shakran

Actually it's smacked down laws which limit pure hate speech (i.e. hate speech that does not include a threat) - for example, look up Colin v. Smith, 1978, 7th circuit, in which the American Nazi Party prevailed in getting laws which prevented them from expressing their anti-semetic opinions struck down.

Both examples of using your rights to impose on mine, which basic human rights concepts were never meant to allow for.


And in my opinion, that's wrong. But then state governments also pass laws about not selling booze on Sundays for fear of pissing God off. . . Just because the government does it, doesn't mean they're right in doing it.


In this thread, I am saying that if keeping and bearing arms is in fact an unqualified right as many are saying (meaning you don't have to be in a "well regulated militia" in order to qualify for that right) then the government is violating our rights by passing ANY laws against weapon ownership with the exception of laws which prevent people from owning/using the weapons in such a way as to violate the rights of others. In other words, laws which say "You are not allowed to randomly stab people" are fine, but laws which say "you may not own a knife" are not.