Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by umadcuzimstylin, Feb 4, 2013.
"shall not be infringed"
This argument needs to end, because it makes gun rights crowd look bullheaded, stubborn, and uneducated.
Let me give you another example:
"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech"
And yet the FCC exists, restricting content of broadcasts.
When you start standing up for full-blown, hard-core porn to be broadcast on NBC at 7pm, then you can make the "shall not be infringed" arguments.
As for the Supreme Court on AWB/magazine restrictions, it has yet to be determined. "Heller" said reasonable restrictions are acceptable. "McDonald" said that applies to the States as well. And "Reasonable" has yet to be decided, but I'm willing to bet a case will be coming soon, probably out of New York, that will help make that determination.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,KEEP IT SIMPLE.......... .'08.
Of course not, and that's just showing you're being willfully narrow-minded.
Porn DOES = the FIRST Amendment (the courts have said so), but it's still RESTRICTED on when/where/how it can be displayed.
Why are you okay with restrictions on the First Amendment?
Depends on the anti's in question.
The soccer mom down the street who "hates" guns because she's never even held one and doesn't know Jack Schitt about them?
The hippy who thinks we should all live in peace around a campfire singing "We are the world"?
The movie star who might be best known for portraying angry violent people with guns shooting every enemy?
Or the shallow minded person who believes there's a simple solution to a complex problem and by getting rid of guns all the violence on the news will disappear?
Nah. They ain't traitors. They may be ignorant, misinformed, brainwashed, unable to grasp complex subjects or just unwilling to think a subject through to it's logical conclusion.
They can yell and holler all they want, and though I may wish for a bus to come along and shut 'em up, they're still just misinformed, lazy thinking idiots and possibly cowards. But not traitors.
Now, the money grubbing, power hungry, elitist, scumbag politicians and activist judges who can actually do some damage, the media who vomits all the misinformation and turns nutjobs who kill children into household names so the next nutjob has a goal to shoot for (pun intended). Yeah, they're traitors, the politicians took an oath to abide by the COTUS and they know damn well what it says and what it means. They know exactly what the Framers meant by "Shall not be infringed", don't tell me they've never read any of the other documents, letters, essays and papers that expands on what the COTUS says.
Yeah, they're traitors.
The current supreme court likes to consult dictionaries. I went to the OED to discern the meaning of "regulate".
Regulate mean control, so, yes the government can control the types of arms being kept and borne.
Heller was a huge win, I wouldn't look too closely in the mouth of a gift horse.
Ive always thought that was a violation of the 1st amendment! brb cant say naughty words on tv or show your body cause we have primitive puritanical morals. Im a Libertarian so I believe in freedom. There use to be a radio show in my city called Love Phones where people called in for relationship help and then one day they decided to get this sex therapist couple in there and he fingered her till orgasm on air... next day they acted like it never existed, show was just gone.
When I said arent they traitors I was referring to the politicians who vote against the 2nd Amendment not uninformed hippies.
See, I'm not really thrilled with the restrictions, either. With things like TV, I think that's up to the parents to decide what's played in the house, etc.
My point, however, is that the First Amendment has be restricted and those restrictions have withstood the tests of the courts. And you don't hear anyone rallying and railing against the FCC. I don't understand why the Second should be thought of as beyond restrictions when it's historically proven that all the others can be restricted.
Liberal progressives at large should be considered traitors and enemies of the Constitution.
So are you against the illegal detention of a US citizen who was denied his due process rights and held as an "enemy combatant" for more than three years?
Jose Padilla is a scumbag, but he's a US citizen and he deserved his day in court. I argued that position here at GT and it was mighty unpopular, but by your logic every guard working at Guantanamo at the time was a "traitor" since they subverted the Constitutional rights of an American citizen.
Best I recall, they actually ruled that it didn't protect Miller's sawed-off shotgun because it wasn't a military weapon - not exactly the same thing. If they had ruled as you said, we wouldn't be having the assault weapon debate today. That case has never since been held to support a right to possess military small arms, and it is almost 75 years old.
However, Miller, combined with the supreme court cases in the last 7 years, could be a strating point for invalidating an assault weapon ban. Unfortunately, that is very optimistic thinking right now and, if Obama gets to appoint 1 more supreme court justice, it has no chance at all.
Person calling the shots should be held accountable. Example remember bath salts? It was like ritalin that you snort and can get it from tobacco marts and such. Well all the ones around me got raided and all the minimum wage employees got arrested for just doing there job and now face sentences of decades; they are not the ones calling the shots and should not be punished.
The philosophy of conservatism emphasizes liberty when it's convenient to the agenda of conservatism, just as the philosophy of liberalism emphasizes liberty when it's convenient to the agenda of liberalism. It's just different sides of the same coin.
When you understand this you can live life with a lot less stress.
You still have your values but you understand people can have different core values than you have.
Those are four words that hold a lot of weight that many like to ignore. Unfortunately.
Only if you push for change by unconstitutional means. As far as I am concerned, the only legal means by which our gun rights can be reduced is by a constitution amendment to change or rescind the second. The gun grabbers know that would never fly, so they stoop to sneaky illegal means. THAT is treason.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2