Open Carry of a Dangerous Weapon

[ZNFYRH]

Gods

You miss the point.

It is within the powers of the Supreme Court to infringe on the First Amendment rights if their exercise might cause a breach of peace or cause violence.

That means that it is also within those same powers to do the same to the Second Amendment right.

Using your own example, rallying KKK are one thing.

Rallying KKK in the middle of Harlem with signs that read, "F**k Niggers" will earn them swift police intervention and, if they sue, a decision much in line with the same.

Could one of you please start supporting your position with some kind of documentation, link, source, etc.?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Gods You miss the point. It is within the powers of the Supreme Court to infringe on the First Amendment rights if their exercise might cause a breach of peace or cause violence.

Where does Article III say the Supreme Court has the right to infringe on any rights?

That means that it is also within those same powers to do the same to the Second Amendment right.

See above.

Using your own example, rallying KKK are one thing. Rallying KKK in the middle of Harlem with signs that read, "Fuck Niggers" will earn them swift police intervention and, if they sue, a decision much in line with the same.

Again, where does the Constitution say the Courts have the authority to declare a ban on such stupid behavior "constitutional"? Where does the Constitution say Congress has the authority to pass laws that infringe free speech?

[Gods_Mercenary]

The KKK or other white supremacists can and do rally, sometimes in the face of hostile protesters, in which case the police actually have to protect them.

I see no need to back up anything, fear of a collection of metal and plastic incapable of anything without stimulus is obviously irrational, and the constitution gives the Government no right to take away rights based solely on psychological peace. If the KKK was hindered, it would be because they were inciting violence, something that a gun does not do. If I began firing the gun at or near people, then I have crossed the line.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Chancellor Where does Article III say the Supreme Court has the right to infringe on any rights?

It doesn't. But...

The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Infringe infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: NMW In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.

They can approve laws that may seem Unconstitutional, can't they?

Quote by: Chancellor Where does the Constitution say Congress has the authority to pass laws that infringe free speech?

Congress can pass a law that says that all left-handed black women have to serve a white male master for 7 years, starting with their 12th birthday. The Supreme Court decides whether or not that law is Constitutional.

But if the Supreme Court says it's Constitutional, then it's a law.

Quote by: Gods I see no need to back up anything

Then participate in a thread where someone will accept your thoughts as enough on which to base an argument.

This is a debate. "Back up" your statements or back down, but don't expect me to continue to entertain yours or anyone else's thoughts and opinions if you aren't going to "back them up"... especially when I've cited my own references to support my point.

This is the part where, failing to provide any support for your point, you would lose a "real" debate. Lucky for you there is no procedural moderation here.

[Kamehameha34]

It doesn't have to be Constitutional.

I'll take this as your admission that it isn't.

The supreme court is an excuse for the weak minded not to examine the current state of affairs in America and face the reality that constitutional breaches are taking place.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Indeed, just because that's the way the law is currently being interpreted, we all have different interpretations, so throwing out how a supreme court we dislike sees it isn't going to help you.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Kame The supreme court is an excuse for the weak minded not to examine the current state of affairs in America and face the reality that constitutional breaches are taking place.

Quote by: Gods Indeed, just because that's the way the law is currently being interpreted, we all have different interpretations, so throwing out how a supreme court we dislike sees it isn't going to help you.

The actions of the current Supreme Court do not dismiss that the Supreme Court has that power.

The first time the Supreme Court actually had to address libel and slander was in 1964, by the way.

Regardless, it doesn't matter that you two don't like the way it's being interpreted or the current members. That's not how you debate.

Any facts, from either of you?

[Kamehameha34]

The actions of the current Supreme Court do not dismiss that the Supreme Court has that power.

The fact that the Supreme Court has that power means bull, to be honest. The fact that people have to abide by decisions doesn't mean that those decisions are correct or constitutional. Try again.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Kame The fact that the Supreme Court has that power means bull, to be honest. The fact that people have to abide by decisions doesn't mean that those decisions are correct or constitutional. Try again.

How does it mean bull? That's how the government was designed.

This isn't about you thinking it's not right that a branch of the government can do something like that. It's how it is, so you can't dismiss it in order to prove your point.

This debate topic is based on our existing government and structure. So debate accordingly.

"Try again"?

How many times do I need to ask you for some kind of factual support?

How many times are you going to continue acting like a jerk because you think I deserve it when you represent a side of this debate that has not provided a single piece of factual support for its position?

Stop with the fallacies and stick to the topic. Your avoidance is getting really pathetic.

[Kamehameha34]

How does it mean bull? That's how the government was designed.

I explained how it's bull. Skipping over my explanation is childish in a way that I wish I could say isn't befitting of you.

[ZNFYRH]

I'm not conceding anything.

I just choose to not deal with this kind of attitude.

I'm done with this thread.

[Kamehameha34]

Wish I could say your input was appreciated.

[Matt W]

Enough with the personal jibes, please. :rolleyes:

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ZNFYRH It doesn't. But... The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net They can approve laws that may seem Unconstitutional, can't they?

Article III does not give them that authority. Even more, they don't have the authority to interpret the Constitution itself - as it did when it decided that "public use" in the fifth amendment includes selling your land to a developer to build something that will generate more property taxes.

Congress can pass a law that says that all left-handed black women have to serve a white male master for 7 years, starting with their 12th birthday. The Supreme Court decides whether or not that law is Constitutional. But if the Supreme Court says it's Constitutional, then it's a law.

Just because the Supreme Court says it doesn't make it so. The Supreme Court is limited to what is contained in Article III (as amended). The Court has been usurping unconstitutional authority ever since Marbury v. Madison.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Of citizenship? I was under the impression that citizenship was permanent once acquired - unless removed via due process.

Kamehameha I have not citizenship for USA, so to carry must apply, or be accused of terror