Are these 'infringements'?

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;.....
Any laws abridging the freedom of speech is SUBJUGATION!!!!

 

you think any court in the USA is going to strike down laws against Kiddie porn on the first amendment?

 

Free speech never included slander or the right to sexually abuse children.

Sorry you thought that but you were mistaken. That's not abridging freedom of speech to say a person can't molest children in videotape it.


You can't lose it right that never existed.

 

Well if you want to consider abridgement of my right to commit slander I will accept a abridgement of my right to blow people's brains out for no good reason.

I guess the fact that I can't just run around murdering people with a shotgun means that I don't really have a second amendment rights by this guy's standards.

That's a strange world.

 

HIPPA laws arent an issue. If The People democratically decide that abortion needs to be regulated, those regulations can be legislated to conform within the standards of HIPPA, regardless of whether or not you think the regulations are necessary. Why are you stuck on HIPPA?

 

I am surprised you completely missed the point.
Our Kekistani friend in answer to me accusing gun nuts of being paranoid, conspiracy seeking right-wingers said "the government taking away rights is subjugation", which proved my point. That statement is broad brush paranoia. The government removes all kinds of rights when they interfere with the rights of others or endanger the health and safety of the public without leading to "subjugation".

Congress passed the first law against child pornography in 1977.....SUBJUGATION!!

 

no rational gun owner opposes laws that prevent felonious assault, murder, armed robbery or clearly reckless behavior such as firing firearms in urban areas without an emergency, hunting deer in urban parks with high powered rifles, or shooting weapons while one is drunk.

the problem is you gun banners want to prevent lawful people from owning or possessing the same weapons that civilian governmental employees routinely use in our neighborhoods or subjecting gun owners to ridiculous requirements that criminals easily avoid

you seem ignorant of the fact that the very act of making kiddie porn violates several malum per se laws. I have no problem banning the production or distribution of films that were of people actually being murdered with gun shot

 

Yes, "no rational gun owner opposes laws that prevent felonious assault,...." The problem is gun nuts are not rational. They don't care about illegal use of firearms or they would do something about it. They say, now, there are too many laws and any law suggested to prevent guns getting into illegal hands meets paranoid, conspiracy thinking i.e. leads to SUBJUGATION.
And you seem ignorant of the fact new laws restricting speech are proposed and passed continuously especially regarding the internet. More subjugation?

 

so much disinformation

1) the term gun nuts demonstrates a cultural hostility that is not going to dissipate based on gun owners agreeing to stupid laws that do nothing

2) Your concept of doing "SOMETHING ABOUT IT" -well "it" is NOT crime or criminals but rather lawful gun ownership. You want to harass gun owners because you don't like our politics or culture of independence.

3) your attempts to compare restrictions on speech fail since you don't understand firearms laws

 

The term gun banners demonstrates a cultural hostility that is not going to dissipate until gun nuts gain a sense of public responsibility....not holding my breath.

"It" is putting in place guard rails that allows only lawful gun owners access to firearms which gun nuts call "harassment".

Demonstrate how I don't understand firearm laws and how does this comparison fail?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Because you are pushing to prosecute a person for a medical procedure.
That would be impossible to do if those records are kept out of the public.

Some states are trying to prosecute women who have said medical procedure in another State. Or country.

 

No, again you seem to be either lacking in reading comprehension or failing to even bother to read. I do not support restricting access to abortion any more than I support restricting access to firearms.

And also no, it would not be impossible to prosecute medical procedures while keeping them out of the public. Example- man gets woman pregnant. Woman then is no longer pregnant. Man reports possible unlicensed abortion to the authorities. The authorities investigate and discover cause, present cause to a judge. Judge issues warrant for law enforcement to access medical records. Medical records indicate unpermitted abortion. Woman and/or abortion provider fined and/or charged with crime. Law enforced, no HIPAA violated.

Which, BTW, is a lot better than how HIPAA records work now, given that there a plethora of loopholes that LE currently uses to access medical records without a warrant, at least according to complaints by the ACLU, but that's a topic for another thread...

And since you've had such trouble keeping up, let me repeat and reiterate: I DO NOT SUPPORT REGULATING/RESTRICTING ABORTION IN THIS WAY. I'm merely pointing out that the precedent set by playing fast and loose with 'regulations' that infringe on civil rights that you don't value so much similarly endangers other civil rights that you do value.

So I ask again- are the abortion 'regulations' listed in the OP acceptable to you so long as they don't violate HIPAA, or would you still consider them to be 'infringements'?

 

OK. Then I guess there's no reason to continue.

 

Not if you don't care about intellectual consistency, no...

 

you're trying to make the point that you have the right to make child pornography. And that ensuring the rights of children not to be victims somehow subjugates you.

And the supreme Court didn't intervene probably because perfectly constitutional.

 

This thread had no intellectual consistency starting with the OP.
Trying to compare 1st amendment to abortion.

 

Ya, I know, abortion isn't a right. Thats why I predicated the OP with 'what if we made abortion a right by amending the constitution?' You must've missed that part as well ...I thought you said you read it?

 

I read it and noticed the intellectual inconsistency. As you want to call it.

 

'Restricting guns = regulations' but 'restricting abortion = infringements' is not intellectually consistent.

 

You obviously don't get it....I am saying your statement was hysterical nonsense.

 

"Restictions" or laws should have a purpose, would you agree? They should protect the rights of others and protect the public's health and safety. Can you add anything else?

Now your restrictions.......
ban the morning after pill, abortion waiting periods, limit the number of abortions, an abortion database, purchase and pass pre-abortion classes, psych-eval, abortion permits.

How do these fit under the purpose of laws?

 

what am I not getting that you think things were rights that never were

Let the government taking away rights and subjugation? So truth is hysterical nonsense?

 

Truth? Let me make this as plain as I can....
What I am saying all rights have restrictions and those restrictions do not necessarily lead to subjugation, unless you have a paranoid, conspiracy seeking mind set.....and apparently you do.

 

the duty is on those who want to restrict rights to have a damn good reason and one that is constitutional. that is not the case with almost every scheme anti gun lefties propose. this attitude that the default position is rights should be limited is proof that the left is not "liberal" but authoritarian

 

I actually agree that reasonable restrictions are okay.

Meaning you can't just shoot them off into the air willy-nilly that's going to cause some damage or injury.

But classifying something as an assault weapon arbitrarily and then trying to ban firearms in this arbitrary classification because some people use them to commit crime isn't good enough.

There's nothing reasonable about that. There's nothing reasonable about magazine restrictions about background checks any of that stuff.

If you want to make a rational argument for any of this stuff feel free I haven't had a good laugh for a while