"Herb Martin" <news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:481beed6$1$30501$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:x-F5780A.22462202052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <H8QSj.107$aA1.29@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> "Scout" <me4guns@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> Quite right. I accept your admission that ANY violation of our
>>> rights is contrary to the language of the Constitution.
>>>
>>> There. Happy?
>>>
>>> I mean I was willing to give you a little slack, but seems you want
>>> to hold
>>> me right to the letter of the Constitution.
>>
>> Why can't I go to the governor's mansion and protest in his bedroom?
>> I mean, I have the right to free speech, and not letting me speak in
>> his bedroom is a violation of my rights!
>
> You really have wasted your father's money on a substandard education
> if you don't know this one OR if you don't know that it doesn't apply.
>
> There is a difference between a relevant point and mere fallacious
> argument, but someone lawyers never seem to understand this
> fact.
>
> Your rights end where my right begin.
>
> You CAN go and protest, just not necessarily WHERE you choose
> if it violates someone elses rights unreasonably.
>
> I have already suggested that you might look to the Right to Peacably
> Assemble for just the type of infringements that are in fact within
> the bounds of the Constitution.
>
> You cannot break into my house to eat, sleep, speak, or use your RKBA
> either, but that doesn't prevent your from exercising your rights on
> your own property or in public areas.
>
> You cannot be stopped from "assembling" on the mere pretext of
> "public safety" but you can be made to conform with fire marshall
> laws to do so safely.
>
> Parade permits are (possibly) legal, but they MUST be issued
> to EVERYONE fairly, and the mere fact that a permit is required
> for (demonstrable) safety reasons CANNOT be used to prevent
> the Free Speech or Freedom to Assemble you enjoy.
>
> Laws that require Concealed Carry (CHL etc) permits MIGHT be
> written so as to be constitutional but I don't know of any except that
> in Alaska.
>
> Certainly no one has shown that they provide any useful public
> safety function. Feel free to try if you wish.
>
> None of the CDC, the National Academy of Sciences, nor DoJ
> was able to find that ANY gun control reduces VIOLENT CRIME,
> SUICIDE or ACCIDENTS in any significant manner.
>
> Whenever gun control laws are reviewed, they always come out as
> either making "no difference" or actually making crime, murder,
> etc WORSE.
>
> Either way, they cannot meet the test -- apparently.
You mean that you don't like them. That's not a test that a court must
apply.
|
