Posted on 01/10/2007 12:44:45 PM PST by looscnnn
Hey retard, when the Second First Amendment was written, there were no such things as machine guns radio and television.
Care to continue down that path?
Mark
Needing a license is in itelf, unconstitutional.
And don't forget that little gem we got from the FOPA, that civilians are barred from owning Class III firearms manufactured AFTER 1986... Perfect way to drive up prices even higher to limit their availability.
Mark
Actually, we DON'T have "first amendment rights" here at Free Republic. We have freedom of expression here, by the grace of JimRob. He has no responsibility to allow you or me to post anything we like, and you may have noticed that every now and then we get trolls who are banned.
The key item to remember is that the first amandment keeps the government from banning expression... Well, it did, until the McCain/Feingold CFR law, which only bans political speech during the critical time leading up to an election. But all other types of expression are still protected, especially if it insults or mocks Christianity.
Mark
And I see you you haven't learned anything. You're still guided by your "feelings". Oh well.
"A well regulated militia militia being necessary to a free state" is no restriction on the issue of being able to keep and bear"
Feelings ... nothing more than feelings ...
Every federal court in every gun case (save one) has ruled that it is a restriction.
"The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to restrict the government from infringing upon the rights of individual citizens."
The original purpose of the Bill of Rights is was to restrict the federal government from infringing upon certain rights.
"The government doesn't need the second amendment to craft or define an militia."
The states felt they needed the second amendment to prevent the federal government from infringing on their right to form state militias.
Two points. First, different treatment provides a basis for a 14th Amendment claim whether or not you "accept" the outcome. That was what happened with certain voting requirements, and the Black Codes in the South. Second, most criminal rights issues are addressed by the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, though they can also result in a 14th Amendment issue. Didn't realize we were only discussing criminal issues.
You're challenging the plain English contained in the 2nd Amend to the Bill of Rights.
No, I'm saying that every right carries the responsibility of government to ensure they don't endanger the society as a whole. That requires some limitations, regardless of the language. I have pointed out numerous examples of the First Amendment which contains plain English also.
Same stuff on every thread. The original purpose of the Bill of Rights to to establish a minimum set of protections for Rights that were common to all Americans. You've been told this before. All the writings of the time of the Constitutions ratification support this notion. You have to go 50 years past its ratification to find even the first hints of your limited construction bulls*t.
Two points. First, using your logic and the definition of arms, any person can own a nuclear device as long as they don't use them illegally. Second, you assume that the government may not impose any restrictions on rights until after a crime has been committed, and to assume that would be to governments do not have the responsibility for maintaining a safe and secure society, which is false.
You have just placed restrictions which are not mentioned in the 2d Amendment. These restrictions infringe on the right bear arms. If these restrictions are constitutional, then so are others such as restrictions on certain types of arms.
Article I, Section 8 (Powers of Congress):
The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia ..."
That doesn't place contraints on what a militia is? It gives Congress the power to define a militia, which is exactly what Congress did when they wrote the Militia Act of 1792.
You "see nothing" indeed. Like that means something.
Real crimes are those things in which you have caused direct damage to another. Libertarians/objectivists define this under the non-initiation of force, fraud, and theft doctrine. Jefferson and Madison had similar thoughts on the subject, but still adopted a lot of the framework of British common law.
These days, a "crime" is anything the government says it is no matter how stupid, arbitrary, or capricious their intent may be. It could lack any Constitutional authority at all, but... because they have all the big guns and are not afraid to use them, we have to OBEY.
Does that sound like a Republic based off of individual liberty to you?
Which specifically restricted Congress to regulating the ACTIVE duty militia. Not the rest of us who could be subject to militia call up, but aren't. Not that I expect an on topic and cogent answer from you.
And if we let people carry concealed weapons, the streets will run red with the blood of innocent citizens!
I truly hope that it won't get to the point where where we'll need the 2nd to defend our rights under the 2nd!
Yea, I misspoke. Thanks for the correction.
I agree with that in principle.
You admit to unreasonable restrictions, yet you claim: "-- I'm certainly not espousing taking guns away from citizens --". Go figure.
No, you go figure. I said that some restrictions are unreasonable. How does that conflict with my statement that I'm not espousing taking guns away?
Increasingly fewer venues, due in large part to citizens who claim: "-- government does not have to wait until a crime is committed. It can and does take many actions to prevent harm to society before that harm can take place. --"
You may not like it, but that is the responsibility of government. And no fewer venues exist today than 200 years ago. Name one that does not exist.
Inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty is the following from Ben Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Yes, I've seen that several times already, and it is just as misused and misunderstood today as it was yesterday and the day before. One statement by someone who had nothing to do with the Constitution does not replace either the Constitution or our system of laws.
You show your disrespect for liberty by calling it a 'cliche'.
I have fought for our liberty. Any statement that is used over and over to cover every conceivable concern becomes little more than a cliche, which this one has become.
Indeed, it will fall, by infringing on our rights to life, liberty, or property, without due process of law:
I agree completely. But I'm not sure what due process the defendant in this case is missing. He is getting his day in court.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . --"
And I could not agree more with Harlan. And I agree with challenges whenever they take place. They will help ensure that impositions are not arbitrary, and that restraints by government are not purposeless.
They can certainly infringe on fourth amendment rights (New Jersey v T.L.O., 1985) -- I see no reason why they cannot infringe on others, provided it is for the same reason ("the rights of children and adolescents are not the same as those of adults and that school officials have a responsibility to maintain the discipline necessary for education.")
LOL...
No. They came up with a perversion of principle that gives them a "loophole" they can exploit. This doesn't make it "right" or even Constitutional. It just twists the legal system that much more out of true.
Still don't quite "get" that part of the whole equation do you...
Governments that cannot ensure the safety and security of its society are doomed to fall.
There are no 1st Amend restrictions on broadcast media, outside of the unconstitutional McCain Feingold. EM allocation restricts no one's rights. No one has a right to broadcast with EM. It's a privilege obtainable though bidding.
Yet once gained, the government can control the speech and has used sanctions often. In other words, it can regulate free speech.
You can disagree but there are thousands of laws across the country which infringe on free speech, and they are likely constitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.