Bear Arms and Freedom of Speech

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
19,478
Location
Chicago Area
When the argument is offered that only single shot black powder arms are covered in the 2nd Amendment, offer back that Freedom of Speech does not cover microphones, internet, TV, radio, etc.
 
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
When the argument is offered that only single shot black powder arms are covered in the 2nd Amendment, offer back that Freedom of Speech does not cover microphones, internet, TV, radio, etc.



Exactly what I do! It is a FAIR response to their argument!
 
To assume that the highly educated founders...who lived in the time of the scientific revolution and industrial revolution, never thought that technology would advance is pure ignorance. There are federalist papers as well as other writings that clearly show that they knew things would change. Heck they had often superior arms to the redcoats in the form of the Pennsylvania rifle which allowed then to kill the Brown Bess equipped British regulars at great distances beyond the range of the English muskets.
 
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
To assume that the highly educated founders...who lived in the time of the scientific revolution and industrial revolution, never thought that technology would advance is pure ignorance. There are federalist papers as well as other writings that clearly show that they knew things would change. Heck they had often superior arms to the redcoats in the form of the Pennsylvania rifle which allowed then to kill the Brown Bess equipped British regulars at great distances beyond the range of the English muskets.


A educated point I like it.
 
Maybe speech should require a permit and the number of words per sentence should be limited. Nobody needs more than ten words to convey a point. No words that could be construed as negative, uncomfortable, scary, similar to words used by the military or previously used in a violent form (assault words) can be used.

It wouldn't limit first amendment rights, it would just make sure the wrong people don't use speech for bad things.


Notice how simple the second amendment is. It doesn't exclude cannons, grape shot, submarines, etc.
 
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
When the argument is offered that only single shot black powder arms are covered in the 2nd Amendment, offer back that Freedom of Speech does not cover microphones, internet, TV, radio, etc.


Amen!
 
Curious why the number of deaths in the US due to machine guns is low.... just sayin.

Just as yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't free speech because it endangers the welfare of the general public, controls on other amendments are implemented to protect the general citizenry.
 
Last edited:
Since the government isn't going to build a Death Star, the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to build my own Death Star.
 
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Curious why the number of deaths in the US due to machine guns is low.... just sayin.

Just as yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't free speech because it endangers the welfare of the general public, controls on other amendments are implemented to protect the general citizenry.


yeah and we already have a copious amount of restrictions on the second amendment. You cannot yell fire in a packed theater, and you cannot take out your Beretta 92 or AR15 to the back yard and shoot cans....because it protects the general citizenry of your city. You cannot own one if you have ever been judged a threat to yourself or others, or a felon, and in many states even serious misdemeanors disqualify you from legally possessing a firearm. There are lines that must be drawn in the sand, and many of these ban suggestions as well as registration cross that line. There are far more limits on the second amendment than the first.
 
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Since the government isn't going to build a Death Star, the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to build my own Death Star.


Let's give it a progressive name to make it sound better shall we? How about the Night Star, New Moon, or Above the Earth Love Globe. Death Star seems so...oh I don't know...scary maybe, wouldn't want them to get banned now would we. Maybe we could paint it pink to look less scary? How about a smilie face on it?
 
23j69gn.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Curious why the number of deaths in the US due to machine guns is low.... just sayin.

Just as yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't free speech because it endangers the welfare of the general public, controls on other amendments are implemented to protect the general citizenry.


When machine guns were legal for civilians to own [1934-1986], deaths were virtually non existent from legally owned ones One or two in all that time.
Just sayin....
 
Machine guns are still legal for civilians to own, you just need to pay for the proper stamp (class III). There are restrictions on what machine guns you can buy (cannot buy new ones) so the price of them places them out of the hands of average people. Just visit Nevada or Arizona and you can rent them at the gun range.
 
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Since the government isn't going to build a Death Star, the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to build my own Death Star.


Legos?
 
Quote:
To assume that the highly educated founders...who lived in the time of the scientific revolution and industrial revolution, never thought that technology would advance is pure ignorance. There are federalist papers as well as other writings that clearly show that they knew things would change.


You are very correct my friend.


