Restrictions on the 2A

[Rye Miles #13621]

A woman voices her opinion on the 2A

She read the Second Amendment like a normal person. “Shall not be infringed.”

Then she looked at America and asked: What happened?

Because everywhere you turn, it’s restriction after restriction.

Permit. Waiting period. Background check. Registration. Ban!

And every time gun owners point that out, somebody says:

“Well, the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law, but speech still has limits.”

Fine.

Speech has limits.

But nobody makes you get a license before you open your mouth.

There’s no waiting period before you can have an opinion.

There’s no background check between you and a printing press.

Speech law usually punishes abuse after the fact.

Gun law blocks access before you ever touch the gun.

That’s the difference.

And after thousands of gun laws, they still say it’s not enough.

So let’s be honest:

Does “shall not be infringed” mean anything anymore, or did they turn it into a suggestion?

[Blackwater 53393]

To some, the phrase “shall not be infringed” means everything!! To others, it’s a roadblock to tyranny!!

[John Kloehr]

2 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Speech law ... punishes abuse after the fact.

Gun law blocks access before you ever touch the gun.

That’s the difference.

With the one word deleted. this ^^^.

 

Huge difference! I can see drawing a line somewhere between nuclear ICBMs and perhaps (and perhaps not) a machine gun. Maybe somewhere around the level of MANPADS. Some of this maybe due to different times as privately owned warships with cannon were not restricted at the founding (societal and technological change). Some because a MANPAD can bring down a civilian airliner.

 

Still, key point is punishing someone for what they did do, rather than restrictions because of what they could do.

[Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001]

It seems to me "shall not be infringed " 

 

is pretty straight forward