U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-28-2013, 08:46 AM
 
9,243 posts, read 7,358,804 times
Reputation: 2200

Advertisements

Al Sharpton The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect amendments 1-12.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-28-2013, 10:20 AM
 
3,008 posts, read 4,325,968 times
Reputation: 1524
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
Al Sharpton The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect amendments 1-12.
In a backhanded way, Sharpton is indeed correct. Our rights are not absolute, which is one thing people tend to not understand, esp. 2nd amendment rights people. The 1st and 2nd amendment tend to be the least understood.

We do not have the right to say anything we want without repercussions. You call your boss an a-hole, expect to be fired. Why, because the first amendment only deals with the government and not everyday life so those actions have consequences which are not protected by the 1st amendment.

While the courts has long stood by the right for the individual to bear arms, it has been noted that governing bodies do in fact have the right to limit those types of arms, and ammo isn't even covered under the constitution. It makes no mention of ammo and ammo is not what we deem "arms."

just like all of our rights, they are granted until they infringe upon the rights of someone else. Meaning a right to carry state like Indiana, John visits steve at his home and has his gun holstered. Steve tells John not to bring said gun on his property, John cannot invoke the 2nd amendment and try to decide to do as he pleases because as owner of said property, it is steve's right to not have any type of weapon on his property so Steve tells john, leave the gun or get stay off my property without any legal recourse from John as he wouldn't have any to fall back on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 10:28 AM
 
Location: in my imagination
11,392 posts, read 18,598,208 times
Reputation: 7933
Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter View Post
.

We do not have the right to say anything we want without repercussions..

ok. A few criminals misuse guns, the anti's propose banning them for all. A few use their facebook and iphone to bully people into suicide, so maybe we should ban face book and texting for all?

The anti's say liminiting rounds and registration is "common sense" if it saves lives. So how about banning more than 10 texts a month and government licensing and registering for facebook if it saves lives?

'But my iphone and facebook is not a weapon" you say? So what? It still is being used as a weapon by some.

Maybe we should register and license Sharpton to make sure he passes a background check on safe speech?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 10:45 AM
 
18,798 posts, read 9,614,866 times
Reputation: 5279
Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter View Post
In a backhanded way, Sharpton is indeed correct. Our rights are not absolute, which is one thing people tend to not understand, esp. 2nd amendment rights people. The 1st and 2nd amendment tend to be the least understood.

We do not have the right to say anything we want without repercussions. You call your boss an a-hole, expect to be fired. Why, because the first amendment only deals with the government and not everyday life so those actions have consequences which are not protected by the 1st amendment.

While the courts has long stood by the right for the individual to bear arms, it has been noted that governing bodies do in fact have the right to limit those types of arms, and ammo isn't even covered under the constitution. It makes no mention of ammo and ammo is not what we deem "arms."

just like all of our rights, they are granted until they infringe upon the rights of someone else. Meaning a right to carry state like Indiana, John visits steve at his home and has his gun holstered. Steve tells John not to bring said gun on his property, John cannot invoke the 2nd amendment and try to decide to do as he pleases because as owner of said property, it is steve's right to not have any type of weapon on his property so Steve tells john, leave the gun or get stay off my property without any legal recourse from John as he wouldn't have any to fall back on.
We already have repercussion. There have already been laws on the book for anybody who commit crimes with firearms.

The correct analogy for the current gun ban is because someone said some bad things on Facebook, we need to ban Facebook.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 02:01 PM
 
9,088 posts, read 5,607,909 times
Reputation: 3835
Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter View Post
In a backhanded way, Sharpton is indeed correct. Our rights are not absolute, which is one thing people tend to not understand, esp. 2nd amendment rights people. The 1st and 2nd amendment tend to be the least understood.

