Does the Constitution allow any exceptions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
SmarterthanYou said:
no. they have had their rights denied to them after due process of law (5th Amendment) and for as long as they are inmates.
Click to expand...

you've made earlier claims that the right "shall not be infringed"...period. i can't recall if you said period....but i thought you said something akin to that.
 
Don Quixote said:
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...
Click to expand...

um...ok. but that didn't answer my question. thanks for the trivia, which i actually remembered once you mentioned it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
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.
Click to expand...

if i cannot say something without penalty of law then i do not have free speech

in a recent case where a candidate for office lied about having won a medal in combat that he had not won, scotus ruled that lying is protected by the 1st amendment
 
enough said:
you've made earlier claims that the right "shall not be infringed"...period. i can't recall if you said period....but i thought you said something akin to that.
Click to expand...
shall not be infringed, for all free men. inmates are not free, furthermore, in accordance with the 5th amendment "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", inmates have had their due process of law. notice also that I believe once people are done serving time, their rights should be restored. there was a very good reason why that part of the 5th is in their, in order to avoid arguments about whether prisoners have a right to arms, or property, or validating the death penalty.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
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.
Click to expand...


Then are you ready to admit that that guy in Denver who got arrested while carrying his gun was arrested because he endangered the public and not because of any restriction of the 2nd amendment?
 
Don Quixote said:
if i cannot say something without penalty of law then i do not have free speech.
Click to expand...
absolutely you do. If you were to walk in to a theater and yell fire, what is the charge? its not 'yelling fire in a crowded theater', is it? no, it's endangering the public, which you can then argue to a jury that nobody was in danger, especially if you were also holding a sign at the time that said 'this is a test'.

Don Quixote said:
in a recent case where a candidate for office lied about having won a medal in combat that he had not won, scotus ruled that lying is protected by the 1st amendment
Click to expand...
and I agree, even to the point of lying to a federal agent. scotus disagreed with me, but then they've been wrong before.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
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.
Click to expand...

do they pass out gags for gun owners? let me guess, you're going to say that movie goers don't have to wait seven days to watch a movie. am i right?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
they also ruled that blacks could never be citizens. oh well
Click to expand...

scotus has from time to time reinterpreted the constitution and has not always covered itself with glory, for example the 'separate but equal' decision that it later reversed

however, until it rules otherwise, its decisions are the law of the land
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Then are you ready to admit that that guy in Denver who got arrested while carrying his gun was arrested because he endangered the public and not because of any restriction of the 2nd amendment?
Click to expand...
no, i'm not admitting that and it's stupid of you to even go there.

1) a holstered gun is not a danger to the public
2) a right cannot be converted in to a crime
3) carrying a gun is a right

so you fail
 
SmarterthanYou said:
shall not be infringed, for all free men. inmates are not free, furthermore, in accordance with the 5th amendment "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", inmates have had their due process of law. notice also that I believe once people are done serving time, their rights should be restored. there was a very good reason why that part of the 5th is in their, in order to avoid arguments about whether prisoners have a right to arms, or property, or validating the death penalty.
Click to expand...

in all seriousness, does the constitution say "freemen"?

i find your argument about the 5th interesting. because i have seen and read that due process can be arbitrary and capricious. i don't recall your earlier comments referring to freemen...you may have...i just don't recall. but, doesn't that limit the "infringement" part? doesn't your argument necessarily mean that the right is not absolute?
 
Don Quixote said:
scotus has from time to time reinterpreted the constitution and has not always covered itself with glory, for example the 'separate but equal' decision that it later reversed

however, until it rules otherwise, its decisions are the law of the land
Click to expand...

oh well

;)

i'm just ribbing you don because i like you. :)
 
SmarterthanYou said:
is it your contention that CONGRESS wrote and passed the constitution?

It was congress that wrote the bill, sent it to the states for ratification and then passed the amendment. Do you need to be further educated on the process?

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?

It was for the security of the free state as written in the amendment. A regulated militia is not "We the People". It is a well regulated militia under the control of officers, a form of establishment of particular rules and guidelines and relegated to the leadership and command of whatever free state that recognizes them as being for that security and the oversight of particular directives.
Click to expand...

Show me in the 2nd amendment where I am wrong if you genuinely think that I am.
 
enough said:
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.
Click to expand...

what a state high court says and what scotus says may be different, in which case scotus wins...however, until then the state has to abide by what its courts rule

ps according to the ca state constitution, slavery is still legal...

oh well
 
Don Quixote said:
what a state high court says and what scotus says may be different, in which case scotus wins...however, until then the state has to abide by what its courts rule

ps according to the ca state constitution, slavery is still legal...

oh well
Click to expand...

don...i know you understand the point i was making. don't be obtuse.

didn't know that about CA. i'm pretty sure federal law trumps CA law on the issue.....ok....i googled it and couldn't find anything. what i did find was that the 1849 CA constitution BANNED slavery.

do you have a cite to back up your claim don?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top