Ms Tree
Veteran
- Jul 13, 2010
- 9,731
- 9,009
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #166
It isn't how you/ I define the term 'arms' but how SCOTUS defines it.
You can own a 50 BTW...I know several that have them.
Also, silencers are allowed with the proper permit....so whats the big deal?
The only reason free speech has ' some limitations' is because they haven't been heard before SCOTUS.
The only reason a lot of these stupid reg's are legal is they haven't been challenged.
A small borough near me called WHitehall recently became aware of an obligation that is very unconstitutional by its very action, but if you don't comply, you will be fined and spend your life savings proving you are protected under the USC.
My link
I do agree that the COTUS says what the SCOTUS say it does but we still can have our own interpretations of it right?
I had no idea a private individual could own a .50 or a silencer. I cannot fathom why a person would need something like that and I do not like the idea but that is besides the point. What I was getting at is there are limitations on all rights. I think we can agree that it is not a good idea for a person to be able to buy a SAM, or a land mine.
As for speech, The limitations are placed on speech because the courts have heard the cases and found that limitations are needed. Slander, defamation, inciting .. just to name a few.