1
   

DEFEND THE BILL OF RIGHTS

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 03:03 pm
Ash, what would be better than having senators appointed would be for the senators appointing the president. The founding fathers considered this early on. I think we would have avoided having some of the clinkers the public installed in the White House. Presumably, the senate would have appointed tried and true leaders in the senate, much like the prime ministers coming from the House of Commons.

Fed, while I am sure that the topic of gun control has been covered in A2K ad nauseam, the Second Amendment does not provide an unfettered right to bear arms.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 03:07 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Fedral wrote:
Everywhere you look, the freedom of speech we took for granted has been curtailed....yet they scream to high Heaven when there is any chance of restriction on the First....

This seems contradictory. Are you for prohibiting flag burning, or are you against it?


I am pointing out the hypocricy on both sides of this issue.

I believe in the power of the people to make whatever dumb choices come into their heads.

If the people of this country, through their duly elected representatives, want an Amendment banning the burning of the flag, so be it.

I don't think it is going to do a damn bit of good. Prohibition didn't stop drinking, it just made people do it out of the public eye. This Amendment isn't going to magically make every flag in the country fireproof.

Four generations of my family have now served under and been burried under that flag. I love it as the symbol of what the country means to me.

If I saw someone burning a flag, I would accept it as that individuals right to express whatever political/social point he was trying to make.

That individual would also have to understand that there are those of us who would chose to express our counterargument in a very vigorous and violent reply and hope that a jury of our patriotic peers would fail to convict us of assault upon that person.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 03:23 pm
My sensibilities (and, I guess, those of most others) are offended almost daily. However, I don't assault the offenders because they are acting within their rights. (Moreover, I guess I am sometimes an offender.) The greatest thing about our country is our rights, especially freedom of speech. I think we should all work to be tolerant of the speech of others.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 04:19 pm
woiyo wrote:
Yet, to amend the US Constitution that would over-rule a Supreme Court Ruling would be unique.

Quite the reverse. The following amendments were passed specifically to overrule supreme court precedents: 11th, 14th, 16th, 24th, 26th.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 04:21 pm
Fedral wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Fedral wrote:
Everywhere you look, the freedom of speech we took for granted has been curtailed....yet they scream to high Heaven when there is any chance of restriction on the First....

This seems contradictory. Are you for prohibiting flag burning, or are you against it?


I am pointing out the hypocricy on both sides of this issue.

I believe in the power of the people to make whatever dumb choices come into their heads.

If the people of this country, through their duly elected representatives, want an Amendment banning the burning of the flag, so be it...

I don't agree. Such an amendment would be the end of America, although there would still be a country with that name.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 04:28 pm
Burning the flag is already highly offensive to nearly all Americans and anyone who does it, does it exactly because it is shocking and highly offensive.

But this isn't the only shocking and highly offensive act that one could do.

If it burning the flag is banned, people will be able to find something else that is still legal-- but just as shocking and highly offensive to most Americans-- if they shocking and offending is what they want.

But by banning it, you appease anyone who wants to do a public act that is shocking, highly offensive and illegal. The ban may just encourage the very act that supporters want to prevent.

No one is burning flags in the US now. Why should we risk changing this?
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 04:56 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Fedral wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Fedral wrote:
Everywhere you look, the freedom of speech we took for granted has been curtailed....yet they scream to high Heaven when there is any chance of restriction on the First....

This seems contradictory. Are you for prohibiting flag burning, or are you against it?


I am pointing out the hypocricy on both sides of this issue.

I believe in the power of the people to make whatever dumb choices come into their heads.

If the people of this country, through their duly elected representatives, want an Amendment banning the burning of the flag, so be it...

I don't agree. Such an amendment would be the end of America, although there would still be a country with that name.


I don't agree Brandon, this country stands for what its people believe in.

If the greater portion of them think that there should be such an Amendment, although it may injure your sensibilities as to what YOU feel America should be, the will of the people will have spoken.

I think that such an Amendment will no more destroy the country than the highly illegal anti gun restrictions that are in place in New York and Chicago have destroyed the freedoms of this country.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 04:57 pm
If the majority of people feel that those restrictions should be in place, gun nut, what makes them any more 'highly illegal' than the proposed flag burning amendment would be?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 04:58 pm
Fedral wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Fedral wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Fedral wrote:
Everywhere you look, the freedom of speech we took for granted has been curtailed....yet they scream to high Heaven when there is any chance of restriction on the First....

