Why don't second amendment people treat the first amendment as sacredly?

thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/296485-trump-threatens-to-sue-new-york-times

Because slander isn't covered in freedom of speech

This. We are talking about a "reputable" media outlet spreading lies not an individual with an opinion

Because preserving the ability to defend all rights takes precedence over 'he said mean/wrong/incorrect things'.

Let the lawyers sort out slander. We'll sort out subversive traitors like people who try to undermine the 2nd Amendment like yourself you godless commie.

>sue
lugenpresse deserves the noose for actively deceiving their fellow citizens

>NYT is owned by Carlos Slim
>yfw this is how he pay for the wall

Freedom of speech is the right to say anything you desire without being legally harmed for it.

Saying, "I want to kill the President."

or, "I'm going to shoot up a school."

Usually end up with people doing said things. That is why they are illegal. Normal people don't say those things.

Slander is not protected because otherwise what's to stop a news organization from just making shit up about their competitors, or a food company?

"MCDONALDS SELLS CHILD MEAT LOOK AT THESE PICTURES THAT ARE -TOTALLY- REAL GUYS."

The first amendment doesn't protect the public fabrication of lies and slander against another individual for personal profit.

>freedom of speech includes the right to completely make shit up about anyone you want
alright buddy, time for bed.

Slander is against the law. It is the deformation of character without evidence, and a targeted malicious act. Such things are not protected by the constitution.

First Amendment doesn't stop to PRIVATE institutions from suing each other you fucking idiot.

FINAL TIME! FIRST AMENDMENT IS FOR THE PEOPLE IN PROTECTION FROM THE GOVT NOT THE PEOPLE IN PROTECTION FROM THE PEOPLE.. FUCK.

we do. the Trump isn't the government (yet), so the NYT has no protection from free speech rights.

are people dumb enough to somehow think that the 1st amendment applies universally? it's only application is against the government taking action against you for your speech/association. NYT isn't being arrested or whatever - it's a private citizen suing them.

not a free speech issue.

Wow the comment section of that article is full of retards, projecting Hillary's health onto Trump.

>normal people don't say those things

Constitution isn't exclusive to normies faggot

Then we should give guns to drug hopped convicts with mental illnesses because it doesn't specifically exclude them.

>our communist multicult propaganda is covered under free speech goy
>oy vey don't be an anti-semite or question people or color or women! that's hate speech I'm sorry but we just can't allow it

They always pull the 1st amendment card when people get sick of their bullshit but will write articles 24/7 about "white people who need to be stopped".

>give

No no, you don't get it, he has the right to obtain a gun if someone is willing to sell it, the US government doesn't "give" anything as the rights outlined in the Constitution are inherent, they are a terms of agreement on what our federal government may not infringe upon.

The earliest case in the colonies that established freedom of the press was the John Peter Zenger case. In it, it was decided that Libel is defined as untrue statements made in order to slander or defame and such statements are not legitimate press.

>SH-SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>but sure, 1st amendment rights are within a reasonable limit

Alright then we should allow felons in jail to have guns?

Slander and Libel isn't free speech, it's slander and libel.
That's why Hulk Hogan just btfo Gawker, learn your laws or get fucked by them.

I home Maddow, Hayes, Lemon etc are sued into the group and die penniless and disgraced.

>it's a "I can't get enough of my own insufferable brand of bad arguing" post

Felons are those who have committed crimes against the state or the citizens of said state and naturally forfeit rights for their transgressions.

>in jail

Are you trying?

How do slander and libel laws fit in with porn tapes?

The argument is that the constitution is 100% always in effect forever. The constitution never says prisoners lose their rights. Therefore either felons IN JAIL should be allowed guns, or you must concede that the constitution has to have certain restrictions.

Because they are abusing it.

When you get a court order to take shit down because it could damage someone's reputation you fucking do it.

If you don't then it is a problem. It isn't libel or slander per se but the defense's argument will be the same in both cases. And in both cases they are not protected by the 1st amendment and if they weren't asshats they would know that.

