View Poll Results: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • A license/permit required to exercise certain or all 1st amendment rights

    6 15.79%
  • A license/permit required to exercise certain or all 2nd amendment rights

    22 57.89%
  • Registration requirement of some or all of your books and other 1st amendment related things

    2 5.26%
  • Registration requirement of some or all of your firearms and other weapons.

    30 78.95%
  • A ban on certain books,religions, what the press can report and etc.

    3 7.89%
  • A ban on certain weapons.

    24 63.16%
  • A ban on certain individuals from exercising 1st amendment rights

    3 7.89%
  • A ban on certain individuals form exercising 2nd amendment rights

    17 44.74%
  • A total ban on 1st amendment rights

    2 5.26%
  • A total ban on 2nd amendment rights

    3 7.89%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 15 of 38 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 375

Thread: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights?

  1. #141
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,809

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    There are already reasonable infringements on your 1st amendment rights. Try screaming fire in a theater, try speaking untruths about a person, try saying you want to kill somebody etc. You will get sued, fined and a few knocks on your door. This poll is a false dichotomy.
    its already illegal to discharge a real assault weapon in a crowded theater except under really narrow circumstances


    this analogy is putrid because gun bans attack possession while restrictions on speech involve USE



  2. #142
    User jacksbrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    05-23-12 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    103

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Coronado View Post
    "Regulated" refers to militia and most probably refers to making the militia well ordered.

    The Constitution is not a word search. Context matters.
    You're right. Neither is it a pick and choose what you like,either. It says this: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. The words "regulated militia" is not part of another amendment, or even in another sentence in this amendment, it's part of the same line where you pick out your "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." as if that's the only thing it says. If the writers wanted the "a well regulated militia" par ignored, why did they bother putting it in there? Seems to me it's the subject of the amendment. You can't just ignore it.

  3. #143
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,078

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    There are already reasonable infringements on your 1st amendment rights. Try screaming fire in a theater, try speaking untruths about a person, try saying you want to kill somebody etc.
    A second amendment equivalent would be shooting people in a theater, firing a weapon in a grocery or maliciously killing someone.


    You will get sued, fined and a few knocks on your door.
    If you fire a weapon into a movie theater,murder someone, or just randomly discharge your weapon in certain places you will get fined, go to jail/prison or sentenced to community service and or sued.

    This poll is a false dichotomy.
    No it is not.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #144
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,190

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by jacksbrat View Post
    You're right. Neither is it a pick and choose what you like,either. It says this: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. The words "regulated militia" is not part of another amendment, or even in another sentence in this amendment, it's part of the same line where you pick out your "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." as if that's the only thing it says. If the writers wanted the "a well regulated militia" par ignored, why did they bother putting it in there? Seems to me it's the subject of the amendment. You can't just ignore it.

    On the contrary, if you parse the sentence correctly it is much the same as two sentences.

    1. A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

    THEREFORE (notice the semicolon?)

    2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Scholars have pointed out that in the mode of speech of the time the Constitution was written, "well-regulated" in military terms meant "Ready for battle" not "thoroughly controlled by many restictions".

    Let's consider the Founder's words...


    George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
    Debates, 425-426)

    Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
    include all men capable of bearing arms
    ." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

    James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
    best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
    emphasis added.

    IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
    standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
    does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
    to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
    militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
    by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
    but not from the second amendment. (my personal opinion)

    Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

    Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
    of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

    "Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
    and equipped
    ." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
    something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
    is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)
    And lest we forget, attempting to construe the language of the 2A against itself is also contrary to the Founders' words...

    FOUNDING FATHERS INTENT BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION:

    Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United
    States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms
    ." (Convention of the Commonwealth
    of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)

    Noah Webster: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority...the
    Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages
    who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean
    to be masters
    ." (Source still being sought)

    Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
    back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
    and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
    [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed
    ." (June 12 1823, Letter to
    William Johnson)

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  5. #145
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,809

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Permits need to be issued for things like mass protests or parades on public property, so as to ensure the police authorities can be adequately prepared to streamline daily commerce. Courts and congresses should have the ability to penalize 'obvious' abuses of the right (aka, Phelps family), by which I mean, each expression of free speech by its nature exhibits a level of decorum appropriate to its kind and breaches in this decorum to the point of undermining its claim to being that variety of expression can be construed as a misrepresentation of their actual agenda, which is a form of slander.

    Assault weapons (including military brand sharpshooters) should require psychological testing and licensing and be subject to temporary bans under the advisement of local police authorities.


    what is a military brand sharpshooter and why are you so enamored with the police

    that sort of thinking is why many of us are well armed



  6. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    There are NO REASONABLE INFRINGMENTS of ANY Constitutionally protected rights.

    The left had damn well better get this point through their heads.

  7. #147
    User jacksbrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    05-23-12 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    103

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    On the contrary, if you parse the sentence correctly it is much the same as two sentences.

    1. A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

    THEREFORE (notice the semicolon?)

    2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    And lest we forget, attempting to construe the language of the 2A against itself is also contrary to the Founders' words...
    Sorry, I don't see a semicolon, I see a coma. It's plain that they were talking about a civilian military. One organized to fight to defend the country, not the government. That was before we had an army. I wonder just who is "construing" the language of the 2A?

  8. #148
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,809

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by jacksbrat View Post
    Sorry, I don't see a semicolon, I see a coma. It's plain that they were talking about a civilian military. One organized to fight to defend the country, not the government. That was before we had an army. I wonder just who is "construing" the language of the 2A?
    well almost every legal scholar-from Liberals such as van Alstyne, Amar and Levinson to libertarians like Koppel to conservatives such as Cates and Volokh all support the individual right interpretation.

    the ones that don't-paid hacks of the Handgun Control Conspiracy against civil rights



  9. #149
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,190

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by jacksbrat View Post
    Sorry, I don't see a semicolon, I see a coma. It's plain that they were talking about a civilian military. One organized to fight to defend the country, not the government. That was before we had an army. I wonder just who is "construing" the language of the 2A?
    Did you bother to read the founder's quotes? They make things very clear.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  10. #150
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    There are NO REASONABLE INFRINGMENTS of ANY Constitutionally protected rights.

    The left had damn well better get this point through their heads.
    You know, we should go watch a movie together sometime. I might feel like yelling, "fire" and if you happen to die in a stampede...well, I was inside my 1st amendment rights
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Page 15 of 38 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •