Thread: If a child hits another child with a stick.

Originally Posted by Miller47

You can stick this argument into a place where the sun doesn't shine...

That's where the right want all arguments to be buried that they can't counter. If they don't see it, it doesn't exist... toddler logic.

Originally Posted by Devil505

Nether is an assault rifle or a high capacity magazine.

Yes they are regarding the Second Amendment.

Originally Posted by Tennyson

Yes they are regarding the Second Amendment.

The SCOTUS upheld the 1994-2004 AWB which banned them both.
Look it up.

Originally Posted by Tennyson

A stick in the hand of a child is not an unalienable right protected from the government by the Constitution.

If it were inalienable, then it would not need to be protected. You have an inalienable right to breathe air.

Originally Posted by Devil505

The SCOTUS upheld the 1994-2004 AWB which banned them both.

I am not arguing the Supreme Court. If you want to use a case, then you will need to defend its constitutional basis.

Originally Posted by DebateDrone

If it were inalienable, then it would not need to be protected. You have an inalienable right to breathe air.

I did not say it was protected. I said it was protected from the government. It is a restriction on the government.

Originally Posted by Tennyson

I am not arguing the Supreme Court. If you want to use a case, then you will need to defend its constitutional basis.

Well, no. Case law is law itself and needs no defense.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey

Well, no. Case law is law itself and needs no defense.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

We will always disagree on this point, but that is what makes the world go 'round.

Originally Posted by Tennyson

A stick in the hand of a child is not an unalienable right protected from the government by the Constitution.

Even constitutionally guaranteed rights have limits. For example, laws preventing felons from possessing guns are constitutional.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Devil505

While the metaphor is overly simple it makes a clear point.

No it is not, because it is not analogous.

Originally Posted by Devil505

Can I assume we both agree that weapons ..... with little to no benefit to society that can kill hundreds of people very quickly should not be readily available to the public?

I do not believe that is a valid constitutional consideration.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk