I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.
I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.
both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.
Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.
Not much difference between printing press and laser printer but there is a world of difference between print media and 24 hour news channels and internet based news outlets that can broadcast globally in a matter of seconds. Propaganda spreads at the speed of light these days.
So it's the speed of propaganda that bothers you?? Pretty sure the first amendment is about free speech, not anti-propaganda. Sorry, just not seeing the connection there. I'll put it this way: I don't think the first amendment wouod really be an different if those who wrote it could see the future. But i think the second amendment would be very different if they could have seen the future.
coming off of using weapons to gain freedom from an oppressive government? yeah I'm not feeling that one mrs. pjsoul.
Well , if the accused is tried and convicted, he will lose his 2nd Amendment rights. Are you implying that anyone else should? Do you believe other law abiding citizens should face penalties because of one murderer's actions?
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.
if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.
if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?
well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.
if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?
well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.
Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.
if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?
well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.
Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.
I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.
I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.
both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.
Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.
Not much difference between printing press and laser printer but there is a world of difference between print media and 24 hour news channels and internet based news outlets that can broadcast globally in a matter of seconds. Propaganda spreads at the speed of light these days.
So it's the speed of propaganda that bothers you?? Pretty sure the first amendment is about free speech, not anti-propaganda. Sorry, just not seeing the connection there. I'll put it this way: I don't think the first amendment would really be any different if those who wrote it could see the future. The speed at which info is spread has no impact on what the amendment stands for. But i think the second amendment would be very different if they could have seen the future.
Not the speed of propaganda per se, just the fact that a news story can reach literally, billions of people in a matter of seconds. The media is far more powerful and can therefore influence more people than they could in the 1700's. Guns are more powerful and effective now as compared to the 1700's, too.
I'm just saying that comparing a printing press to a laser printer and a musket to modern military weapons is inappropriate. Substitute the laser printer for the internet and satellite communications and we're closer to accurate, IMHO.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.
if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?
well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.
Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.
if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?
well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.
Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.
yeah no, you are wrong on that one.
Right! Founding fathers had no clue about movie theaters or semi automatic weapons. So rights do not change based on technology. If that s the case then freedom of press is based on the printing press.
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.
if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?
well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.
Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.
yeah no, you are wrong on that one.
Right! Founding fathers had no clue about movie theaters or semi automatic weapons. So rights do not change based on technology. If that s the case then freedom of press is based on the printing press.
but speech itself is still speech. I am free to say and be as critical as I deem fit against our government. Which is really what that right is about.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.
if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?
well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.
Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.
yeah no, you are wrong on that one.
Right! Founding fathers had no clue about movie theaters or semi automatic weapons. So rights do not change based on technology. If that s the case then freedom of press is based on the printing press.
I used to blame Obama for all things bad that have ever happened but now Ill blame Gutenberg
The founding fathers did the best they could with what they knew. It was incumbent upon future generations to do the best they could with what they knew... and this is where leadership has failed the country.
I still, for the life of me, cannot understand a sensible person arguing against measures of gun reforms implemented with the safety of citizens in mind.
I say follow the money. who owns stock in the publically traded weapons companies? not to mention the campaign contributions and the fear of getting this bullshit grade from lobbyists.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.
if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?
well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.
Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.
yeah no, you are wrong on that one.
Right! Founding fathers had no clue about movie theaters or semi automatic weapons. So rights do not change based on technology. If that s the case then freedom of press is based on the printing press.
but speech itself is still speech. I am free to say and be as critical as I deem fit against our government. Which is really what that right is about.
Right and I can hunt or shoot with a musket or an ar15. Hell I m gonna go to the range tomorrow and not shoot my ar15, but shoot my m1 garand born in 1942 in honor of all of you.
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.
if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?
well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.
Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.
yeah no, you are wrong on that one.
Right! Founding fathers had no clue about movie theaters or semi automatic weapons. So rights do not change based on technology. If that s the case then freedom of press is based on the printing press.
but speech itself is still speech. I am free to say and be as critical as I deem fit against our government. Which is really what that right is about.
Right and I can hunt or shoot with a musket or an ar15. Hell I m gonna go to the range tomorrow and not shoot my ar15, but shoot my m1 garand born in 1942 in honor of all of you.
Got a phone call from O. today. He said, "Hey man, I want your guns!" I said, "Barry, you know I don't have any and if I did, I wouldn't give them to you anyway, so kiss my ass." I laughed but he hung up on me.
Oh boy, now I've gone and done it!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?
Right with the definition of regulated as trained and well diciplined.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?
District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?
District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that. For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?
District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that. For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.
what's your point? dc v heller still makes the well regulated militia clause null and void. who cares if it is recent. are we arguing from a pre 2008 point of view or something?
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?
District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that. For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.
what's your point? dc v heller still makes the well regulated militia clause null and void. who cares if it is recent. are we arguing from a pre 2008 point of view or something?
It doesn't make it null and void. In order to nullify there must be an amendment. Heller vs DC is a ruling, not an amendment.
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?
District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that. For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.
what's your point? dc v heller still makes the well regulated militia clause null and void. who cares if it is recent. are we arguing from a pre 2008 point of view or something?
It doesn't make it null and void. In order to nullify there must be an amendment. Heller vs DC is a ruling, not an amendment.
i'm fully aware that it is a ruling and not an amendment. I'm saying that the argument of having to have to be in a well regulated militia in order to own a gun is null and void thanks to this supreme court case.
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?
District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that. For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.
what's your point? dc v heller still makes the well regulated militia clause null and void. who cares if it is recent. are we arguing from a pre 2008 point of view or something?
umm, a fully ratified constitutional amendment renders a previous amendment null and void. SCOTUS does not have that power. Only in interpreting what the amendments say and if they apply to a case before them.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?
District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that. For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.
what's your point? dc v heller still makes the well regulated militia clause null and void. who cares if it is recent. are we arguing from a pre 2008 point of view or something?
umm, a fully ratified constitutional amendment renders a previous amendment null and void. SCOTUS does not have that power. Only in interpreting what the amendments say and if they apply to a case before them.
I would like to get a hold of a dictionary of the time to better see what words meant then as oppsoed to how we intepret these same words now. even subltle shifts in definition change things dramatically.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?
District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that. For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.
what's your point? dc v heller still makes the well regulated militia clause null and void. who cares if it is recent. are we arguing from a pre 2008 point of view or something?
umm, a fully ratified constitutional amendment renders a previous amendment null and void. SCOTUS does not have that power. Only in interpreting what the amendments say and if they apply to a case before them.
I don't think he gets that part.
Right I don't get it. I ve only taught the constitution for over 15 years. When I buy my next rifle I ll be sure to show my militia card.
Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound? and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.
this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?
District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that. For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.
what's your point? dc v heller still makes the well regulated militia clause null and void. who cares if it is recent. are we arguing from a pre 2008 point of view or something?
umm, a fully ratified constitutional amendment renders a previous amendment null and void. SCOTUS does not have that power. Only in interpreting what the amendments say and if they apply to a case before them.
I don't think he gets that part.
Right I don't get it. I ve only taught the constitution for over 15 years. When I buy my next rifle I ll be sure to show my militia card.
I don't know what you teach, but saying "I've taught the constitution for 15 years" doesn't mean anything. DC vs heller does NOT make any part of the Constitution null and void. Continuing to post that it does makes it seem like you don't get it.
someone asked me if i belonged to a militia suggesting that in order to have a right to bear arms you have to belong to some sort of militia. This is wrong. dc v heller says a well "regulated" militia is just well trained and disciplined. is null and void too technical of a word? and yes i've taught the constitution for over 15 years: ap history down to 8th grade. i think i have a slight grasp on how the constitution works.
someone asked me if i belonged to a militia suggesting that in order to have a right to bear arms you have to belong to some sort of militia. This is wrong. dc v heller says a well "regulated" militia is just well trained and disciplined. is null and void too technical of a word? and yes i've taught the constitution for over 15 years: ap history down to 8th grade. i think i have a slight grasp on how the constitution works.
Just chiming in from the cheap seats...
The fact that somebody teaches something for 15 years does not necessarily mean they are an expert in that field. For example, there are historians that refute the Holocaust and scientists that discredit the Theory of Evolution.
Secondly... I would offer the term 'antiquated'. This term applies to the constitution. It needs revisionary work to account for the changes since it's creation and to address the needs of your country.
Do you deny the generally accepted idea that there is a gun problem in your country?
Comments
if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?
I'm just saying that comparing a printing press to a laser printer and a musket to modern military weapons is inappropriate. Substitute the laser printer for the internet and satellite communications and we're closer to accurate, IMHO.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I still, for the life of me, cannot understand a sensible person arguing against measures of gun reforms implemented with the safety of citizens in mind.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Oh boy, now I've gone and done it!
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
You know like say the states national guard.
After all you would be securing a free state.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
and yes i've taught the constitution for over 15 years: ap history down to 8th grade. i think i have a slight grasp on how the constitution works.
The fact that somebody teaches something for 15 years does not necessarily mean they are an expert in that field. For example, there are historians that refute the Holocaust and scientists that discredit the Theory of Evolution.
Secondly... I would offer the term 'antiquated'. This term applies to the constitution. It needs revisionary work to account for the changes since it's creation and to address the needs of your country.
Do you deny the generally accepted idea that there is a gun problem in your country?