why that was nice

[slick rick 10+ year member]

walk into any con law class at any law school and ask that...the constitution was written back in the day and needs to be revamped IMO.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

The first thirteen words of the Second Amendment are not limiting in any logical sense. They explain why the right to bear arms is a good idea and how it is related to security and liberty. But they put no conditions upon the right that follows.
" the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed "

you're correct in a hypothetical sense. this argument is a bit too hypothetical.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

you're correct in a hypothetical sense. this argument is a bit too hypothetical.

there is nothing hypothetical about the constitution.

It's quite clear.

If you want a hypothetical consider this: if you found a clause in a will that read: "my nephew Charlie, being a good egg, is to inherit my entire estate." The part about Charlie being a "good egg" explains his uncle's motive; it has no effect either way on the fact that Charlie gets all the money. It would not help to argue that, since his uncle died, Charlie has revealed himself to be a lout. Likewise, these words-"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"-are not mysterious. If you find them opaque, here is a clue: they mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

the constitution was written back in the day and needs to be revamped IMO.

you should just move to Russia

 

[AllStar1500bd 5,000+ posts]

They're watching this thread //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/sneaky.gif.7189749b3a3f769e8815b47e8ae87f88.gif

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

there is nothing hypothetical about the constitution.
It's quite clear.

so i can go up to some black guy and tell him that hes a ****ing ****** and should die?

thats free speech right?

i could go up to a Christian and tell him god is ****ing gay

thats free speech right?

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

there is nothing hypothetical about the constitution.
It's quite clear.

it is quite clear. i don't see anything in the 2nd ammendment allowing anyone to own a weapon designed to wipe out a large population. it takes a hypothetical argument to turn the 2nd ammendment into something it's not meant for. the founding fathers expected people to use a little common sense, but in 2007 america, common sense seems to be bred out of us.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

so i can go up to some black guy and tell him that hes a ****ing ****** and should die?
thats free speech right?

i could go up to a Christian and tell him god is ****ing gay

thats free speech right?

freedom of speech only means that the government won't arrest you for what you say. you can say all of that if you wish.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

so i can go up to some black guy and tell him that hes a ****ing ****** and should die?
thats free speech right?

i could go up to a Christian and tell him god is ****ing gay

thats free speech right?

Yes, and i'm glad you're aware of that.

it is quite clear. i don't see anything in the 2nd ammendment allowing anyone to own a weapon designed to wipe out a large population. it takes a hypothetical argument to turn the 2nd ammendment into something it's not meant for. the founding fathers expected people to use a little common sense, but in 2007 america, common sense seems to be bred out of us.

Actually it explicitly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

It doesn't restrict my rights to arms that can only kill one person at a time, and in fact states that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. the right to "keep" arms clearly and unambiguously protects the ownership and possession of arms.

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

Yes, and i'm glad you're aware of that.


Actually it explicitly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

One thing that might be important is that they most likely had no biological weapons or weapons of mass destruction, at least on any sort of scale that we have back then.

Your point is clearly valid, it says nothing about different types of weapons we can have and those we cannot,

but for the good of the world, people don't get to have their own personal nukes or deadly gases. It just ain't gonna happen.

And don't argue that there would be screening. There screening for guns, and thousands of people die every year. Stuff slips through.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

Yes, and i'm glad you're aware of that.


Actually it explicitly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

i know what it says. we both know what the right was written to protect, which is fire arms. as i stated earlier, you are correct in your assertion, and maybe the common sense in the current united states makes it neccesary to actually ammend the right to exclude weapons of mass destruction. where that becomes tricky is when we speak of things such as dynamite, which actually has a practical use.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

And don't argue that there would be screening. There screening for guns, and thousands of people die every year. Stuff slips through.

I would actually argue against screening of any kind because clearly screening or background checks would be infringing upon my rights by creating an artificial barrier to keeping and bearing arms.

 

[Rich B 5,000+ posts]

Actually it explicitly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

You're skipping the controversial part of that amendment, the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part is where there exists the potential to question the right to bear arms as there is no longer any actual militias still in place.

(At least as far as being recognized as such without being considered home grown terrorist groups.)

And no, Im not saying the right doesnt still apply, only pointing out the issue as its been contested over the last 30 years or so.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

You're skipping the controversial part of that amendment, the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part is where there exists the potential to question the right to bear arms as there is no longer any actual militias still in place.
(At least as far as being recognized as such without being considered home grown terrorist groups.)

And no, Im not saying the right doesnt still apply, only pointing out the issue as its been contested over the last 30 years or so.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Actually if you reread the analogy i posted that part is covered:

If you found a clause in a will that read: "my nephew Charlie, being a good egg, is to inherit my entire estate." The part about Charlie being a "good egg" explains his uncle's motive; it has no effect either way on the fact that Charlie gets all the money. It would not help to argue that, since his uncle died, Charlie has revealed himself to be a lout.

Likewise, these words-"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"-are not mysterious. If you find them opaque, here is a clue: they mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.