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.
To put restrictions on the 1st amendment that are the equivalent of those commonly put illegally on the 2nd:
1.) Government would have to restrict the ownership of pens, paper, computers, printers, and printing presses to people it has examined and found they have not said anything it considers unacceptable, at any time in their past lives.
2.) People who want to publish a political tract, would have to wait a week, ten days, or possibly a month after the last time they published one.
3.) Posting a message on the Internet, which can cause the message to be reproduced dozens of times (or more) simultaneously on many people's systems, would be prohibited by the government, except for people who have submitted multiple copies of their fingerprints to law enforcement, gotten vouchers of their character from local law enforcement agencies, and have paid the government $200 for every such message they post.
......and a lot more.
The leftist gun-grabbers barely start to realize just how many government restrictions they have put on a right the Constitution says they can't put ANY government restrictions on.
Those are EXACTLY the type of weapons the founders envisioned citizens being able to own when they wrote the Constitution. How do I know this? It's simple to figure out really. Ask yourself, what was the intent of the second amendment? Why did the founders see it important enough to include in the Constitution?
The founders wanted ordinary citizens to be able to defend their lives, liberty, and country from any enemy if necessary. Put another way, the founders intended for people to have the same weapons as those from whom they might need to defend themselves from.
So if defense was the intent, does it make sense to conclude that the Founders intended for people to have inferior weapons to those that their attackers might have? Did they want the enemy to have better weapons than We The People?
I think if you're being intellectualy honest, you'll find that the answer is NO.
Well for one, the supreme court has decided that it is to end with commonly owned weapons. Since neither bazookas nor nuclear warheads are commonly owned, I would imagine they aren't protected. Not only that, but a nuclear warhead would be counter productive to the defense of life, liberty, and country. It is capable of killing millions, including the person who sets it off. It would be capable of destroying the very country that you are trying to defend. Nice straw man though.
You could, but I doubt it would be very productive seeing as you obviously have no idea what the term meant in the context of the time period in which it was written. Maybe try learning what "well-regulated" meant in that time period and then come back and talk to me.
I believe he called you a leftist. If you see that as a personal attack, that really says a lot.
{ Although, if someone accused me of being a left leaning Liberal I'd be offended too! }
It was simple back then and the constitution reflected that. Our founders had no idea what the future held though. Who exactly do you consider an enemy because many have been gunned down without having a weapon. It was only our perception that they did.
It was simple back then and the constitution reflected that. Our founders had no idea what the future held though.
I am sure the founders had a reasonable expectation of change and advancement and I would even argue that that is why they were so broad in their careful wording of the 2A. That may be why they just said "arms" instead of "muskets" or any other specific terms. They knew the definition of what an "arm" is would change and evolve over time.
In the same vein, they did expect the needs of the country to change as well. Someone who might argue that it was simpler then and we no longer have a need for the 2A has an avenue to persue. That is why the founders allowed for a way to amend the Constitution. Anyone who thinks any part of the document is no longer significant is free to petition the government to amend it.
Quote:
Who exactly do you consider an enemy because many have been gunned down without having a weapon. It was only our perception that they did.
That's a whole nother magilla isn't it? I assume you're referring to cases like Trayvon Martin etc. I have no desire to debate the merits of those type of incidents on this thread.
Who do I consider an enemy? Anyone or any group who threatens life, liberty, or country.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 04-26-2014 at 11:31 PM..
I am sure the founders had a reasonable expectation of change and advancement. That may be why they just said "arms" instead of "muskets" or any other specific terms.
In the same vein, they did expect the needs of the country to change as well. Someone who might argue that it was simpler then and we no longer have a need for the 2A has an avenue to persue. That is why the founders allowed for a way to amend the Constitution. Anyone who thinks any part of the document is no longer significant is free to petition the government to amend it.
That's a whole nother magilla isn't it? I assume you're referring to cases like Trayvon Martin etc. I have no desire to debate the merits of those type of incidents on this thread.
Who do I consider an enemy? Anyone who threatens life, liberty, or country.
Really, I disagree. How could anyone know what our world would be like now. They were not fortune tellers. Actually, he didn't even enter my mind.
Really, I disagree. How could anyone know what our world would be like now. They were not fortune tellers.
