LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
The correct answer is yes.Originally Posted by nogods
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Does that mean a black homosexual has a fundamental right to marry a white homosexual, because the marriage to a "person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed"?
no answer
| |  |
Banned
The correct answer is yes.
Since the subject of the thread is 2nd Amendment related and you insist on changing the subject perhaps to affirm your own feelings or agenda, I'll indulge you with my answer. Yes... Yes is my answer.
For me it's the fine line between tolerance and acceptance. I'm on the tolerance side of the line. Freedom is the key and being free to live without regulation and restrictions placed upon any individual by others or any government entity, is what I believe our Founding Fathers had in mind upon uttering then writing the phrase "Pursuit of Happiness"..
If asked "do I accept that it is right (adj, Fitting, proper, or appropriate)" I'll indicate no, but never infringe upon the rights (n, any claim, title, etc., that is morally just or legally granted as allowable or due to a person) of others to choose tolerance or acceptance when deciding for themselves if the idea you have put forth for discussion, is right.
Now back to the subject of the thread..
Do you believe that anyone other than the individual to whom the right to "keep and bear arms" is really intended for, should have say as to when and how the right is exercised or in what manner or to what extent the right applies to the individual?
As I read the phrase "The right of the people to keep and bear arms"
I think _________________________________________________.
You can give peace a chance alright..
I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..
I believe the Supreme Court has the right to decide if a law violates the 2nd, not the individual. If you accept part of the constitution (the 2nd amendment) why would you reject the rest?
I also believe in the original understanding view of the constitution. Sotomeyer and Kagen are not going to do good during their term. But sadly, Obama was democratically elected and we will deal with it for 4 years. We lived and survived through carter, we can last through him.
And no, I don't like the views of the liberal justices. But the idea that you or I should decide what the constitution means for ourselves is something that I will never agree to or understand. And I really don't think you believe this consistently either.
You have much to learn......
Words mean what they mean, not what some judges want them to mean to support their own agenda.
The plain/actual definition of what the word meant when it was written in the Constitution is the only legal, binding way they can be defined now in regards to the Constitution...
Most adults can do some simple research themselves and come to the truth.... and see what was meant without having any problems understanding it.
The problem lies with those who want to change the meanings to fit their own views.
If the Supreme Court decided tomorrow that the only legal guns we could have are muzzle loaders.... are you going to turn all your other guns in????? Or would you then get some manhood and say hey!!! I know how to read, and the 2nd Amendment does not say that???
Leave me alone... and I will leave you alone....
Don't poke a wolverine with a sharp stick unless you want your balls ripped off.
Don't start nuthin, wont be nuthin.....
And in the late 18th century what do you think "arms" meant?
Anything a soldier of the time had available, so, in this modern time it would mean the exact same thing, we should have ANYTHING that our modern military soldier has. The government doesnt get any advantage over us........
"The reason the 2nd Amendment is there in the first place"
Leave me alone... and I will leave you alone....
Don't poke a wolverine with a sharp stick unless you want your balls ripped off.
Don't start nuthin, wont be nuthin.....
Amen +1
I've all but given up trying to explain it...
A large rock thrown at an enemy in an effort to disable him and thwart an attack, could be described as an "armament" just as the sword worn by the soldier or the rifle carried by him could be described as same... The term Arm or Arms can mean many things. At the time our Founding Fathers were debating the Amendments or Bill of Rights (1789-1791) the term Arms would have included flintlock rifles, pistols, swords, bayonets, and cannons, etc... All of which were weapons of the armies (military) at the time.
Freedom of speech and of the press at that time would have included spoken word and written or printed word. It would not have included radio, TV, nor the Internet.
So by that line of thinking... If the technology did not exist nor was defined at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, should it be excluded from the protection that the Bill of Rights provides for "the people" to possess or use freely with no infringement as God gave them the right to do?
You can give peace a chance alright..
I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..
This is from I think Andrews vs. State 1871 Tenn Supreme Court ruling. A long story on how I wound up being able to paste it here but if someone needs the details I can supply later. I think that eventually the SCOTUS will wind up with a similar ruling if enough cases make it to them. A good point in some posts are that should one be allowed to have tanks and nukes on their property as they are arms. Where do we draw the line on the definitiion of arms. Where do we draw the line on age for carrying or convicted criminals or others.
The point of the TN ruling was that once you leave your property you have a different set of responsibilities. When the famous line that Thomas Jefferson wrote about no free man should be prohibited from carrying (I don't have time to look it up right now) they leave off the second and third version that he submitted about it being on his own property.
I haven't read this whole thread but I do not think that the SCOTUS is going to eventually rule or has ruled that unlimited carry or ownership is the interpretation of 2A like many but will be limited such as the TNSC ruled back in 1871. One note is that the TN constitution is different than 2A on this but end the end will be a similar interpretation.
The principle on which all right to regulate the use in public of these articles of property, is, that no man can so use his own as to violate the rights of others, or of the community of which he is a member.
So we may say, with reference to such arms, as we have held, he may keep and use in the ordinary mode known to the country, no law can punish (p.186)him for so doing, while he uses such arms at home or on his own premises; he may do with his own as he will, while doing no wrong to others. Yet, when he carries his property abroad, goes among the people in public assemblages where others are to be affected by his conduct, then be brings himself within the pale of public regulation, and must submit to such restrictions on the mode of using or carrying his property as the people through their Legislature, shall see fit to impose for the general good.
The mere fact of carrying arms infringes on NO OTHERS RIGHTS as laid out in the Constitution, period. Now, it may "hurt" their "feelings" but they have no Constitutional right not to get their "feelings hurt" or not to "feel" scared.
The only thing I can think of that they would be able to (Constitutionally) regulate is perhaps the firing/discharging of guns in public.....
Leave me alone... and I will leave you alone....
Don't poke a wolverine with a sharp stick unless you want your balls ripped off.
Don't start nuthin, wont be nuthin.....
Posting Permissions