I would highly recommend a book by Stephen P Halbrook, "The Founders' Second Amendment, Origins of the right to bear arms," available at most book stores, even at Barnes and Noble.

Read Chapter 16 first and then go back and read the history that leads up to the Second Amendment.

Here are some excerpts:

Quote:
The Second Amendment begins with a clause declaring a political principle about the militia, followed by a clause declaring a substantive right. The substantive guarantee is "the right of the people" which can only mean individual rights, not state powers. The term "people" is in juxtaposition to government, federal or state. Only individuals have "rights," while the United States and the states have "powers."


Quote:
After the Second Amendment reference to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the Fourth Amendment "guarantees" the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and affects, against unreasoable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.... This description of "the people" are the same "persons" whose whose 'papers and effects' include printed matter and arms that they keep in their "houses" and bear or carry outside the home. In light of the Crown's abuses, the Fourth Amendment was intended to paly a key role in protection of First and Second Amendment rights."


Quote:
The original Constitution contained but a single use of the term "right," and it referred not to a prexisting right, but to a stautory right of private persons.


In my view, the Liberal Progressives know what the Constituion says and means, they choose to ignore it in order to push their agendas'.
 
Last edited:
And yet we have this:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/15/1179231/-Another-day-in-the-gun-crazy-U-S-A
Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Quote:
To assume that the highly educated founders...who lived in the time of the scientific revolution and industrial revolution, never thought that technology would advance is pure ignorance. There are federalist papers as well as other writings that clearly show that they knew things would change.


You are very correct my friend.


I would highly recommend a book by Stephen P Halbrook, "The Founders' Second Amendment, Origins of the right to bear arms," available at most book stores, even at Barnes and Noble.

Read Chapter 16 first and then go back and read the history that leads up to the Second Amendment.

Here are some excerpts:

Quote:
The Second Amendment begins with a clause declaring a political principle about the militia, followed by a clause declaring a substantive right. The substantive guarantee is "the right of the people" which can only mean individual rights, not state powers. The term "people" is in juxtaposition to government, federal or state. Only individuals have "rights," while the United States and the states have "powers."


Quote:
After the Second Amendment reference to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the Fourth Amendment "guarantees" the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and affects, against unreasoable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.... This description of "the people" are the same "persons" whose whose 'papers and effects' include printed matter and arms that they keep in their "houses" and bear or carry outside the home. In light of the Crown's abuses, the Fourth Amendment was intended to paly a key role in protection of First and Second Amendment rights."


Quote:
The original Constitution contained but a single use of the term "right," and it referred not to a prexisting right, but to a stautory right of private persons.


In my view, the Liberal Progressives know what the Constituion says and means, they choose to ignore it in order to push their agendas'.
 
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
And yet we have this:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/15/1179231/-Another-day-in-the-gun-crazy-U-S-A

LOL Daily KOS...unbiased for sure...

Do they have a run down from all of the people killed in "car violence"? Or all of the people that are dead due to CAFE regulations?
 
Quote:
Laura Clawson, born at the very end of 1976, graduated from Wesleyan University,...Politics were always an important part of Laura's life - her early memories include a strike picket line, a gay pride march, and untold Democratic Socialists of America potluck dinners. She participated in the first AFL-CIO Union Summer and other political activities


Democratic Socialists and political activists.

I.E., anti-capitalists and anti-Constitutionalists writers at KOS. Make me me want to subscribe. I bet thay have no agenda's whatsover.
 
Last edited:
I really do not know they just listed alot of deaths, injuries from guns over the last few days some by mistake others murders etc. what does that have to do with socialism this time???
confused.gif
wait I remember a few months ago when someone said something somebody did not agree with a socialist was mentioned I get it sorry.
grin.gif

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Laura Clawson, born at the very end of 1976, graduated from Wesleyan University,...Politics were always an important part of Laura's life - her early memories include a strike picket line, a gay pride march, and untold Democratic Socialists of America potluck dinners. She participated in the first AFL-CIO Union Summer and other political activities


Democratic Socialists and political activists.

I.E., anti-capitalists and anti-Constitutionalists writers at KOS. Make me me want to subscribe. I bet thay have no agenda's whatsover.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top