The Bill of Rights do not mention limits, the Consititutions do not mention limits, there are no limits. People are free to racial slurs, people are free make and sell ghost guns, people are free insult and mock homosexuals.
Sure you can, but you’re not protected to do so and you will face consequences for it.
You can insult and mock whoever you want as long as you’re ready to be accused of a hate crime. It’s your choice in the end. Always was.
This guy in the article chose to make ghost guns even though he lived in a state with laws against that.
The absence of limits in the Bill of Rights is not implied unlimited protection. This has been argued successfully many times over. Your understanding of the text and legal interpretations is lacking.
I reject laws, except for homicide and kidnapping. It can be legal to commit evil, and illegal to do a good act.
If someone does something that is not bad but deemed illegal, I would protect them from the law to protect morality. If someone I know carries concealed firearms, that is moral and just. If an intruder breaks into someone’s house, the resident has an obligation to kill the intruder immediately. I help those kinds of people to hide if the law contradicts morality
I disregard their opinion, and I live in complete absence of their decision. I have no regard for restriction and I will provide material support to everyone that goes against it.
The Bill of Rights do not mention limits, the Consititutions do not mention limits, there are no limits. People are free to racial slurs, people are free make and sell ghost guns, people are free insult and mock homosexuals.
Sure you can, but you’re not protected to do so and you will face consequences for it.
You can insult and mock whoever you want as long as you’re ready to be accused of a hate crime. It’s your choice in the end. Always was.
This guy in the article chose to make ghost guns even though he lived in a state with laws against that.
The absence of limits in the Bill of Rights is not implied unlimited protection. This has been argued successfully many times over. Your understanding of the text and legal interpretations is lacking.
Define what is a hate crime that everybody would recognize and agree.
Why don’t you tell me what you wish you could do and I’ll find out if it’s legal and send you what I found.
I reject laws, except for homicide and kidnapping. It can be legal to commit evil, and illegal to do a good act.
If someone does something that is not bad but deemed illegal, I would protect them from the law to protect morality. If someone I know carries concealed firearms, that is moral and just. If an intruder breaks into someone’s house, the resident has an obligation to kill the intruder immediately. I help those kinds of people to hide if the law contradicts morality
What’s good or moral about insulting someone and calling them a racial slur?
Freedom to express any opinion a person decides because no opinion or words causes bodiy injuries, only actions do.
lol, not good enough.
The Supreme Court and Congress also disagrees with this stance:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072
I disregard their opinion, and I live in complete absence of their decision. I have no regard for restriction and I will provide material support to everyone that goes against it.