The wording of the 2nd amendment is not difficult to interpret, but those who wish to allow the federal government to infringe upon this particular right have a vested interest in obfuscating the issue behind arguments concerning interpretation, practical application, etc. I am against the arbitrary reinterpretation (or manipulation) of any legal contract, most especially the constitution.
If the right is to be infringed, it may only legally and properly be infringed through either an amendment to the constitution or for a new constitution to be drafted altogether (via convention), both of which I would oppose as unnecessary.
In the meantime, the 2nd amendment holds equal weight to all other amendments, there is no reason to believe it deserves any special consideration or additional scrutiny in comparison to any other part of the constitution.
Last edited by other; 09-02-09 at 07:39 PM.
George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.
Nuclear weapons ar enot 'arms' as the term is used in the amendment and therefore any discussion of them is meaningless.Surely owning a nuclear weapon would be a clear and present danger.
Are you discussing the use of these weapons, or their simple posession?As far as "guns," it's hard to tell. If the guns in question have some sort of useful purpose aside from causing chaos and crime, then I would argue that they clearly do not constitute clear and present danger. If they don't have any useful purpose...it becomes much more difficult to determine.
I believe this was included in the OP.I should add that although "clear and present danger" is an example of a limitation on freedom of speech, it isn't the only limitation. There are civil limitations as well as criminal limitations; you can't slander someone, infringe on their copyrights, etc.
What about the 2nd amendment negates the validity of the tests regarding restrictions on the exercise of the rights found under the 1st amedment that do not violate the 1st amendment?Furthermore, I don't think you can neatly substitute the limitations on one right for the limitations on another right.
Parallels to the first amendment are tenuous, because they prosecute you for the speech, they do not cut out your tongue, or ban you from acquiring a new tongue.
Last edited by Voidwar; 09-03-09 at 11:02 AM.
Restrictions on free speech, do not restrict the apparatus, they restrict behavior.
It is illegal to yell fire in a theater, but it is not illegal to bring your tongue into a theater.
Actions, not possesion. The two rights are infringed on in very different ways, thus parallel arguments become tenuous.
Yes. This is very much my point, though there has been no opportunity to discuss it, as there has been very little actual discussion of the issue.
The -potential- to harm others and the -potential- to create an immediate condition of clear and present danger to others is not the same as -actually- causing these things. The restrictions on the rights protected by the first amendment are based on the -actions- of people, not their -potential- to commit those actions.
So when people try to justify gun laws with speech laws, their whole attempt at parallel is rendered impotent by the fact that no one cuts out the tongue of a slanderer.