2nd Amendment Interpretation Violates 1st Amendment

Popular interpretations of the 2nd Amendment suggest that there is an unlimited right to own firearms. This anarchical approach has made it impossible for people to peaceably assemble, as is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment

First Amendment: 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.

Therefore the 2nd Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean there is an unlimited right to gun ownership. The 1st Amendment prohibits that.

 

Lol! You should be on the 9th Circuit!

 

Why do you feel people cannot peaceably assemble while bearing arms? It happens every single day.

 

It is ironic when you think about it in another sense. We have a vast majority of people in rural areas with far too much influence per capita through the Senate, who insist that gang members in the inner cities should have access to all the weapons they want. And of course the gangs are well funded by all the money they make from the war on drugs. That is why they are often better armed than the cops

And then they point and say, "Look at those cities run by liberals!"

It is certainly true in a much broader sense that this anarchical approach to gun ownership makes the cities far more dangerous than they need to be. The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right to anarchy. Gun ownership does not entitle you to hold everyone else hostage by providing unlimited weapons to the most dangerous elements of society.

 

You don't have the right to force people to carry weapons in order to assemble peaceably. And because you refuse to make mass executions far more difficult, the right to assemble peaceably is denied.

 

Children can no longer attend school without the threat of literally being blown to pieces. Some of those kids were actually decapitated! How much more dramatic does it need to be?

 

Even though I am 100% pro 2A, it is quite possible to make an argument here^^^ but, regardless, Congress will not get far from a law/legal standpoint.

 

You completely failed to answer the question and acted as though he said something totally different...... Also known as an incredibly lame straw man

 

I did answer the question. What don't you understand?

The pro gun culture has made it impossible to peaceably assemble. What don't you understand?

 

I understand you make hyperbolic and unsubstantiated arguments that don't amount to anything but your opinion.

 

Remember you heard it here first! Honestly it hit me like a bombshell. This is really the core of the argument. All of this pro unlimited gun ownership has made the country unsafe. It is insanity. Our rights are being violated.

And this is a Constitutional argument, not a political one.

Never mind that it makes us the laughingstock of the civilized world. It is just another glaring example to the world that the US system has failed. It is pure cannon fodder for authoritarian regimes.

 

What prevents unarmed people from assembling peacefully alongside their armed countrymen? It happens all the time.

 

He's trying to be hyperbolic and hysterical here, please don't get in the way and interrupt him with facts and logic.

 

anyone shot in the neck with a rifle, shotgun or powerful handgun runs the risk of being decapitated.

Children are in more danger getting to and from school than they are from a school shooter. More children die every year from choking on food than from a school shooter.


https://safehavensinternational.org...elative_Risks_of_Death_in_US_K-12_Schools.pdf

 

What rights are being violated?

 

I don't think that one is gonna fly.

 

That makes absolutely no sense...lol.

Read the 9th Amendment

 

But we can assemble peaceably.

 

I'll take a crack at this: merely possessing a firearm is an act of violence, according to the anti-gunners.

 

this is nonsensical silliness. The second amendment is about what the federal government cannot do. same with the tenth amendment. The federal government was never given ANY PROPER POWER to regulate what arms private citizens acting in their own sovereign states may own.

 

the right to not soil oneself because they think someone might own a gun?

 

Yep. the US: 4% of the world's population, but 44% of the world's guns. Winning..... And, people somehow don't think that this is a gun culture that borders on crazy?

As to the OP: I have said it many times before: The gun culture takes away my right to do many things that I like to do, without having to worry about being shot up.

 

You choosing not to participate in an activity is on you. I'm sure there are millions of Americans who continue to do those same activities without your fears.

 

Thanks for the laugh. I thought it was April all over again..

Democrats are the first folks to limit who can assemble,

 

same reason Trump bans guns from his events

that said, I do not think the 2nd violates the 1st

hot headed people and guns do not mix will in heated situations