Open Carry March on Washington DC July 4th

[St George]

I applaud the citizen that responsibly demonstrates and maintains his God given rights in the face of opposition.

The Constitution has nothing to do with God.

[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?

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

Source for a city that does not let you get married in public, and that requires a background check before getting a marriage license.

Gay marriage... we're working to change that. Hopefully a SCOTUS decision in favor is forthcoming.

[Samuraikoku]

Source for a city that does not let you get married in public

Those states that don't allow gay marriage, for one.

, and that requires a background check before getting a marriage license.

It has happened before. Hence why I brought the source.

The US states of Connecticut, Wisconsin, Indiana, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Mississippi[4][5]and the District of Columbia in the past did have a requirement to have a blood test before obtaining a marriage licence, but have since been abolished.

Not content with that, there's this.

In October 2009, Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana justice of the peace, refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, prompting civil liberties groups, such as the NAACP and ACLU, to call for his resignation or firing.[14][15] Bardwell resigned his office on November 3.[16]

[The Emerald Dawn]

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

Source for a city that does not let you get married in public, and that requires a background check before getting a marriage license.

Gay marriage... we're working to change that. Hopefully a SCOTUS decision in favor is forthcoming.

We're all providing answers for rights that are being abridged. These are rights, they've been limited to people who meet a specific criteria. These things exist. Your original point has been proven incorrect.

[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Note: the 21st amendment repealed the ban on alcohol established by the 18th.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.

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 poster I responded to said he/she wanted good sense regulation like "every other right".

The second amendment is arguably the most rigidly circumscribed right in the entire constitution. No enumerated right that I know of is so heavily regulated.

I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm simply pointing it out.

[Samuraikoku]

The second amendment is arguably the most rigidly circumscribed right in the entire constitution. No enumerated right that I know of is so heavily regulated.

You'd think that's only logical given the danger firearms pose.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Source for a city that does not let you get married in public

Those states that don't allow gay marriage, for one.

, and that requires a background check before getting a marriage license.

It has happened before. Hence why I brought the source.

The US states of Connecticut, Wisconsin, Indiana, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Mississippi[4][5]and the District of Columbia in the past did have a requirement to have a blood test before obtaining a marriage licence, but have since been abolished.

Not content with that, there's this.

In October 2009, Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana justice of the peace, refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, prompting civil liberties groups, such as the NAACP and ACLU, to call for his resignation or firing.[14][15] Bardwell resigned his office on November 3.[16]

Other than what's already been mentioned, There's totally like no other right that has any limitations on it, so we should totally be like able to buy like whatever guns we want, like whenever we want.

[Samuraikoku]

Other than what's already been mentioned, There's totally like no other right that has any limitations on it, so we should totally be like able to buy like whatever guns we want, like whenever we want.

You will take me blunderbuss... when you pry it from my cold, dead 'ands!

[Galloism]

Source for a city that does not let you get married in public

Those states that don't allow gay marriage, for one.

Which has been brought up as a constitutional issue, and will hopefully be struck (although I won't hold my breath for it).

, and that requires a background check before getting a marriage license.

It has happened before. Hence why I brought the source.

The US states of Connecticut, Wisconsin, Indiana, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Mississippi[4][5]and the District of Columbia in the past did have a requirement to have a blood test before obtaining a marriage licence, but have since been abolished.

Not content with that, there's this.

That's a blood test, and also not practiced anymore.

In October 2009, Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana justice of the peace, refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, prompting civil liberties groups, such as the NAACP and ACLU, to call for his resignation or firing.[14][15] Bardwell resigned his office on November 3.[16]

Who caused a constitutional rights abridgement leading to his resignation. They could have been sued and lost.

[Galloism]

The second amendment is arguably the most rigidly circumscribed right in the entire constitution. No enumerated right that I know of is so heavily regulated.

You'd think that's only logical given the danger firearms pose.

Actually, the regulations we have, for the most part, are reasonable. I'd argue for more allowances for open carry, but overall they're not bad.

Now if we'd just enforce them, it would be all good.

[Samuraikoku]

That's a blood test, and also not practiced anymore.

You asked this.

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?

Marriage is a constitutional right (don't ask me, ask SCOTUS). Yet the United States have had previous investigations (I think blood tests do count as background checks since, you know, the people looking to get married have had to undergo State-mandated procedures pending before they could exercise that constitutional right) before being issued marriage licenses.

Who caused a constitutional rights abridgement leading to his resignation. They could have been sued and lost.

And yet you confirmed there was a constitutional right being abridged.

[Greed and Death]

You can't outright claim that 90% of the nation supports something without conducting a referendum. Despite being useful, polls are often worded in biased ways and aren't always an accurate measure of public opinion.

Yes, actually, you can. You see,

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/2451
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 ... 70954.html
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... gly-suppo/
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-an ... aseID=1843

poll after poll after poll, performed all over the country, with very simple wording, has shown that background checks have more support than APPLE FUCKING PIE.

The source on Huff post says it quite well,

While some surveys (mostly those that refer to "universal background checks" without specifically asking about gun shows and private sales) have found 90 percent support for background checks, other polls show somewhat lower support... for sales by individual gun owners (70 percent) and for purchases from family members or gifts (54 percent).