We do not have the right to say anything we want without repercussions. You call your boss an a-hole, expect to be fired. Why, because the first amendment only deals with the government and not everyday life so those actions have consequences which are not protected by the 1st amendment.
Baloney ... Sharpton is a first class fraud, and out to be working in a warehouse sweeping floors. Furthermore, there is no law that says you cannot call your boss a disparaging name ... it's up to you as to whether you are stupid enough to do such a thing. It's your choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter View Post
While the courts has long stood by the right for the individual to bear arms, it has been noted that governing bodies do in fact have the right to limit those types of arms, and ammo isn't even covered under the constitution. It makes no mention of ammo and ammo is not what we deem "arms."
We have political appointees violating the constitution .. that's all that is ... and it's made possibly by a feloniously ignorant populace that lets them get away with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter View Post
just like all of our rights, they are granted until they infringe upon the rights of someone else. Meaning a right to carry state like Indiana, John visits steve at his home and has his gun holstered. Steve tells John not to bring said gun on his property, John cannot invoke the 2nd amendment and try to decide to do as he pleases because as owner of said property, it is steve's right to not have any type of weapon on his property so Steve tells john, leave the gun or get stay off my property without any legal recourse from John as he wouldn't have any to fall back on.
The same is true in reverse ..... the property owner has the right to have guns on his property, regardless of what some criminal Kenyan thinks about it, according to the constitution.

This is why the founding fathers thought that there should be limits on who is allowed to vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
22,882 posts, read 16,258,735 times
Reputation: 12795
Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter View Post
In a backhanded way, Sharpton is indeed correct. Our rights are not absolute, which is one thing people tend to not understand, esp. 2nd amendment rights people. The 1st and 2nd amendment tend to be the least understood.

We do not have the right to say anything we want without repercussions. You call your boss an a-hole, expect to be fired. Why, because the first amendment only deals with the government and not everyday life so those actions have consequences which are not protected by the 1st amendment.

While the courts has long stood by the right for the individual to bear arms, it has been noted that governing bodies do in fact have the right to limit those types of arms, and ammo isn't even covered under the constitution. It makes no mention of ammo and ammo is not what we deem "arms."

just like all of our rights, they are granted until they infringe upon the rights of someone else. Meaning a right to carry state like Indiana, John visits steve at his home and has his gun holstered. Steve tells John not to bring said gun on his property, John cannot invoke the 2nd amendment and try to decide to do as he pleases because as owner of said property, it is steve's right to not have any type of weapon on his property so Steve tells john, leave the gun or get stay off my property without any legal recourse from John as he wouldn't have any to fall back on.

^^This.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 02:17 PM
 
1,748 posts, read 1,025,896 times
Reputation: 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
Al Sharpton The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect amendments 1-12.

if that's the case than the 2nd amendment has failed otherwise how did we get the patriot act/ndaa ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 02:35 PM
 
3,008 posts, read 4,325,968 times
Reputation: 1524
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Baloney ... Sharpton is a first class fraud, and out to be working in a warehouse sweeping floors. Furthermore, there is no law that says you cannot call your boss a disparaging name ... it's up to you as to whether you are stupid enough to do such a thing. It's your choice.



We have political appointees violating the constitution .. that's all that is ... and it's made possibly by a feloniously ignorant populace that lets them get away with it.



The same is true in reverse ..... the property owner has the right to have guns on his property, regardless of what some criminal Kenyan thinks about it, according to the constitution.

This is why the founding fathers thought that there should be limits on who is allowed to vote.
First and foremost, no one said there was a law against calling your boss an A-Hole. WHAT I SAID, was that the person doing so cannot hide behind the 1st amendment because it doesn't apply. The first amendment only deals with regards to the government.

Something tells me those political appointees known as justices have probably forgotten more than you'll ever know.

Wow, so now the president is a criminal? When was he convicted and for what? He's a Kenyan, well that has been disproved 8 billion times over and it's up to the Judicial branch of government to interpret the constitution.

True the same can be made in reverse. I just used that as what people call an example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 02:47 PM
 
14,298 posts, read 8,105,288 times
Reputation: 4247
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
Al Sharpton The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect amendments 1-12.
Translation: Sharpton thinks we have "living and breathing" rights, and the federal government should dictate our rights to us as the politicians and bureaucrats, the ruling elite, see fit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Just East of the Southern Portion of the Western Part of PA
1,237 posts, read 3,217,999 times
Reputation: 1451
Another idiot telling me what I "need" and don't "need". I am exercising my rights, and he wishes to take them away. Should not the burden of proof be on Mr. Sharpton to prove that such a magazine restriction would actually reduce crime? State facts, make a case?

Nope, instead just a lecture on what I "need" and who would "need" this or "need" that. Why would anyone "need" those things? Pathetic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top