This seems contradictory. Are you for prohibiting flag burning, or are you against it?


I am pointing out the hypocricy on both sides of this issue.

I believe in the power of the people to make whatever dumb choices come into their heads.

If the people of this country, through their duly elected representatives, want an Amendment banning the burning of the flag, so be it...

I don't agree. Such an amendment would be the end of America, although there would still be a country with that name.


I don't agree Brandon, this country stands for what its people believe in.

If the greater portion of them think that there should be such an Amendment, although it may injure your sensibilities as to what YOU feel America should be, the will of the people will have spoken.

I think that such an Amendment will no more destroy the country than the highly illegal anti gun restrictions that are in place in New York and Chicago have destroyed the freedoms of this country.

I think there's something different about dragging Americans out of the streets to jail for expressing an opinion. It's the antithesis of what America has always stood for.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 05:05 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
If the majority of people feel that those restrictions should be in place, gun nut, what makes them any more 'highly illegal' than the proposed flag burning amendment would be?

Cycloptichorn


This is my exact point Cyc...

In MY opinion and the opinion of many Americans, restrictions on firearm ownership are illegal and against both the word and spirit of the Second Amendment, yet, the implementation of them has not led to the fall of the Republic.
Many, like Brandon are afraid that any restrictions on the First will be the End of Days.

My point is, logically, if you are FOR the allowing of flag burning, you should also be against any restrictions on gun ownership.

If on the other hand, you have no problem with 'reasonable restrictions' on rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, you should have no problem with some minor restrictions on the First.

Believing that you should have restrictions on one and NEVER allow restrictions on the other is hypocrisy of the first water.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 06:18 pm
With the continuation of the two wars, we may indeed soon have flag burnings. I am a little surprised that we haven't seen this recently. We will definitely see it if the draft is restored.

Fed says: "My point is, logically, if you are FOR the allowing of flag burning, you should also be against any restrictions on gun ownership."

There is no logic here. Every court hearing the issue, but one lower federal one, has held (correctly I think) that the right to bear arms is not an unfettered one.

But there is nothing at all, and there should not be, anything that restricts flag burning. This may be obnoxious and irritating, but it is only speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. Amending the constitution to ban burning would be a huge set back for the country.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 06:57 pm
Okay. I just want to know how I'm supposed to get rid of an old, worn flag if burning it becomes illegal.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 09:47 pm
Advocate wrote:
With the continuation of the two wars, we may indeed soon have flag burnings. I am a little surprised that we haven't seen this recently. We will definitely see it if the draft is restored.


The draft will not be restored. The people don't want it, Congress doesn't want it and the Generals dont want it no matter what your friends at Democratic Underground and Move On say. End of subject.

Advocate wrote:
Fed says: "My point is, logically, if you are FOR the allowing of flag burning, you should also be against any restrictions on gun ownership."

There is no logic here. Every court hearing the issue, but one lower federal one, has held (correctly I think) that the right to bear arms is not an unfettered one.


That is the decision of very liberal courts who decided to do some legislating from the bench.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Either they are both absolute or neither are, you can't have it both ways.

Advocate wrote:
But there is nothing at all, and there should not be, anything that restricts flag burning. This may be obnoxious and irritating, but it is only speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. Amending the constitution to ban burning would be a huge set back for the country.


Keep in mind, if you want to point to the whole militia thing that Liberals are SO fond of pointing to, I'll point out that the militia used to be ALL of the people and ask you to take note that burning a flag is an action, not speech. We can split hairs about the exact intent, but too many Liberals seem to love to strech the First Amendment as far as possible while narrowing the scope of the Second as much a possible.

Either the Amendments are sacrosant or they are not. You don't get to ignore the ones you disagree with and only follow the ones you like.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 10:01 am
The militia qualification is real whether you like it or not. Essentially all courts, not just liberal ones, recognize this.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 11:27 am
We need a constitutional amendment to protect the flag from George W. Bush!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 11:31 am
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

Ahhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .


Ah me . . .


okseeyahbye
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 11:31 am
Fedral wrote:
Keep in mind, if you want to point to the whole militia thing that Liberals are SO fond of pointing to, I'll point out that the militia used to be ALL of the people and ask you to take note that burning a flag is an action, not speech.