I imagine they would be shocked to see the world like it is now. None the less, they expected change and evolution. Whether they would have done things differently if they could have envisioned todays world is an unknowable thing.
{ I had a longer post up earlier but edited to make it shorter.... just so you know natalie. Don't want you to think I'm trying to pull a fast one }
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 04-27-2014 at 12:16 AM..
Those are EXACTLY the type of weapons the founders envisioned citizens being able to own when they wrote the Constitution. How do I know this? It's simple to figure out really. Ask yourself, what was the intent of the second amendment? Why did the founders see it important enough to include in the Constitution?
The founders wanted ordinary citizens to be able to defend their lives, liberty, and country from any enemy if necessary. Put another way, the founders intended for people to have the same weapons as those from whom they might need to defend themselves from.
So if defense was the intent, does it make sense to conclude that the Founders intended for people to have inferior weapons to those that their attackers might have? Did they want the attacker to have better weapons than the people being attacked?
I think if you're being intellectualy honest, you'll find that the answer is NO.
Well for one, the supreme court has decided that it is to end with commonly owned weapons. Since neither bazookas nor nuclear warheads are commonly owned, I would imagine they aren't protected. Not only that, but a nuclear warhead would be counter productive to the defense of life, liberty, and country, and therefore it would be counter productive to what the founders intended when they included the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. It is capable of killing millions, including the person who sets it off. It would be capable of destroying the very country that you are trying to defend. Nice straw man though.
You could, but I doubt it would be very productive seeing as you obviously have no idea what the term meant in the context of the time period in which it was written. Maybe try learning what "well-regulated" meant in that time period and then come back and talk to me.
I believe he called you a leftist. If you see that as a personal attack, that really says a lot.
{ Although, if someone accused me of being a left leaning Liberal I'd be offended too! }
You are right that me discussing a "well regulated" wouldn't be productive because you seem have already made up your mind and really don't want to hear the other side out. And I am offended that you ASSUME that I do not know what "well regulated" meant back in the 18th century.
And I wasn't offended by being called a left leaning Liberal. I was offended that it seems to be ok to attack a left leaning Liberal.
Well, I'll repeat it for you. No right is unfettered and absolute.
All Rights are absolute.
If it is not absolute, then by definition it cannot be a Right. Rights are also free.....meaning it costs the rest of the world exactly $0.
Rights are innate and inherent to "being" -- they are a function of your existence.
I exist; therefore: I may praise or criticize any government at any time for any reason or for no reason at all, or I may choose to say nothing at all.
I exist; therefore: I may defend myself, my property and others from loss, theft, damage, harm, injury or death, if I so choose to do so.
If it is not absolute, then by definition it cannot be a Right. Rights are also free.....meaning it costs the rest of the world exactly $0.
Rights are innate and inherent to "being" -- they are a function of your existence.
I exist; therefore: I may praise or criticize any government at any time for any reason or for no reason at all, or I may choose to say nothing at all.
I exist; therefore: I may defend myself, my property and others from loss, theft, damage, harm, injury or death, if I so choose to do so.
Those Rights are Absolute, and they cost nothing.
Sucks to be people who don't see it that way.
Absolutely....
Mircea
There are limits on the First Amendment. There are so many exceptions. "Fighting words," "deformation" & "invasion of privacy" are all limits to the First Amendment. There is child pornography which is also an exception to the First Amendment (and rightly so.) The list goes on.
I don't disagree. Like I always say, when we are determining what a "reasonable" restriction is, we have to look at intent. When the founders wrote the first amendment, did they intend for people to be able to incite a panic with their speech? No. Did they intend to give companies the ability to make false claims about a product and mislead consumers? No. Therefore, those are all reasonable restrictions on the first amendment. What they DID intend, was for a free exchange of productuive thoughts and ideas without fear of retaliation from the government. Anything that impedes that free exchange would be an unreasonable restriction.
The question is, who's trolling? The same individuals who constantly start threads with the same old gun rights, bumper sticker, sloganeering or the people who respond to these threads with responses that more reflect the desires of society concerning gun rights and reasonable restrictions?
I think you consider trolling to be anybody who doesn't worship at the feet of you kitchen table constitutionalists obsessed with the 2nd amendment.
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.
}
