A quick thought on the first two amendments...

BattleRifleG3 · 03-24-2006, 08:46 PM

We often make the comparison that the first amendment is construed as an entirely individual right, as it has been held in court in all cases except presenting a clear and present danger, ie inciting a riot, crying fire in a movie theatre, etc. Meanwhile the supreme court has not so often ruled in favor of a second amendment defense.

That's a little ironic. The First amendment begins with the words "Congress shall make no law..." It refers to the federal legislature. Under the exact wording, curtailing free speech and religion and all that is still in the power of the states and any legitimate executive powers. Now I'm with the court on this one, construing it to guarantee a right to free speech uninfringeable by lower levels of government.

Yet the second amendment doesn't mention any specific governing body, only that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period. Yet states restrict responsible gun ownership with no federal challenge.

This isn't some fringe opinion. It's plain English, and not even the kind you need a historian to explain.

Just one more observation on how real our individual right is and how hypocritical are those who oppose it.

Ctwo · 03-24-2006, 11:13 PM

There are those that believe in the constitution and those that do not. What is hypocritical about that? The only thing hypocritical is the people allowing the sham to continue. But then, we are no longer a nation of "Americans."

BattleRifleG3 · 03-25-2006, 07:47 AM

The Constitution is the law. If you don't think so, see my other recent post of the constitution.

SPOCAHP ANAR · 03-25-2006, 08:06 AM

BRG3; The second only says "shall not be infringed" It doesn't mention any state or federal government. I have read before that the reason the second is so poorly defined when compared to other Amendments is that there was a lot of debate and conflicitng views over this issue. What you see is what got passed. Don't know the validity of it, but would explain alot of the poor wording. However I can't see how the 1st congress could pass such a poorly worded Amendment after the revolutionary war?

While we are looking at amendments lets review the 4th.
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I would argue that while cars weren't in use at the time this was written, this would apply to the use of wagons and other means of transportation. Would your driver's license not in effect be the same as your papers?

Rave · 03-25-2006, 08:36 AM

Ya' give the gummint an inch they take a mile,and your lack of arms makes it easier,goes on every day all over the world,ya' know the gummint hates the constitution,especially the second ammendment,that's why they are working so hard to side step/destroy it.:guitar: :nod:

Ctwo · 03-27-2006, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BattleRifleG3

The Constitution is the law. If you don't think so, see my other recent post of the constitution.

It is also illegal to enter, or be in, this country illegally. See how well that law is working?

We have a lot of laws, and like most of the laws, the constitution falls into the same light of being sparsley supported.

Beer Forever · 03-27-2006, 04:53 PM

preaching to the choir

BattleRifleG3 · 03-27-2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPOCAHP ANAR

[color="blue"]BRG3; The second only says "shall not be infringed" It doesn't mention any state or federal government.

That's my point. It applies to all levels of government.

I know I'm preaching to the choir. My intention was to help you look at it in a way that would help you defend it in whatever opportunities you have to do so.

Ctwo · 03-27-2006, 08:52 PM

And opportunities those are?

I can't help seeing the "powers to be" sell us down the river...

...or the rest of us fools just sit idle by as were headed for the falls.

BattleRifleG3 · 03-27-2006, 08:57 PM

I mean in conversation. I'm talking about changing the minds of the people who vote.

Ctwo · 03-27-2006, 11:14 PM

OK, change my mind...I voted for Bush, not Kerry...where did I go wrong?

I voted for Bush, nor Gore...where did I go wrong?

How could have any voting American done any better?

I sure as H did not vote for the open boarders we have today...where did I go wrong?

If everyone voted as you did, which I assume is the way you would "change" the voters to vote, what would be different today?

I'm lost. I don't get it. I get two choices, A or B. A means I get a good ankle grabbing. B means I get a good ankle grabbing and it hurts a little more.

Owie.

.22guy · 03-27-2006, 11:31 PM

I see your point, but I think one ankle grabbing would definitely hurt more than another.

Bush certainly does seem H-bent on ticking off every single American man, woman and child though.

Ctwo · 03-27-2006, 11:43 PM

only the ones that care...and most seem not to care.

Hugh Damright · 03-28-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

The First amendment begins with the words "Congress shall make no law" ...Yet the second amendment doesn't mention any specific governing body, only that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period.

By that logic, the Virginia BOR says that the RKBA shall not be infringed, and it doesn't specify "by Virginia" so it must be binding upon the other States too.

I think the way it works is that a Constitution frames a government and a BOR limits that government. The USBOR was intended to limit the US. It doesn't have to specify such a basic principle in every Amendment. Actually, quite the opposite, if the Second Amendment, or any of the first Ten Amendments, were intended to empower the US to limit the States , they would say "No State shall" and then "Congress shall have power to enforce this article".

