Poll: What does 'Shall not be infringed" mean to you?

[Corporate Thug]

Then we would be in agreement.

that both are being infringed??

 

[Agent11]

Yea, nice attempt at shock and awe there, I find it shameless and craven to twist the death of children for your own personal political agenda.

And that was a truck bomb made from ammonium nitrate and nitromethane. Two easily obtainable materials.

 

[NoStateofMind]

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.....

This thread is more about proving a point. That point being that we don't follow the law to the letter, but rather it is "interpreted" to mean whatever the current generation deems it to mean. No rational thinker would want (in this day and age) the scenario you described above. However there are limits. To restrict gun ownership from a law abiding citizen (10 round clips, assault weapons) is directly against the second amendment. The same can be said for freedom of speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't the same freedom of being able to be within shouting distance of a despotic governments president.

 

[NoStateofMind]

that both are being infringed??

Yes they are. My response above gives examples.

 

[Screech]

This thread is more about proving a point. That point being that we don't follow the law to the letter, but rather it is "interpreted" to mean whatever the current generation deems it to mean. No rational thinker would want (in this day and age) the scenario you described above. However there are limits. To restrict gun ownership from a law abiding citizen (10 round clips, assault weapons) is directly against the second amendment. The same can be said for freedom of speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't the same freedom of being able to be within shouting distance of a despotic governments president.

Ah -- then we are in complete agreement.

 

[thraashman]

Infringed means it cannot be removed completely. It does NOT mean that it cannot be regulated. What does "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" mean to you? As it's in the amendment but is being conveniently ignored as if not there. There's actually evidence to support that Madison wrote the amendment in reference to allowing slave states the right to police runaway slaves without requiring the federal government to step in.

 

[Ronstang]

Only a liberal could possibly see any grey area in a statement like that, then again to a liberal the Constitution is like the bars on a prisoner's cell.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Infringed means it cannot be removed completely. It does NOT mean that it cannot be regulated. What does "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" mean to you? As it's in the amendment but is being conveniently ignored as if not there. There's actually evidence to support that Madison wrote the amendment in reference to allowing slave states the right to police runaway slaves without requiring the federal government to step in.

What dictionary are you using to interpret "infringed" as meaning "cannot be removed completely"?

The people wanted (and Madison apparently agreed) the right to bare arms to be included as they felt that it left too much leeway for government interpretation. Come to find out they were right.


"A well regulated militia" just means well trained. That's a very important part as well.

Edit, you weren't trying to imply " a well regulated militia" actually meant "regulated guns" are you?

 

[DominionSeraph]

Yea, nice attempt at shock and awe there, I find it shameless and craven to twist the death of children for your own personal political agenda.

>personal political agenda
LOL.

And that was a truck bomb made from ammonium nitrate and nitromethane. Two easily obtainable materials.

Yup. As easy to get as guns are in this country. If only their rights hadn't been violated and they'd had access to military hardware, perhaps they could've given Baghdad a run for its money. I think a militia-owned AC-130 would have made April 19, 1995, a much more interesting day.

 

[jpeyton]

Colorado just doubled-down on stupid today, and let four new laws sail through the judiciary committee on their way to a full senate vote. I would be embarrassed if I lived in that state and voted for any of the assembly persons or senators supporting this garbage.

 

[zsdersw]

But it could mean, time to jack off to the 2nd amendment.

Many on here do that, I'm sure. Just as many anti-gun zealots jack off to laws that restrict guns.

In both cases, I laugh mockingly at them.

 

[Tom]

Shall not be infringed = Reasonable regulations.

Gotcha.

Which do you think is more restrictive..

"Congress shall make no law.."

or

"shall not be infringed." Particularly when its associated with a particular purpose that is no longer the same since we now have a standing federal army.

Because its clear the 1st Amendment is not an absolute right. It follows that a lesser protected right would also not be an absolute right.

 

[Jaskalas]

Shall not be infringed - except through due process, am I right?

If it's legal to release men from prison with stipulations that they will not go near a school - then it's legal to create a process by which any right from any citizen is revoked - but they are otherwise free.

Our society has already created a perfectly legal way, already set with practiced and accepted precedence, to revoke the Bill of Rights and that most certainly includes the second amendment.

 

[Matt1970]

Yea, nice attempt at shock and awe there, I find it shameless and craven to twist the death of children for your own personal political agenda.

And that was a truck bomb made from ammonium nitrate and nitromethane. Two easily obtainable materials.

Just conside the source. She makes a damn good case for gun right activists proving people will find a way to commit mass killings and they don't need guns to do it.

 

[Tom]

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.

Jefferson did not write the Bill of Rights. And his opinion of the most important reason isn't reflected in the Bill of Rights.

So its not only not obvious that they put it there for that reason, they put a very different reason in the actual words.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Which do you think is more restrictive..

"Congress shall make no law.."

or

"shall not be infringed." Particularly when its associated with a particular purpose that is no longer the same since we now have a standing federal army.

Because its clear the 1st Amendment is not an absolute right. It follows that a lesser protected right would also not be an absolute right.

I addressed this above.

 

[Stone Rain]

It means that unless you give up the right to keep arms, have militias, etc, they are yours by default. People like convicts, etc, have given up their rights.

 

[Jaskalas]

People like convicts, etc, have given up their rights.

If only we could figure out a way to make everyone a convict. Especially minorities. War on drugs anyone?

 

[Genx87]

"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.

You act as if the constitution doesnt have a built in mechanism for change. If the citizenry feels their need to not have the right to own weapons has passed it times then enact an amendment.

 

[zinfamous]

It means that unless you give up the right to keep arms, have militias, etc, they are yours by default. People like convicts, etc, have given up their rights.

see...that's regulation. Originalists like the OP should have a hissy fit over this.

 

[NoStateofMind]

see...that's regulation. Originalists like the OP should have a hissy fit over this.

 

[werepossum]

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.

This is the progressive view, that an individual has a right to be armed if and only if government puts a gun in his hands and the Second Amendment simply guarantees that the state governments get their crack at drafting us too. Clearly this requires assuming that the Founding Fathers were so abysmally stupid as to be unable to differentiate between "The People" and "The States", but since it's in a good cause (empowering government at all levels) and the Founding Fathers were all a bunch of rich old white men this is actually preferable.

Of course, if we adopt this view then we literally have no rights at all, for "The People" could just as easily mean "The States" or even "The Federal Government" or "The President" in every other right guaranteed by the Constitution. But this too does not trouble progressives, for they do not give a flying rat fart about freedom. As the Messiah himself said, those are all "negative" rights, what government cannot do to you. Progressives are all about "positive rights", what government must do for you. A progressive will happily trade all his scary freedom for a secure, parasitic grip on Uncle Sugar's teat.

 

[micrometers]

Words that need to be edited out of the constitution.

 

[michal1980]

it means that because a criminal that has a 10+ page rap sheet and is already prohibited from owning a gun, gets a gun. That we should take guns away from law abiding citizens.

 

[her209]

"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 first Amendment also says freedom of speech cannot be limited but clearly its being done. Can't say "fuck" on national TV because it might offend someone.