If burning a flag were solely an action rather than speech, then burning a worn flag respectfully at the American Legion would be no different from burning a flag disrespectfully on the courthouse steps.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 11:41 am
Advocate wrote:
The militia qualification is real whether you like it or not. Essentially all courts, not just liberal ones, recognize this.


During the 1700's the militia was defined as every free, able bodied male in an area.

But if you DO want to split hairs like that, we can put forth the premise that there is no way that flag burning should be counted as Free Speech since it is an actual action. It is like saying that I have the right to dig a hole in the middle of Central Park or wash my car in Times Square as per my First Amendment right of Free Speech.

How would these things be protected since they are merely physical actions and in no way carry a message via speech or writing?

What would your think if a known paedophile was to paint political slogans on his naked body and stand in your child's preschool, bare assed, reading from the collected works of Thomas Jefferson? Would you support his rights to Free Speech or would you be in favour of curtailing his First Amendment rights 'just a bit'?

Some friends of mine and I were talking some time ago and pointed out that if the provisions of the Second Amendment were stretched as far as the First, we would be able to shoot anyone that we wanted to as long as we did it with an absence of malice.

Either that, or imagine it the other way around. Imagine that they curtailed the First as much as they are strangling the Second:
1) You would need to take a government approved course to be allowed to get a permit to carry press credentials or write books and the government could choose to revoke you right to renew that permit anytime, without explanation.
2) Local, city and state governments could place as many restrictions on the press as they wanted in the name of 'public safety' and certain cities (New York or Chicago say.) could ban reporters and any attempt to publish books, magazines, and newspapers.
3) The government could decide to ban certain types of reporting/publishing such as political or investigative works on the premise that they are 'too dangerous' for anyone other than government organizations. They would point out that they were still allowing sports reporting and the publishing of comics that you rights weren't being completely taken away.

Does this sound right to you? Where do you draw those lines? I certainly don't want people who dislike certain Amendments drawing those lines for the rest of us.

I wouldn't want someone like Sarah Brady deciding on what limitations to place on the Second Amendment, just as I wouldn't want Pat Falwell deciding what limits are needed on the First.

As I said before, either these Amendments are the foundation of this country and should be considered immutable or we need to allow for changes in them, you cant 'cherry pick' the ones you want to be invulnerable to change because it's your favourite and chop the others to Spam because you don't like the way it is worded.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 11:51 am
Fedral wrote:
Advocate wrote:
The militia qualification is real whether you like it or not. Essentially all courts, not just liberal ones, recognize this.


During the 1700's the militia was defined as every free, able bodied male in an area.


That is a false statement. It is precisely because of restrictions on participation in the militia that the second amendment provisions were seen as necessary.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 01:03 pm
Setanta wrote:
Fedral wrote:
Advocate wrote:
The militia qualification is real whether you like it or not. Essentially all courts, not just liberal ones, recognize this.


During the 1700's the militia was defined as every free, able bodied male in an area.


That is a false statement. It is precisely because of restrictions on participation in the militia that the second amendment provisions were seen as necessary.


Setanta, you have little or no idea about what you speak.

I was born and raised in New Jersey, one of those little states that's been around longer than the country. The town I grew up in has a graveyard with the men and women lost in the Revolutionary war. There are numerous families in my town that could recite the names of every ancestor of theirs that was killed in every war from the French and Indian War to Iraq part deux.

One of the New Jersey National Guard regiments that my father served in, traced its formation back to the Revolution. I grew up reading about these people and I believe that I have a grasp of how the militia system worked in Jersey (Although your state may vary, I can't speak with as much absolute certainty of the states in the south.)

The militia was, in our neck of the woods, just about every free, able bodied man who could bear arms for the protection of his village/town/state. Depending on the organizational level, they trained to march and fire and comport themselves with some level of professionalism (Depending on the drive of their commanders.) and readied themselves in case of hostile attack. (Most of this was an outgrowth of a time when hostile Native American tribes were the greatest threat.) This is the genesis of the 'militia'. To believe that the Founding Fathers were indicating the Second Amendment meant the National Guard or Reserves, neither of which existed when they wrote the document, is the height of revisionist history.

If you want to know the true feelings of the Founding Fathers as to how they felt about the ownership of firearms:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
Roger Sherman during House consideration of a militia bill (1790): 14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.

Or is it still not clear to you that they were NOT talking about the freaking National Guard in those passages?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/25/2022 at 12:01:23