Does the Constitution allow any exceptions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
King of Owls said:
there is a very key difference. The whole purpose of the right to free speech, the right to petition, the freedom of religion, etc, is to not have your mind policed. to be free to address your grievances, for the people to will their own government around themselves, and not be persecuted for any beliefs they have.

Not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't undermine any of that. It serves no higher purpose, doesn't contribute to a free society, and doesn't involve your mind, your opinions, and your core values from being any less free. The spirit of the first amendment is left entirely intact. Not being able to yell "fire" does not undermine the 1st amendment in any shape or form.

Banning gun ownership however, and restricting the right to bear arms, is 100% in direct contradiction to the second amendment. The entire 2nd amendment concerns itself about the populace being free and able to possess firearms - and thus, restrictions limiting that very thing is a direct assault on the right itself.

That's the way I see it any way..
Click to expand...

what do you think about the law banning certain religious practices?

do you believe a 7 day waiting period infringes on your right to own a gun, given, that you will own the gun after 7 days if you're "clear"?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
read the constitution, debate minutes, ALL the commentaries about the constitution prior to ratification, and the federalist and anti-federalist papers, then come back and talk to me. It's obvious you've swallowed the bullshit bait from the statists about the judiciary and it's 'responsibilities'. now, go the fuck away and let the grownups discuss serious shit.
Click to expand...

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I get pretty pissed when I see gun nuts screaming about gun rights when they are in no way wanting to be "regulated" and certainly no part of any militia connected to the security of any free state as described in your commentaries, federalist and anti-federalist papers. The amendment stands on it's on accord and remains open to further review considering new, extraneous and pertinent information. We are now fully in such a position to redefine the intents and enforcement of 2nd amendment meanings which is, of course, a duty of the SCOTUS.
 
Gatorman said:
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I get pretty pissed when I see gun nuts screaming about gun rights when they are in no way wanting to be "regulated" and certainly no part of any militia connected to the security of any free state as described in your commentaries, federalist and anti-federalist papers. The amendment stands on it's on accord and remains open to further review considering new, extraneous and pertinent information. We are now fully in such a position to redefine the intents and enforcement of 2nd amendment meanings which is, of course, the duty of the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

you do realize the the "regulated" part is about a regulated militia....not the part about bearing arms...right? so it is your claim now, that all gun owners need to be a regulated unit?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
according to the framers and commentators that presented the constitution, and what it meant, to the people that voted yea or nay, there are no exceptions. Powers assigned to the federal government are limited, not expansive and arbitrary.
Click to expand...

scotus has ruled that the first amendment does not allow someone to falsely yell fire in a crowded venue, so much for no exceptions

oh well
 
enough said:
you do realize the the "regulated" part is about a regulated militia....not the part about bearing arms...right? so it is your claim now, that all gun owners need to be a regulated unit?
Click to expand...

at the time of its drafting, well regulated meant well provisioned

oh well
 
King of Owls said:
there is a very key difference. The whole purpose of the right to free speech, the right to petition, the freedom of religion, etc, is to not have your mind policed. to be free to address your grievances, for the people to will their own government around themselves, and not be persecuted for any beliefs they have.

Not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't undermine any of that. It serves no higher purpose, doesn't contribute to a free society, and doesn't involve your mind, your opinions, and your core values from being any less free. The spirit of the first amendment is left entirely intact. Not being able to yell "fire" does not undermine the 1st amendment in any shape or form.

Banning gun ownership however, and restricting the right to bear arms, is 100% in direct contradiction to the second amendment. The entire 2nd amendment concerns itself about the populace being free and able to possess firearms - and thus, restrictions limiting that very thing is a direct assault on the right itself.

That's the way I see it any way..
Click to expand...

it is not how individuals see it, it is how scotus sees it

oh well
 
Last edited:
Don Quixote said:
it is now how individuals see it, it is how scotus sees it

oh well
Click to expand...

you're right for the most part don. however, this country allows amendments, which start with how individuals see the law and then moves all the way to the actual amendment conclusion. you and i saw this first hand in CA a few years back. the people didn't like the state's highest court ruling, so individuals got together and amended the constitution to render the court decision meaningless.
 
enough said:
you do realize the the "regulated" part is about a regulated militia....not the part about bearing arms...right? so it is your claim now, that all gun owners need to be a regulated unit?
Click to expand...

The language is quite clear to me. The answer to your question is yes. Show me in the Amendment where I might be wrong about that.
 
Gatorman said:
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Click to expand...
is it your contention that CONGRESS wrote and passed the constitution?

Gatorman said:
I get pretty pissed when I see gun nuts screaming about gun rights when they are in no way wanting to be "regulated" and certainly no part of any militia connected to the security of any free state as described in your commentaries, federalist and anti-federalist papers. The amendment stands on it's on accord and remains open to further review considering new, extraneous and pertinent information. We are now fully in such a position to redefine the intents and enforcement of 2nd amendment meanings which is, of course, a duty of the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
you know not what you speak of. that 'well regulated militia', as defined at the time, was a well trained and functioning group of citizens. Not some government run unit. As to wanting to be 'regulated', you anti-gun fucks have made it all but impossible with laws that prohibit any 'military' gathering of armed individuals, have you not? Also, since the militia is 'we the people', why are you not regulating yourself and fulfilling your duty to your country?
 
does the second amendment include:

biological weapons

chemical weapons

nuclear weapons

fully automatic weapons

antiaircraft missiles

flame throwers

rocket propelled grenades

thermite and phosphorus grenades/bombs

chemical bombs

tanks

antitank weapons

land mines

cannons (muzzle and breach loaded)

and other weapons other than pistols, rifles and shotguns (all non-fully automatic)
 
Don Quixote said:
scotus has ruled that the first amendment does not allow someone to falsely yell fire in a crowded venue, so much for no exceptions

oh well
Click to expand...
do they pass out gags for all movie watchers when they enter the theater? no, they do not. therefore it is not a restriction on the first amendment so much as it is a penalty for endangering the public. the two are in no way related, especially given the statements relationship to the actual decision.
 
enough said:
ok....then we should all be well provision with arms? is that what you're saying?

oh well. :D
Click to expand...

switzerland requires that all able bodied adult males up to the age of 55 (not sure of the upper age, it may be 45) keep a fully automatic assault rifle at home...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top