>you wouldnt let a criminal own a gun would you
>we have to have RESTRICTIONS, goy :^)

>that comment section

LE HUR DUR TRUMP IS DUMB!! HAHA HE FLINGS SHIT FROM HIS MOUTH!!!

wow such deep insight holy fuck these people are retarded

04' anti-bush liberals are the worst

I completely agree, I just don't see where slander/libel ever came into that case.

Still can't believe they ignored the judge. They got fucked, and rightfully so.

How are felons to obtain guns while in jail? Also once they've paid their penitence they are actually still entitled to get a gun, just as I am.

>tfw faggot tries to push a false dilemma on me

>I just don't see where slander/libel ever came into that case.
It didn't really, it was just the most recent example I could think of where media outlets tried to misrepresent the protections offered by the 1st amendment in order to cover their ass in the event of illegal or damaging behavior.

Something we will probably see more of in the future.

So no argument then? Good.

I'm not anti-gun, for the record. I was simplying using it as a point that the constitution should not be read entirely literally and should have certain restrictions. Do you really think the forefathers didn't write the constitution in a partially open format allowing for interpretation of common sense measures?

Of course we wouldn't allow criminals to keep their guns in jail, neither would the forefathers; that's why they didn't write it down. Because it's stupid.

Of course we wouldn't allow people to purposely harm someones reputation. Because you must prove they did it malicious and not unintentionally. If they did it maliciously, it is just as bad as any other act.

Ex-convicts get their guns back, yes. But unless you accept some limitations on what the constitution says, they should have never lost their guns in the first place.

I read this in Hugh's voice

What's that liberals always say about free speech and freedom from consequences?

The jewish media uses their first amendment rights to subvert and destroy the country.

They don't deserve rights.

The bigget threats to free speech right now come from private entities, where the first amendment is irrelevant.

The media misinformation has become a very very widespread problem.

Fighting that problem does nothing negtive to free speech on practical terms.

In fact, censoring the bullshit the media says would have a positive effect on free speech, because very often the media uses their dirty tricks to keep narratives which silence people.

That is the basis for achieving a silent majority, to keep telling people to shut up and shaming them with lies until they just give up and stay quiet.

Hence, less practical free speech, and a less free debate.
Which leads to many important factors to be forgotten or ignored because no one is really bringing them up.

That is why for example pol is so influential today, because it is the one place where thanks to anonymous nature of communications and lack of censorship, all ideas were allowed to fight each other, and the better more logical ideas have stayed on top.
It's why random people coming here eventually end adopting more of the ideas predominant here, and why whenever these extreme ideas leak to the outside they tend to make a big splash.

when are we going to make it illegal for shitters to enforce a no-guns-allowed policy for shit like malls or stores where they'll pull the card that they somehow retain it as private property and if you bring a gun then can get you for tresspassing?

Like it's dead-simple in the 2nd ammendment that it's rule shall not be infringed, so what right do these shitter business owners have to deliberately infringe upon that while owning land in america?

>felons [...], once they've paid their penitence [...], are actually still entitled to get a gun
Not unless they can get their felony expunged or pardoned.

What part about natural rights do you not fucking understand? That means that they have metaphysical underpinnings and are not subject to trendy morality. Virtue and justice aren't principles you abide by until they no are longer convenient to your needs or desires in which case you change the definition of either to suit your ends. Natural rights are non-negotiable. Read Kant and Locke, or fuck off to the EU where they believe in the same circumstantial morality.

> common sense

this.
treasoners should hang.

Because the vile press violates libel laws constantly and sanders Trump, which is not protected under the 1st ammendment. You can't make up stories about someone that is not true and then publish it. I can't believe I have to explain this. Fucking shills are unbelievable

Okay then you're A-OK for prisoners to have guns because natural rights are "Non-negotiable".

Mental institute patients are also an A-OK to have guns. Because they didn't necessarily harm anyone to get put in one, so there's no reason to take the rights away; right?

Your logic is shitty and exists on the sole foundation of hypocrisy while insulting those who point it out.

You don't actually refute any of the points I made and then resort to emotionally driven vivid examples and then finish ad hominem.

You're posting style indicates that you are a genuine normie who has found his way here, but is also interested in genuine debate(somewhat) as opposed to hit and run and shilling. Stick around, you might be surprised by what convinces you.

