Poll: What does 'Shall not be infringed" mean to you?
- Thread starter NoStateofMind
- Start date
DominionSeraph
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2009
- 8,386
- 32
- 91
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
- Sep 7, 2009
- 12,960
- 3
- 0
nextJin
Golden Member
- Apr 16, 2009
- 1,848
- 0
- 0
I was listening to Andrew Wilkow a few weeks ago and someone made the comment on what he thought "Arms" meant back then. He basically said anything you can pick up with ones own ability using the arms/hands that fires rounds. Obviously you couldnt do that with tanks, bombs, jets, cannons, aircraft carriers, etc.
Makes sense to me.
Makes sense to me.
I have a hard time choosing between the first and second option. "Shall not be infringed" does make it sound like it is to be an absolute limitation on the federal govt. However, Madison intended for the 1st Amendment to draw a line rather than put a wall between church and the USGov so I lean towards the latter (the whole bill of Rights was very moderate and open to interpretation). Plus, it doesn't matter what we think it means; it only matters what the Supreme Court thinks it means.
I do wish it was absolute, but I doubt a statist like Madison intended for it be absolute.
I do wish it was absolute, but I doubt a statist like Madison intended for it be absolute.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,353
- 30,403
- 146
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
- Sep 7, 2009
- 12,960
- 3
- 0
To me, reasonable is a number of armed attackers (or otherwise) breaking into my home, or attack from a government.
Unreasonable would be enough arms to attack another country. IE missiles, etc.
I believe it's a definable term.
Shall not be infringed means to me, 'Don't put any frilly trims on it, especially if they are pink."
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
- Sep 7, 2009
- 12,960
- 3
- 0
Lithium381
Lifer
- May 12, 2001
- 12,452
- 2
- 0
I think there are enough of us to get a pretty decent circle jerk going on. I'll go rent the social hall, you guys bring cheetos and mt dew.
The 2nd amendment seems to me to have a pretty clear purpose, its to prevent the states from disarming the citizenry because at a time when the federal government had no standing army the citizenry would have to defend the federal government.
So its purpose is to limit the states ability to ban arms, that isn't a limit on federal authority though.
The other reasons, like self-defense, hunting, etc., are good reasons but they aren't part of the Constitution. The recent ruling is just judicial activism, some judges like those reasons so they just say they're there even though they obviously aren't.
So its purpose is to limit the states ability to ban arms, that isn't a limit on federal authority though.
The other reasons, like self-defense, hunting, etc., are good reasons but they aren't part of the Constitution. The recent ruling is just judicial activism, some judges like those reasons so they just say they're there even though they obviously aren't.
lotus503
Diamond Member
- Feb 12, 2005
- 6,502
- 1
- 76
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.):
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
seems pretty clear without the ridiculous poll exactly what it means.
I don't really think fascists had anything to do with it.
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
That all sounds well and good, but that's not the reason the Founders put in the 2nd Amendment. Jefferson, who was instrumental in the Bill of Rights, put is succinctly, and I'm going to assume you've heard/read this before, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." It is quite obvious that the Founders put in this for the purpose the the citizens to protect themselves against our own government, not to defend it against others.
You......do realize that the bill of rights wasn't even officially incorporated to the states until the 14th amendment, right? And that the bill of rights was basically put in place to limit the power of the new federal government.....right?
So you take "shall not be infringed", and then
to mean that there is no limit on federal authority?
I mean, if you want the federal government to be able to regulate this stuff, more power to you; everyone is welcome to their own opinion, but not their own facts, as the saying goes.
However, I am one of the only two so far to vote for the "only if you behave option" because we already regulate certain aspects of this. Do prisoners have access to firearms? They are people, aren't they?
That aside, i generally fall under the "hands off" option.
That aside, i generally fall under the "hands off" option.
Correct. Shall not be infringed =/= no regulation.
Why would the 1st Amendment be subject to reasonable regulation but not the second?
"Shall not be infringed" seems clear to me: the government cannot interfere with your right to own and carry weapons. And "arms" is clearly stated without exceptions or qualification, so everything is protected. IEDs, rocket launchers, anthrax, nuclear warheads, whatever it takes to regulate the militia well.
The Constitution is like the Bible, it's infallible and should be followed literally with no regard for present circumstances. Well, except for the 14th Amendment. The part about birthright citizenship is letting all these illegals come in and game the system by popping out babies in our hospitals and getting them citizenship. That part should be changed.
The Constitution is like the Bible, it's infallible and should be followed literally with no regard for present circumstances. Well, except for the 14th Amendment. The part about birthright citizenship is letting all these illegals come in and game the system by popping out babies in our hospitals and getting them citizenship. That part should be changed.
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
-- James Madison
I understand the quote, I just don't understand why the 2nd Amendment is interpreted differently than the first?
The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." Yet, there are plenty of "abridgments" in the literal sense in the form time/place/manner regulation, registration/permit/fee requirements for public speech, etc.
Seems to me that no infringement =/= no regulation, much like no law "abridging" right to free speech =/= no regulation.
If you believe in completely unregulated firearm rules, running around and waving guns in the air at an Obama speech should be a right guaranteed by the first (as speech)and second(as firearm) amendments, right? Completely allowable, and illegal to ban?
There will always be some amount of regulation, for better or worse.
edit: I believe something along the lines of this occurred within the last few years, not sure if i can find a link.....
There will always be some amount of regulation, for better or worse.
edit: I believe something along the lines of this occurred within the last few years, not sure if i can find a link.....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter