Supreme Court & Second Amendment

[Joe Schmoe]

I don't recall ever seeing any requirements or restrictions placed on someone writing a article in the paper. Should freedom of the press only apply to journalism graduates?

That is the silliest argument I have ever seen. Newspaper articles don't kill people (no matter how badly written.) Guns in the wrong hands do.

 

[Halon451]

Guns in the wrong hands do.

Checkmate.

 

[AverageJoe]

That is the silliest argument I have ever seen. Newspaper articles don't kill people (no matter how badly written.) Guns in the wrong hands do.

Well, ignoring the purely emotional reaction, the argument was regarding the rights protected by the Constitution. I see nothing in your reply that disputes it.

The first two Amendments are actually quite similar:

Congess shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In both cases, and as others have mentioned, the rights are not granted as much as they are protected from any tampering by our government.

So... whether the government is creating some restriction regarding firearm ownership, or a restriction on publishing an article, is the same in the eyes of our constitution.

The only legal way they can do either (regardless of how many deaths there are) must start with a repeal of the Amendment that protects it.

 

[Tarub]

That is the silliest argument I have ever seen. Newspaper articles don't kill people (no matter how badly written.) Guns in the wrong hands do.

How about bottled water?

Warning: this is very graphic..watch at your own risk!
http://minhahistoria.net/pub/videos/Nunca-deixe-Revistar.wmv

 

[jonnythan]

Holy hell. What was that?

 

[jonnythan]

Here are the circumstances:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/interrogate.asp

 

[Tarub]

Holy hell. What was that?

Do you think the bottled water they gave him made him do it? Should we ban all bottled water now or the mentally unstable person can not buy bottled water anymore?

 

[AverageJoe]

...Is it not possible that circumstances at the time the Constitution was laid down are not those of modern day? Wikipedia (sorry ) tells me that the Constitution has been amended 27 times since its inception. Clearly it has been changed to reflect the times. Who is to say that the right to bear arms is no longer credible in the America of today?

Sorry I missed this post earlier, but you are correct. Those who drafted the Constitution were smart enough to realize that they didn't know everything, and spelled out procedures to make changes or additions. The problem now is that the Constitution is often just ignored, in order to avoid the (almost certainly, I hope) futile effort to make the changes necessary to deny certain rights.

I case I come across as advocating a repeal of any Amendment, nothing could be further from my mind. It's just a bit frustrating to see our Constitution trampled on by lawmakers, who are encouraged or at least allowed to do so by us, without any regard to the consequences.

I believe that if, the right to bear arms is no longer credible in the America of today , and we allow ourselves to be dis-armed, we will deserve it when we lose other rights that the second Amendment enables us to protect.

 

[stratman]

Do you think the bottled water they gave him made him do it? Should we ban all bottled water now or the mentally unstable person can not buy bottled water anymore?

That proves that bottled water will drive a person to kill himself, thus we should immediately ban all bottled water.

 

[Matt34]

Sorry I missed this post earlier, but you are correct. Those who drafted the Constitution were smart enough to realize that they didn't know everything, and spelled out procedures to make changes or additions. The problem now is that the Constitution is often just ignored, in order to avoid the (almost certainly, I hope) futile effort to make the changes necessary to deny certain rights.

I case I come across as advocating a repeal of any Amendment, nothing could be further from my mind. It's just a bit frustrating to see our Constitution trampled on by lawmakers, who are encouraged or at least allowed to do so by us, without any regard to the consequences.

I believe that if, the right to bear arms is no longer credible in the America of today , and we allow ourselves to be dis-armed, we will deserve it when we lose other rights that the second Amendment enables us to protect.

When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state".

Love your country, but never trust its government.
-- Robert A. Heinlein.


"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.
-- Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992

 

[Highlander]

Love your country, but never trust its government.
-- Robert A. Heinlein.

Probably a majority of folk fall into this category.

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

1788.

If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.
-- Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992

I disagree. You simply don't have freedom of force.

 

[Halon451]

That proves that bottled water will drive a person to kill himself, thus we should immediately ban all bottled water.

And cups of coffee. And cell phones. And doors, chairs. All played a part.

 

[stratman]

And cups of coffee. And cell phones. And doors, chairs. All played a part.

Don't forget there were tables, cameras and oh yeah, cops.

 

[Tarub]

Don't forget there were tables, cameras and oh yeah, cops.

What about the sound treatment walls/ceiling in that room? I better hold off on buying the sound treatment for my HT room until I find out for sure that is NOT a factor for his action.