2) People are not bound by the constitution, the government is. (This is what "CONSTITUTESS our federal government.)
3) If you kookily say you are no longer bound by the constitution, why are you bothering to talk to me about it or even post on a thread about it?
4) I continue getting a kick at watching you try to somehow be "smart than the other guy" by arguing that the posession of Nuclear Bombs by individuals is a Constitutional protection. Please by all means continue damging your credibility while simutaneously entertaining me
5) Ummmm.... It would be illegal to shout fire in a crowded theatre if there was no fire correct? Yes there are points of free speech which are abridged.
The freedom of speech never included harming people by giving false alarm, anymore than the right to keep and bear arms includes harming people by shooting them.
Is that too complex for you?
GulfBreeze also said: "The constitution is not a compact."
So the right enumerated in the Declaration of Independence about the people having the right to alter or abolish their government doesn't include me?
GulfBreeze also said: "People are not bound by the constitution, the government is."
Excellent. I think I'll go buy myself some slaves with the money saved from not having to pay my income taxes.
GulfBreeze also said: "3) If you kookily say you are no longer bound by the constitution,..."
You're the one claiming that Congress can decide that some arms are protected by the Second Amendment and some aren't. Your's is the attitude that frees me from being bound by the Constitution. I talk about it because there are others reading these posts who can decide for themselves which of us is correct.
You attempt ridicule me by stressing my argument that the Second Amendment protection includes nukes, but then fail to explain what else is not protected. You have decided to permit yourself and Congress to decide that some arms, including some that are not nuclear are not protected. You can't afford to get specific about such arms, because it soon becomes obvious that your "interpretation" of arms in the Second Amendment will not match anyone else's. The Brady Bunch claims handguns are not protected. The BATFE claims that short-barreled shotguns are not protected. The Congress of the United States has claimed that some rifles, by simply attaching a pistol grip to them, are not protected.
I made a posting in which I asked, if the Constitution included a right to vote for four-year-olds, would the Congress, the Courts, or the people be justified in ignoring such a thing simply because it is a bad idea? Or would the people be obligated to amend the Constitution?
The answer to that question will make plain whether the people are obligated to amend the Constitution to outlaw nuclear arms or other powerful explosives.
Why don't you answer that question?
“Ummmm.... It would be illegal to shout fire in a crowded theatre if there was no fire correct? Yes there are points of free speech which are abridged”
Umm. No, not necessarily.
Yelling fire will get the attention of the crowd even if the threat is something other than a fire. You have resorted to the oldest and lamest argument yet. It will depend on the totality of the circumstances that determine if yelling “FIRE” is a crime.
We have the right to free speech. We should however be sanctioned when we misuse that freedom to cause harm.
The Consitution is supposed to be the chains that bind down the government, but the covenant is that we will obey the government and it’s laws when it is faithful to the Constitution. When a law forces me to choose between legality and morality, I will always choose morality. I will not obey laws that are repugnant to the Constitution.