What points? You just spouted a bunch of "Intellectual" words are screamed "MUH RIGHTS!"

You are still existing in the state of hypocrisy of claiming that prisoners shouldn't have guns because they voided their rights but rights cannot be voided because they're always in effect.

You need to pick a side before you can convince others to join it.

You're a fucking idiot. The New York Times has never slandered anyone. I don't know how you could possibly think such a reputable outlet as the Times could ever do something as disgusting as slander.

Slander is spoken, in print it's libel.

Sure thing, Jonah.

The 5th says that nobody will "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Felons have had their due process of law, and thus they CAN be deprived of life, liberty, or property based on the court's ruling

Felons are deprived of their liberty to own firearms, and their property of any firearms they may already own

Those who transgress on others rights (life, liberty, property) revoke their claim to theirs by natural extension of violating others rights. The extent of the punishment is decided by the severity of the crime. Go read Kant.

>What points? You just spouted a bunch of "Intellectual" words are screamed "MUH RIGHTS!"

This is LITERALLY SHAKING tier.

Okay then I make a new law, "You cannot own ammunition for firearms."

Everyone who owns a gun can no longer supply it with ammunition or be marked as a criminal by the standard and thus can be denied of their right to own a gun.

How about listing a single point you made instead of resorting to the same ad hominem you claim I resort to.

Slander/Libel is not free speech, neither is incitement to violence. Jew York Times, Clinton News Network, and all these other shitbags have been continuously slandering/libeling anyone who disagrees with progressive policy/candidates probably for longer than I've been alive. They spread misinformation, they lie by omission, and they make spurious accusations of racism/sexism/ect-ism for the express purpose of turning the public against dissenting individuals.

If the law were actually being administered fairly they should be facing hundreds if not thousands of slander/libel lawsuits.

>Okay then I make a new law, "You cannot own ammunition for firearms."

Good luck getting that law passed in the USA.

>Waaaaaaaaaah oy vey
Get sued kike

The 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the people to a well regulated militia, which the militia act specifies as and conscripts all free able bodied white males 18-45(the 13th and 14th amendment extends these rights to all citizens) in addition to the regular rights of every citizen to own a gun. So when you legislate "no ammo" you are directly violating that aspect of the 2nd which enables all able bodied persons organized in a militia to be well regulated or for the unregulated, violating their ability to be well regulated. Such a law is unconstitutional.

Read my earlier posts again if you want to see my initial points. Not going to spoon feed you faggot.

>The joke

>Your heads

Apparently mine when over yours.

Gun free zones, magazine capacity limits, automatic firearm bans, and even more have happened already. Don't be too surprised if it happens.

Germany declares people who wish to own a firearm for self defense as delusional. It wouldn't be hard to declare people to be non-able bodied and circumvent that clause.

Oh dang! I apologize good sir! If you would kindly give me your account on Reddit... I will buys you a gold. XD

[spoiler]seriously sorry i didn't know you also knew when the narwhal "bacons" ;) we cool now right?[/spoiler]

14th amendment extends all of the rights to all persons of the United States, superseding the able bodied 18-45 year old male parameter.

I also notice we are no longer debating the validity of these rights, but what the state can get away with infringing. Natural rights are ours to defend, and ours to lose. No one else will protect them except those willing to defend it. Left to its own devices, the state will naturally recede back to tyranny. It is up to us to assert those rights. The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

My only point this entire time was that the constitution should be followed as a guideline because not everything is written in there. I have nothing against guns or any of the rights provided by the constitution.

>Gun free zones, magazine capacity limits, automatic firearm bans, and even more have happened already. Don't be too surprised if it happens.

These are all a far cry from a total national ban of all ammunition

MEMBER WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIDN'T GO ROGUE AND BOMB A RUSSIA-BACKED SYRIAN ARMY TO PROTECT A FUCKING INSANE DEATH CULT

Anything not written is left up to the individual states, as detailed in the 9th amendment, Founding Fathers did account for this already. Individual states can pass anything that doesn't violate the other rights. One of the few things definitely certain about the Founding Fathers is that they never would have desired a federal government this powerful.