Should the 1st amendment be changed sinse it was written when news was delivered on horseback? (weapons, free speech) - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum

alphamale · 12-04-2012, 04:32 AM

For those who say that the 2nd amendment is antiquated because of the weaponry of the day.

Should the 1st be held to the same standard?

After all, the founders couldn't have seen a day when the written word could be sent around the earth in seconds.

Chava61 · 12-04-2012, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alphamale

For those who say that the 2nd amendment is antiquated because of the weaponry of the day.

Should the 1st be held to the same standard?

After all, the founders couldn't have seen a day when the written word could be sent around the earth in seconds.

The 1st amendment is still relevant today whereas the 2nd amendment needs to be reviewed.

MTAtech · 12-04-2012, 05:09 AM

Your thread is a stretch. There is nothing obsolete in the 1st Amendment since Courts have included electronic news as part of "the press."

On the other hand, courts have never included machine guns and bazookas as part of protected "firearms."

monkeywrenching · 12-04-2012, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chava61

The 1st amendment is still relevant today whereas the 2nd amendment needs to be reviewed.

really? the 2nd Amendment protects the right to free speech. take away the 2nd Amendment and you will lose the rest of your rights.

hawkeye2009 · 12-04-2012, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chava61

The 1st amendment is still relevant today whereas the 2nd amendment needs to be reviewed.

I agree. We, as citizens, should have the ability to purchase ANY weapons we want, or can afford, short of WMDs.

I have a half track with a belt fed machine gun (semi auto with crank) mounted on it, but would really like a functional tank and some mortars to play around with. Where in the constitution does it say that I should not be able to have a tank and some mortars?

shiftymh · 12-04-2012, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chava61

The 1st amendment is still relevant today whereas the 2nd amendment needs to be reviewed.

It's been reviewed and you don't have anywhere near enough support to repeal it. Tough.

BentBow · 12-04-2012, 07:11 AM

About the mid 1800's the government of this country changed its tone, from protecting our individual liberty, to controlling our freedoms. Making laws against the people on the Federal level. Before that, it was laws on the states, to protect its citizens liberty, under the Constitution.

btsilver · 12-04-2012, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

I agree. We, as citizens, should have the ability to purchase ANY weapons we want, or can afford, short of WMDs.

I have a half track with a belt fed machine gun (semi auto with crank) mounted on it, but would really like a functional tank and some mortars to play around with. Where in the constitution does it say that I should not be able to have a tank and some mortars?

Why stop at WMDs?

BentBow · 12-04-2012, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by btsilver

Why stop at WMDs?

That is sole an offensive weapon. Not for defense

OICU812 · 12-04-2012, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

I agree. We, as citizens, should have the ability to purchase ANY weapons we want, or can afford, short of WMDs.

I have a half track with a belt fed machine gun (semi auto with crank) mounted on it, but would really like a functional tank and some mortars to play around with. Where in the constitution does it say that I should not be able to have a tank and some mortars?

They had, cannons, trebuchet, and 500 lb mortars back in the day the Bill of Rights was written too.