Rufus Rhastus J · 03-28-2006, 11:21 AM

Part of the problem is we have the fox gaurding the hen house. By that i mean, these slimey politicos have to face what, if they are bad? that's right, nothing. No matter what they do, we don't toss them in jail and we keep electing them. Ctwo has it right when asking "What did I do wrong?" I voted for bush twice two. I couldn't even imagine bush would have been such a piece of shizzit, so bad, and so disappointed that I wondered if voteing for kerry or algore would have been much worse. After all, since they did not get the chance, we will never know, we can only guess based on thier polical patterns of the past. It's just as possible they may have denied thier gungrabbing ways because they want to be in office! They could have been good....I'll admit that's a streach but, it's still possible. Placeing that thought besides the current record of bush, I'm willing to go back in time and give either algore (my first choice only because he's such a dumb arse.) or ketchup boy a chance to be as hated and dispised as bush.

Hugh Damright · 03-28-2006, 11:49 AM

Well now hold on ... if we could go back and elect what's-his-name instead of Bush, what would our Supreme Court look like? I voted for Bush so that he could make conservative changes to the Supreme Court that will last for decades, and I think that is what happened.

troy2000 · 03-28-2006, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Damright

Well now hold on ... if we could go back and elect what's-his-name instead of Bush, what would our Supreme Court look like? I voted for Bush so that he could make conservative changes to the Supreme Court that will last for decades, and I think that is what happened.

Do you think it was a good trade-off to fight an unnecessary war and turn a budget surplus into the biggest deficit in history, just to change the Supreme Court?

Not to mention abridging civil rights and freedoms with the Patriot Act, handing out millions in no-bid contracts for disaster relief to political buddies, letting companies run amok with unsupervised war profiteering, refusing to enforce laws against hiring illegal immigrant labor, tee'ing off the whole world by asserting we alone have the right to torture prisoners and ignore the human rights we're trying to cram down their throats in the name of democracy, etc, etc?

Seems like a high price to pay for a couple of Supreme
Court Justices...

Ctwo · 03-28-2006, 02:52 PM

And I knew that bush was gonna be a pi$$ poor sob...

But it's kind of like, would you choose being shot in the left nut and fed steak, or shot in the right nut and fed beans?

I can't wait for the next election, which eye am I willing to poke out?

It's like some of the local legislation going in my area now...the education system is having a serious problem for a variety of reasons. So it needs to be fixed. The solution on the ballot is gonna be a flat property parcel tax. We've already had that one to the tune of $100. So lets sign up for another one? I said NO and the feedback I get is that I am anti-education. It's BS. How about we fix the problem? First, what happened to all the funding that we used to have? Why is the Californicators Lottery not helping, like it was proposed it would? Did the state drop it's funding, along with the fed subsidaries, because now the system was in for a windfall from lottery proceeds, resulting in a dried up financial mess?

I'd like to slap someone.

03-24-2006, 08:46 PM	#1
BattleRifleG3 Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Western PA Posts: 11,401 Images: 13	A quick thought on the first two amendments... We often make the comparison that the first amendment is construed as an entirely individual right, as it has been held in court in all cases except presenting a clear and present danger, ie inciting a riot, crying fire in a movie theatre, etc. Meanwhile the supreme court has not so often ruled in favor of a second amendment defense. That's a little ironic. The First amendment begins with the words "Congress shall make no law..." It refers to the federal legislature. Under the exact wording, curtailing free speech and religion and all that is still in the power of the states and any legitimate executive powers. Now I'm with the court on this one, construing it to guarantee a right to free speech uninfringeable by lower levels of government. Yet the second amendment doesn't mention any specific governing body, only that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period. Yet states restrict responsible gun ownership with no federal challenge. This isn't some fringe opinion. It's plain English, and not even the kind you need a historian to explain. Just one more observation on how real our individual right is and how hypocritical are those who oppose it. __________________ Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf

03-25-2006, 07:47 AM	#3
BattleRifleG3 Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Western PA Posts: 11,401 Images: 13	The Constitution is the law. If you don't think so, see my other recent post of the constitution. __________________ Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf

03-25-2006, 08:06 AM	#4
SPOCAHP ANAR Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: SC-upstate Posts: 4,087 Images: 3 Blog Entries: 4	BRG3; The second only says "shall not be infringed" It doesn't mention any state or federal government. I have read before that the reason the second is so poorly defined when compared to other Amendments is that there was a lot of debate and conflicitng views over this issue. What you see is what got passed. Don't know the validity of it, but would explain alot of the poor wording. However I can't see how the 1st congress could pass such a poorly worded Amendment after the revolutionary war? While we are looking at amendments lets review the 4th. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I would argue that while cars weren't in use at the time this was written, this would apply to the use of wagons and other means of transportation. Would your driver's license not in effect be the same as your papers? __________________ Spocrest Out!..........

