with Free Speech zones? Many cities have taken to placing them.

I don't like "free speech zones". I hope SCOTUS strikes them eventually.

Note: the 21st amendment repealed the ban on alcohol established by the 18th. It did not establish a right to alcohol.

[Khadgar]

How many constitutional rights do you have that you can only exercise with a background check, and, in certain cities, cannot be exercised in public at all?

Freedom of the press. Can't make libels or slanders.

Right to vote, which I can only do at one specific place at one specific time. If I meet some specific requirements.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I would have preferred a 10,000 strong open bong smoking rally through Washington.

The government would react swifter and more decisively to such a rally than they will to this.

Which is incredibly depressing.

Eh. I have more faith in the government than that.

I'll wait until the protest occurs, and if you're right, I'll gratefully concede.

[Galloism]

How many constitutional rights do you have that you can only exercise with a background check, and, in certain cities, cannot be exercised in public at all?

Freedom of the press. Can't make libels or slanders.

Source for a city that bans newspapers or news media in public, and that you have to have a background check prior to starting a newspaper or other news media.

[Ovisterra]

I don't think that most people want a full-up repeal of the Second Amendment - they just want reasonable, commonsense limits put on it. You know, just like every other single right that we have has reasonable, commonsense limits put on them.

I do.

As do I.

Failing that though, limits will do.

[The Emerald Dawn]

The, uh, 18th and 21st say otherwise.

Are you familiar with Free Speech zones? Many cities have taken to placing them.

I don't like "free speech zones". I hope SCOTUS strikes them eventually.

Note: the 21st amendment repealed the ban on alcohol established by the 18th. It did not establish a right to alcohol.

If it can be taken away, and then was determined to be wrongly removed, it is as much a right to possess and distribute as any other.

[Galloism]

Freedom of the press. Can't make libels or slanders.

Right to vote, which I can only do at one specific place at one specific time. If I meet some specific requirements.

And yet, you are not banned from voting in public places when that time arrives.

[Greed and Death]

Neither of those are rights.


None of which require a background check, and cannot be banned. Cities must make reasonable accommodation for protest. The other two aren't even close.

The, uh, 18th and 21st say otherwise.

Are you familiar with Free Speech zones? Many cities have taken to placing them.

A strange right that says the state can ban it or not.
Imagine, if we allowed states to ban speech would we consider it a right?

[Norstal]

The, uh, 18th and 21st say otherwise.

Are you familiar with Free Speech zones? Many cities have taken to placing them.

I don't like "free speech zones". I hope SCOTUS strikes them eventually.

Note: the 21st amendment repealed the ban on alcohol established by the 18th. It did not establish a right to alcohol.

What was the point of asking that question again? That we can't place restrictions on Constitutional rights?

Well, I mean, yeah, but interpretation of those rights differs.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Right to vote, which I can only do at one specific place at one specific time. If I meet some specific requirements.

And yet, you are not banned from voting in public places when that time arrives.

Unless, of course, you're black and in the "South". Then they'll try their damnedest to prevent it.

[Galloism]

I don't like "free speech zones". I hope SCOTUS strikes them eventually.

Note: the 21st amendment repealed the ban on alcohol established by the 18th. It did not establish a right to alcohol.

If it can be taken away, and then was determined to be wrongly removed, it is as much a right to possess and distribute as any other.

Then we're talking about the right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Which does not require a background check to be in force.

[Samuraikoku]

How many constitutional rights do you have that you can only exercise with a background check, and, in certain cities, cannot be exercised in public at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license#Controversy_in_the_US

[The Emerald Dawn]

If it can be taken away, and then was determined to be wrongly removed, it is as much a right to possess and distribute as any other.

Then we're talking about the right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Which does not require a background check to be in force.

So you can sell liquor without a license? And you can purchase without proof of identity?

[Galloism]

And yet, you are not banned from voting in public places when that time arrives.

Unless, of course, you're black and in the "South". Then they'll try their damnedest to prevent it.

Which we have a federal government agency that tries to prevent that and preserve voting rights.

Any more questions?

[Norstal]

Freedom of the press. Can't make libels or slanders.

Source for a city that bans newspapers or news media in public, and that you have to have a background check prior to starting a newspaper or other news media.

You have to have a license to broadcast TV signals do you not? Same goes for radio stations.That's not "background checks", but I don't see how it differs in function unless you're super-pedantic.

Otherwise I don't see the point of having a FCC at all.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Can't say it doesn't make a point....

[Galloism]

Then we're talking about the right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Which does not require a background check to be in force.

So you can sell liquor without a license? And you can purchase without proof of identity?

Proof of identity you need, but that's not the same as a background check.

To my knowledge, you don't need a background check to sell liquor either.

However, the right to buy/sell liquor is not a constitutional right, so you're still tilting at windmills.

[Galloism]

Source for a city that bans newspapers or news media in public, and that you have to have a background check prior to starting a newspaper or other news media.

You have to have a license to broadcast TV signals do you not? Same goes for radio stations.That's not "background checks", but I don't see how it differs in function unless you're super-pedantic.

Otherwise I don't see the point of having a FCC at all.

Of course it does. If anybody can start a tv station if they have the appropriate funds and go through the appropriate regs, it's a broader right than the limited class which can purchase a gun, outside of which cannot purchase a gun no matter what.

This really isn't hard.