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.
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
I understand what you are saying. A good example is concealed carry. For years, many states had a phrase in their gun laws that said "May issue" rather than "Shall issue". May issue signified a CCW as a privilege issued by the state. Whereas "Shall issue" signifies a right of the people to CCW. In one case the citizen must show cause why they need a CCW but in the other, the state must show cause in denying the right of CCW.
But there is a flaw in the gun rights absolutist's logic.
Speaking of the 1st amendment, the right of the people is supposed to be absolute. But they cannot use free speech to incite violence, create panic, slander somebody, commit fraud and other transgressions that are widely accepted as being an abuse of the 1st amendment "absolute right". So in essence, the 1st amendment right is NOT an absolute right. It is subject to reasonable restrictions.
Regarding the 2nd, the ink wasn't even dry on the document when the ability of the property owner or business owner trumped the "Absolute right" of the gun carrier to defend himself in all circumstances. An individual has no "Absolute right" to own and run a business. It is something they work for and earn. A citizen does not have an "Absolute right" to own property and the majority of early Americans didn't. But once a citizen owned property, they had the right to disarm any and all individuals from entering their property, thereby removing the individuals "Absolute right" of personal self defense while remaining armed themselves.
So in the end, that dirty little phrase, "Reasonable Restrictions", that gun rights, constitutional absolutists abhor, comes back around to haunt them in every argument concerning the 2nd.
Every right, whether Absolute or implied is subject to reasonable restrictions determined by the people, through duly elected legislators and confirmed or denied constitutional by the court system.
The only question in the debate is whether a restriction is reasonable or not. There is no question that reasonable restrictions exist on 'Absolute rights", as they do now and always have since the BOR was written.
Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."
A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.
I ask you, is Wichita, Kansas in 1873 and a plethora of other Western cow towns who were disarming the transient cowboy, a reasonable restriction? There is no question that the citizens of Wichita did not consider the right to bear arms an "Absolute Right" that shall not be infringed.
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....
How do you reconcile that absolute right with the fact that black people were not allowed to bear arms? If absolute rights are innate and inherent to being -- literally a function of your existence -- how could they be denied guns under the Second Amendment?
The Second Amendment doesn't say they couldn't own firearms, yet they were banned from owning or even possessing them.
And if they can own them now, when and how did the Second Amendment change? As far as I can tell it reads exactly the same way that it did in 1789.
"California's "open carry" right was repealed effective January 1, 2012. This is the date on which California Assembly Bill 144 went into effect as Penal Code 26350.2
Thanks to Penal Code 26350, the open carrying of both loaded and unloaded handguns in public is now illegal.3"
This thread is NOT about "should first and second amendment right be 100% unconditional"
This thread is about "When it comes to first and second amendment right, there are double standards."
Example,
Burning American flag is legal, even though playing fire is NEVER safe. It is protected by first amendment right.
Carrying unloaded gun in California is illegal although carrying unloaded gun is completely safe and cause absolutely no danger to the public. The right was repealed effective Jan 1st, 2012. So the 2rd amendment right is subject to change without notice.
Double standard
For any of you who said there are no double standards when it comes to first and second amendment right.
let me know if the above example is double standard. Meaning: 2rd amendment right has way more restrictions and regulations compare to 1st amendment right I asked this questions NUMBEROUS times on this thread. I haven't received ONE single answer.
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.
"Hear the other side out"??? I am more than willing to consider your argument, but thus far, you haven't provided one. All you have done is espoused a few talking points and phrases without actually explaining how you think they apply to the argument.
For instance, you said something along the lines of ....
"I can go on about how many people ignore the well-regulated militia part of the amendment"
..... and you didn't expand any further on how you think that phrase applies to the Right itself. That's not an argument, it's just throwing a bunch of talking points out and hoping one sticks.
Quote:
And I am offended that you ASSUME that I do not know what "well regulated" meant back in the 18th century.
Well, I don't think you do know what it meant. You seem to think that being in a "well-regulated militia" was intended to be a qualifier for the 2A Right. Either that, or you seem to think that the founders wanted the government to be able to "regulate" people in to having inferior and less powerful weapons than their attackers. Either way, both are wrong.
Instead of me having to assume what you are thinking, how about you explain to me how you think that phrase applies to 2A Rights and then we can have a discussion?
How do you reconcile that absolute right with the fact that black people were not allowed to bear arms? If absolute rights are innate and inherent to being -- literally a function of your existence -- how could they be denied guns under the Second Amendment?
The Second Amendment doesn't say they couldn't own firearms, yet they were banned from owning or even possessing them.
And if they can own them now, when and how did the Second Amendment change? As far as I can tell it reads exactly the same way that it did in 1789.