But lets be honest here, you know the polls don't reflect how people vote. Because if they did you would not be here crying and whining about it, you would be celebrating an all but certain Democrat sweep of the House and senate in 2014. Because no amount of gerrymandering or super PAC spending negates 70% support, much less 90% of the vote.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Yes, actually, you can. You see,

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/2451
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 ... 70954.html
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... gly-suppo/
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-an ... aseID=1843

poll after poll after poll, performed all over the country, with very simple wording, has shown that background checks have more support than APPLE FUCKING PIE.

The source on Huff post says it quite well,

While some surveys (mostly those that refer to "universal background checks" without specifically asking about gun shows and private sales) have found 90 percent support for background checks, other polls show somewhat lower support... for sales by individual gun owners (70 percent) and for purchases from family members or gifts (54 percent).

But lets be honest here, you know the polls don't reflect how people vote. Because if they did you would not be here crying and whining about it, you would be celebrating an all but certain Democrat sweep of the House and senate in 2014. Because no amount of gerrymandering or super PAC spending negates 70% support, much less 90% of the vote.

And it is still a majority in each case. There's a reason the Senators who voted against the simple background bill have lost as much public support as they have.

[Galloism]

That's a blood test, and also not practiced anymore.

You asked this.

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?

Marriage is a constitutional right (don't ask me, ask SCOTUS). Yet the United States have had previous investigations (I think blood tests do count as background checks since, you know, the people looking to get married have had to undergo State-mandated procedures pending before they could exercise that constitutional right) before being issued marriage licenses.

Of course, I've never argued the constitutional rights cannot be regulated.

I am merely pointing out that, as far as I am aware, no constitutional right is subject to as many regulations as arms.

Who caused a constitutional rights abridgement leading to his resignation. They could have been sued and lost.

And yet you confirmed there was a constitutional right being abridged.

Well, yeah, illegally. As in, the weight of the courts would stand behind the person who's rights were abridged. As in, a lawsuit would certainly succeed.

But, then again, I never really viewed "government officials breaking the law" as "government regulations". By that metric, there are no rights at all.

[The UK in Exile]

Yes, actually, you can. You see,

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/2451
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 ... 70954.html
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... gly-suppo/
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-an ... aseID=1843

poll after poll after poll, performed all over the country, with very simple wording, has shown that background checks have more support than APPLE FUCKING PIE.

The source on Huff post says it quite well,

While some surveys (mostly those that refer to "universal background checks" without specifically asking about gun shows and private sales) have found 90 percent support for background checks, other polls show somewhat lower support... for sales by individual gun owners (70 percent) and for purchases from family members or gifts (54 percent).

But lets be honest here, you know the polls don't reflect how people vote. Because if they did you would not be here crying and whining about it, you would be celebrating an all but certain Democrat sweep of the House and senate in 2014. Because no amount of gerrymandering or super PAC spending negates 70% support, much less 90% of the vote.

without those things they'd be celebrating a Democratic sweep now.

[Khadgar]

Yes, actually, you can. You see,

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/2451
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 ... 70954.html
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... gly-suppo/
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-an ... aseID=1843

poll after poll after poll, performed all over the country, with very simple wording, has shown that background checks have more support than APPLE FUCKING PIE.

The source on Huff post says it quite well,

While some surveys (mostly those that refer to "universal background checks" without specifically asking about gun shows and private sales) have found 90 percent support for background checks, other polls show somewhat lower support... for sales by individual gun owners (70 percent) and for purchases from family members or gifts (54 percent).

But lets be honest here, you know the polls don't reflect how people vote. Because if they did you would not be here crying and whining about it, you would be celebrating an all but certain Democrat sweep of the House and senate in 2014. Because no amount of gerrymandering or super PAC spending negates 70% support, much less 90% of the vote.

You do know people aren't usually single issue voters right?

[Irredento]

Also, what did I miss?

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

(Image)

Also, what did I miss?

A well regulated militia,

Are you a member of one?

[The UK in Exile]

(Image)

Also, what did I miss?

Of course! 18th century white slave owners, They can't possibly be wrong! And absolutely nothing has changed since then at all!

[Greed and Death]

The source on Huff post says it quite well,


But lets be honest here, you know the polls don't reflect how people vote. Because if they did you would not be here crying and whining about it, you would be celebrating an all but certain Democrat sweep of the House and senate in 2014. Because no amount of gerrymandering or super PAC spending negates 70% support, much less 90% of the vote.

You do know people aren't usually single issue voters right?

And what other issues are there that the Republicans garner support on ?

[The UK in Exile]

You do know people aren't usually single issue voters right?

And what other issues are there that the Republicans garner support on ?

none, seemingly. or they wouln't rely on gerrymandering and super PAC's.

[The Emerald Dawn]

You do know people aren't usually single issue voters right?

And what other issues are there that the Republicans garner support on ?

Jobortiguns.

[Bottle]

You do know people aren't usually single issue voters right?

And what other issues are there that the Republicans garner support on ?

Racism.

And we've come full circle!

[Galloism]

(Image)

Also, what did I miss?

A well regulated militia,

Are you a member of one?

If he's a male American he is, per SCOTUS anyway.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

You do know people aren't usually single issue voters right?

And what other issues are there that the Republicans garner support on ?

Enslaving women.