03-25-2006, 08:36 AM	#5
Rave Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Tampa Posts: 6,859	Ya' give the gummint an inch they take a mile,and your lack of arms makes it easier,goes on every day all over the world,ya' know the gummint hates the constitution,especially the second ammendment,that's why they are working so hard to side step/destroy it.:guitar: :nod: __________________ USAF '62-'66 .

03-27-2006, 04:53 PM	#7
Beer Forever Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 2,714	preaching to the choir __________________ Paramedic sks forever

03-24-2006, 11:13 PM	#2
Ctwo Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 344	There are those that believe in the constitution and those that do not. What is hypocritical about that? The only thing hypocritical is the people allowing the sham to continue. But then, we are no longer a nation of "Americans."

03-27-2006, 08:52 PM	#9
Ctwo Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 344	And opportunities those are? I can't help seeing the "powers to be" sell us down the river... ...or the rest of us fools just sit idle by as were headed for the falls.

03-27-2006, 08:57 PM	#10
BattleRifleG3 Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Western PA Posts: 11,401 Images: 13	I mean in conversation. I'm talking about changing the minds of the people who vote. __________________ Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf

03-27-2006, 11:14 PM	#11
Ctwo Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 344	OK, change my mind...I voted for Bush, not Kerry...where did I go wrong? I voted for Bush, nor Gore...where did I go wrong? How could have any voting American done any better? I sure as H did not vote for the open boarders we have today...where did I go wrong? If everyone voted as you did, which I assume is the way you would "change" the voters to vote, what would be different today? I'm lost. I don't get it. I get two choices, A or B. A means I get a good ankle grabbing. B means I get a good ankle grabbing and it hurts a little more. Owie.

03-27-2006, 11:31 PM	#12
.22guy Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 4,140	I see your point, but I think one ankle grabbing would definitely hurt more than another. Bush certainly does seem H-bent on ticking off every single American man, woman and child though.

03-27-2006, 11:43 PM	#13
Ctwo Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 344	only the ones that care...and most seem not to care.

03-28-2006, 11:21 AM	#15
Rufus Rhastus J Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: West, Central Florida, Third World America Posts: 6,339 Images: 1	I share your pain... Part of the problem is we have the fox gaurding the hen house. By that i mean, these slimey politicos have to face what, if they are bad? that's right, nothing. No matter what they do, we don't toss them in jail and we keep electing them. Ctwo has it right when asking "What did I do wrong?" I voted for bush twice two. I couldn't even imagine bush would have been such a piece of shizzit, so bad, and so disappointed that I wondered if voteing for kerry or algore would have been much worse. After all, since they did not get the chance, we will never know, we can only guess based on thier polical patterns of the past. It's just as possible they may have denied thier gungrabbing ways because they want to be in office! They could have been good....I'll admit that's a streach but, it's still possible. Placeing that thought besides the current record of bush, I'm willing to go back in time and give either algore (my first choice only because he's such a dumb arse.) or ketchup boy a chance to be as hated and dispised as bush. __________________ "They cannot be trusted.....The Romulans (our politicos) are without honor." Worf

03-28-2006, 11:49 AM	#16
Hugh Damright Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Meadows of Dan, Virginia Posts: 39	Well now hold on ... if we could go back and elect what's-his-name instead of Bush, what would our Supreme Court look like? I voted for Bush so that he could make conservative changes to the Supreme Court that will last for decades, and I think that is what happened.

03-28-2006, 02:52 PM	#18
Ctwo Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 344	And I knew that bush was gonna be a pi$$ poor sob... But it's kind of like, would you choose being shot in the left nut and fed steak, or shot in the right nut and fed beans? I can't wait for the next election, which eye am I willing to poke out? It's like some of the local legislation going in my area now...the education system is having a serious problem for a variety of reasons. So it needs to be fixed. The solution on the ballot is gonna be a flat property parcel tax. We've already had that one to the tune of $100. So lets sign up for another one? I said NO and the feedback I get is that I am anti-education. It's BS. How about we fix the problem? First, what happened to all the funding that we used to have? Why is the Californicators Lottery not helping, like it was proposed it would? Did the state drop it's funding, along with the fed subsidaries, because now the system was in for a windfall from lottery proceeds, resulting in a dried up financial mess? I'd like to slap someone.