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.
Some seem to have decided that the 4th Amendment isn't worth the parchment it was written on, but that the 2nd enshrines the end all be all of human rights.
Irrelevant, of course. The Constitution takes none of those things into account when declaring what rights it protects, and its protection is not affected by any of them.
Anyone else?
Why can we violate one constitutional right when we can't violate another?
The constitution gives the right of citizens to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. The SCOTUS interpreted that to mean a lack of regulation for all privately owned guns....concealed or openly carried. I believe that was in error and will be over-turned eventually.
Even the right to free speech is limited...e.g. calling fire in a crowded theater.
Not allowing every nut-job who purchases a gun without a background check, to carry that gun into some places (i.e.. a Federal Bldg), in my opinion, is a reasonable limitation. I believe that schools, polling places, daycare centers and airports and churches are other places, where guns should be limited. The retired police officer who shot and killed the man sitting with his wife in a movie theater, is another example of why we need some limitations. The laws against libel and slander are other examples of regulations that limit a Constitutional Right.
Some seem to have decided that the 4th Amendment isn't worth the parchment it was written on, but that the 2nd enshrines the end all be all of human rights.
And (as is the topic of this thread) some seem to have decided the 2nd amendment isn't worth the parchment, while the 14th is.
In both cases, the "isn't worth" part is obviously wrong.
Anyone want to comment on the topic of this thread? Or is distraction and diversion from it, the game of the day?
The constitution gives the right of citizens to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. The SCOTUS interpreted that to mean a lack of regulation for all privately owned guns....concealed or openly carried. I believe that was in error and will be over-turned eventually.
Even the right to free speech is limited...e.g. calling fire in a crowded theater.
Not allowing every nut-job who purchases a gun without a background check, to carry that gun into some places (i.e.. a Federal Bldg), in my opinion, is a reasonable limitation. I believe that schools, polling places, daycare centers and airports and churches are other places, where guns should be limited. The retired police officer who shot and killed the man sitting with his wife in a movie theater, is another example of why we need some limitations. The laws against libel and slander are other examples of regulations that limit a Constitutional Right.
What group do I have to belong to before I can exercise my right of free speech?
I thought the presumption was innocence until proven guilty.
The point of the thread is, of course, that ubanning a law-abiding citizen from carrying a gun in a Federal building, is constitutionally no different from telling a black person he can't go into the Federal building because he is black.
The Constitution forbids either act, to an equal degree, and with equal force of law.
So why are liberals fine with one act and not fine with the other?
So it is ok to yell fire or bomb in a theater or large crowed building?
The 14th amendment says that no government can deny the privileges or immunities of any citizen due to skin color, ethnicity etc., all citizens must get equal treatment.
Imagine if a Federal building put up a sign in a hallway saying, "No black people allowed past this point". The outrage would be immediate and overwhelming, for obvious reasons: Not only is it hugely insulting and detrimental to blacks who don't deserve such treatment, but it is a flagrant violation of the 14th amendment. The Fed govt's job is to uphold and obey that (and all other) amendments, not to violate it.
Now imagine if a Federal building put up a sign that said, "No guns allowed past this point". That is just as much a violation of a Constitutional right, as the other sign would be. And law-abiding American citizens who would like to carry a gun (as the Constitution explicitly permits), have done nothing to deserve being treated like second-class citizens this way. Yet many Federal buildings have exactly such a sign, and they even try to enforce it.
We certainly can't put the first sign (about black people) in a Federal building. Why can we put the second (about law-abiding people carrying guns)?
If the purpose of having arms is to support a "well regulated militia" as the Constitution says - why do you think the right to bear arms can't have regulations? If we are a militia, then the Constitution says it can be "well regulated."
So restricting the ability to carry arms in certain places is valid.
The 14th amendment says that no government can deny the privileges or immunities of any citizen due to skin color, ethnicity etc., all citizens must get equal treatment.
Imagine if a Federal building put up a sign in a hallway saying, "No black people allowed past this point". The outrage would be immediate and overwhelming, for obvious reasons: Not only is it hugely insulting and detrimental to blacks who don't deserve such treatment, but it is a flagrant violation of the 14th amendment. The Fed govt's job is to uphold and obey that (and all other) amendments, not to violate it.
Now imagine if a Federal building put up a sign that said, "No guns allowed past this point". That is just as much a violation of a Constitutional right, as the other sign would be. And law-abiding American citizens who would like to carry a gun (as the Constitution explicitly permits), have done nothing to deserve being treated like second-class citizens this way. Yet many Federal buildings have exactly such a sign, and they even try to enforce it.
We certainly can't put the first sign (about black people) in a Federal building. Why can we put the second (about law-abiding people carrying guns)?
If the purpose of having arms is to support a "well regulated militia"
It isn't.
This tripe has been debunked in this forum, more times than I can count. Go do your homework and get back.
The Supreme Court has so far not ruled that the right to bear arms is unrestricted. That matters much more than what anyone on C-D says.
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.
