Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it time to change ? Would the authors write it this day and age?
When this was written there was no semi automatic,automatic, assualt rifles. They did not know of mental cases and stress of modern day life.
Guns are designed to kill so are swords.. Only knives are designed for cutting vegetables.
I know we just use some tragedy to beat up pro and anti gun rights people. But isn't it time to talk?
Yeah. And there was no Internet, TV, satellites, cell phones and such. Would they write the First Amendment the same today? Is it time to change? I'm all for free speech, but isn't it time to talk?
Yeah. And there was no Internet, TV, satellites, cell phones and such. Would they write the First Amendment the same today? Is it time to change? I'm all for free speech, but isn't it time to talk?
Free speech is regulated. You may be charged and found guilty of murder by using your "free speech" to talk someone into murdering for you. So to should guns be regulated when they can be used for murder. See the similarities?
Is it time to change ? Would the authors write it this day and age?
Considering the entire purpose for the 2nd Amendment went out the window long ago; to preempt the need for a standing professional army. I don't see why not.
It is hilariously self-contradictory statements like this that show you just how warped and confused the anti-fundamental-rights people are.
Quote:
You may be charged and found guilty of murder by using your "free speech" to talk someone into murdering for you.
You are not guilty of speaking freely in such a case. You are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. You may be put in jail as a result of your conspiracy. But you will not be put in jail for speaking freely.
Or are you going to tell us next, that you are also guilty of walking, because you stepped up to the guy to talk him into murdering someone?
Quote:
So to should guns be regulated when they can be used for murder.
Did the judge somehow regulate your voice after he found you guilty of conspiracy to murder? Did he restrict your walking after he found you had walked up to the guy to talk him into it? Did he restrict the way you breathe, after he found you had been breathing as you talked the guy into doing the murder?
Quote:
See the similarities?
See the stupidity of making irrelevant, nonsense comparisons?
The ruling of the Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment encompasses an individual right can only be construed as a "liberal" interpretation. Certainly, it is not a "conservative" view by any judicial standard. Consider this quote from former Chief Justice Warren Burger, who was probably the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court for the last 50 years:
"If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment... This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud', on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."
- Warren Burger, Parade Magazine (January 14, 1990).
And, how about this statement by Circuit Judge Robert Bork, renowned constitutional scholar and foremost exponent of "originalism" in its interpretation:
"[The] National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is the people's right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that's not the original understanding."
- Robert H. Bork, Distinguished Lecture Series, UC Irvine, (March14, 1989).
As for Justice Scalia’s opinion in Heller, it could hardly be an "originalist" interpretation, witness the judicial gymnastics he did to bend and stretch the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia is a brilliant jurist; but he tends to be result oriented. (He determines the result, and then finds authority to support it; and if there is no authority, he invents it.)
It is hilariously self-contradictory statements like this that show you just how warped and confused the anti-fundamental-rights people are.
You are not guilty of speaking freely in such a case. You are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. You may be put in jail as a result of your conspiracy. But you will not be put in jail for speaking freely.
Or are you going to tell us next, that you are also guilty of walking, because you stepped up to the guy to talk him into murdering someone?
Did the judge somehow regulate your voice after he found you guilty of conspiracy to murder? Did he restrict your walking after he found you had walked up to the guy to talk him into it? Did he restrict the way you breathe, after he found you had been breathing as you talked the guy into doing the murder?
See the stupidity of making irrelevant, nonsense comparisons?
No but I see the stupidity of your post. When you are regulating what can and can't be said you are regulating free speech. You do not have the right to say anything you want in all situations. Did I make it easier for you to understand.
So too are there constitutional regulations on the right to own firearms. It is certainly constitutional to regulate and make criminal the ability of felons to own firearms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