Fun Fact:
Most gun control laws were put in to place specificaly to keep black people from owning guns.
*****
To answer your question, our interpretation of the second amendment never changed, however, our interpretation of what a "person" is, did. Blacks weren't considered people and thus, had no rights.
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.
Cat
Right, and none of those limitations go against the grain of what the founders intended with the first amendment, and that is why there is very little objection to those limitations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Please don't feed the trolls.
I don't post for the trolls, I post for the lurkers who might be silently following this argument.
I
Regarding the 2nd, the ink wasn't even dry on the document when the ability of the property owner or business owner trumped the "Absolute right" of the gun carrier to defend himself in all circumstances. An individual has no "Absolute right" to own and run a business. It is something they work for and earn. A citizen does not have an "Absolute right" to own property and the majority of early Americans didn't. But once a citizen owned property, they had the right to disarm any and all individuals from entering their property, thereby removing the individuals "Absolute right" of personal self defense while remaining armed themselves.
So in the end, that dirty little phrase, "Reasonable Restrictions", that gun rights, constitutional absolutists abhor, comes back around to haunt them in every argument concerning the 2nd.
Every right, whether Absolute or implied is subject to reasonable restrictions determined by the people, through duly elected legislators and confirmed or denied constitutional by the court system.
The only question in the debate is whether a restriction is reasonable or not. There is no question that reasonable restrictions exist on 'Absolute rights", as they do now and always have since the BOR was written.
Me barring someone from carrying a gun on my property does not qualify as a "restriction" on the 2A Right. When you are on private property, you never had those Rights to begin with on private property.
Quote:
I ask you, is Wichita, Kansas in 1873 and a plethora of other Western cow towns who were disarming the transient cowboy, a reasonable restriction?
Not really, because you know full well the bandits and outlaws didn't turn in their weapons.
Me barring someone from carrying a gun on my property does not qualify as a "restriction" on the 2A Right. When you are on private property, you never had those Rights to begin with on private property.
Not really, because you know full well the bandits and outlaws didn't turn in their weapons.
So you acknowledge that the 2nd amendment right is not an "Absolute right"?
Where does it say in the 2nd that shall not be infringed, except on private property or in a place of business? Those were restrictions placed after the fact or they would have been included in the original document.
Perhaps you could show me somewhere in the constitution where the rights of the property owner and business owner is mentioned as superseding all rights guaranteed to the citizen by the BOR and was implied in the 2nd..
"Hear the other side out"??? I am more than willing to consider your argument, but thus far, you haven't provided one. All you have done is espoused a few talking points and phrases without actually explaining how you think they apply to the argument.
For instance, you said something along the lines of ....
"I can go on about how many people ignore the well-regulated militia part of the amendment"
..... and you didn't expand any further on how you think that phrase applies to the Right itself. That's not an argument, it's just throwing a bunch of talking points out and hoping one sticks.
Well, I don't think you do know what it meant. You seem to think that being in a "well-regulated militia" was intended to be a qualifier for the 2A Right. Either that, or you seem to think that the founders wanted the government to be able to "regulate" people in to having inferior and less powerful weapons than their attackers. Either way, both are wrong.
Instead of me having to assume what you are thinking, how about you explain to me how you think that phrase applies to 2A Rights and then we can have a discussion?
Ok, you want a History lesson-here it is. Back in the 18th Century, militias were made up of ordinary men. Most able-bodied men were part of these militias that were used to protect their villages from raiders and they were basically the army since the U.S. didn't have a standing army until 1791. Even then it was very small. There was also a distrust of standing armies. Those men had the responsibility to possess their arms-unlike the National Guard today. The men & women in the NG today use government issued weapons and do not supply their own as they had to back in the 18th Century. They also had the responsibility to attend drill practice, which usually was on the Village Green.
The Second Amendment was established to allow these militias to continue rather than having a standing army. I sincerely don't think that the Founding Fathers meant for it to be used to allow people to have ammo that shoots 100 bullets a minute.
Most gun control laws were put in to place specificaly to keep black people from owning guns.
*****
To answer your question, our interpretation of the second amendment never changed, however, our interpretation of what a "person" is, did. Blacks weren't considered people and thus, had no rights.
It's more a case of the Second Amendment being interpreted to exclude certain folks.
It was pretty obvious that blacks are in fact people, and indeed there were about 60,000 free blacks at the time the Second Amendment was enacted. That was more than the population of New Jersey, South Carolina, Georgia, Vermont and several other states.
However, it was widely feared that if black people were armed they would resist being held as slaves. So they were "read out" of the Second Amendment by implication, although there's no language saying it doesn't apply to them.
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.
