Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 16:32:
[Oh wise and wonderful Constitution lover, wherefore the illegality of you owning a Multiple Launch Rocket System if your right to bear arms is sacrosanct?
If smugness was a substitute for accuracy, I bet you'd win arguments all the time. It's not against federal law, or the laws of most states, to own a rocket launcher. It requires additional steps beyond that of a normal firearms purchase, but is perfectly legal, please educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weaponsWherefore a ban on child pornography if your freedom of speech and expression is similarly sacrosanct? Wherefore Christmas as a national holiday if "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? Wherefore the capacity to amend the Constitution if it is as infallible as the word of God?
Are you libtards ever going to put this tired old trope out to pasture? I see you've followed Feinstein's lead and changed it from 'yelling fire in a theatre', to the more shocking 'OMG kiddie porn!!!!11!'. Here's some middle school logic for you, see if you can follow along:
The existence of a piece of child porn is proof positive that a crime has been committed. Its not just the material that's damning in the eyes of the law, rather it's the logical conclusion that in order for it to exist, a child must have been victimized. So when we send someone to prison for possession of these materials, it's not a 'freedom of speech' issue in the general sense. They are, at least, an accomplice to child abuse.
Likewise with yelling fire in a theatre. It's illegal because of the direct and foreseeable consequences of an act that has no value but to cause panic. It's not a restriction on your 1st amendment rights at all, it's a consequence for using them inappropriately.
What's missing from both those cases is the concept of prior restraint. You
can yell fire in a theatre, because no one has forced you to wear a gag. You
can abuse your kids, because you're not fitted with a behavior control device that prevents it.
A couple more appropriate analogies to gun control, then:
Because you might make kiddie porn, you will need a license to own a camera, and the government can randomly inspect all your pictures.
Everyone must wear a muzzle, before entering a theatre, unless of course the speech bureau has licensed you to speak freely.
Could it possibly be that there are reasonable limits to freedoms, even those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?
Not in the sense that you suggest, no. Name one other right recognized by the US Bill of Rights that is subject to the level of prior restraint suggested by any of the current batch of proposed firearms laws. Good luck.
Could it possibly be that the Constitution was written by mortal men, who are prone to error and misjudgement?
Certainly. There is a process for rectifying their errors. It's called a constitutional amendment. I'm sure you'll get right on that.
Could it possibly be that, although the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, there is not just one way to interpret and implement its provisions?
Clearly that's the case, always has been. If you're willing to take the time and study it, though, I think you'll find that of all the amendments contained in the bill of rights, the 2nd is the least 'open' to interpretation. It's really very clear that the framers intended the citizenry to possess weaponry akin to that used by the military infantryman, as a check against the might of the militia.
Of course, if when you say interpret, you mean ignore....