• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abridge 1st Amendment and infringe, 2nd Amendment, what does it mean?

danielpalos said:
They mean, free political speech and well regulated militia shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

Evidence for the qualifier of being in a militia?
 
ludin said:
Actually it is needed still. Tyranny is started by disarming of citizens.
Unarmed citizens are at the mercy of every element out there including their own government.

had people done their job then cruz would not have been able to purchase the gun to begin with.
his therapist failed to put his mental status, the FBI failed to conduct a proper investigation on 2 tips they
received about it.

Local law enforcement failed to do their job as well.

it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

PS when you want to start repealing rights then well
that means other rights can be repealed as well.

The 2nd amendment is not a limitation on citizens it is a limitation on government.
Click to expand...

There are many countries in the world that have strong guns laws and their citizens don't seem as worried about their governments, why are you so worried about our? I just don't understand. I guess with Trump in office you might be more worried about our government since he has such a strong love for tyrants across the world, but I don't see even the GOP going along with anything like Tyranny.
 
independentusa said:
The 1st Amendment says that free speech shall not be abridged and yet the SCOTUS says that there are certain things you can not say, like yelling fire in a crowded theater due to a safety issue. The 2nd Amendment as now interpreted by SCOTUS says that owning arms is an individual right and it shall not be infringed. Yet, even Scalia said that reasonable guns laws would pass constitutional muster. The law outlawing automatic weapons seems to be one of those lwas that have passed. So what does abridged and infringed actually mean in these two amendments to the constitution? Does the public safety override the words abridged and infringed?
Click to expand...

That is why there is a Supreme Court, to make those rulings. I also think that is the beauty of the Constitutions and amendments, its vagueness has worked in guaranteeing rights but allowing for the changing times and for rights to be maintained even with unforeseen future, and for reasonable limitations.

Even the 2nd amendments has limits. Felons can't have guns, people can't bring guns into many different places. People also can't own particular types of arms like rocket launchers and others.

That's why its always a completely idiotic so called "argument" when a pro gun person just yells "shall not be infringed" as their sole argument with nothing else. Shall not be infringed is very vague, as is arms."

Also, if "well regulated" was not intended to be connected to the first part of the 2nd amendment, there would be a period separating that and the second half. A common suggests it is all in one sentence and meant to be together
 
independentusa said:
There are many countries in the world that have strong guns laws and their citizens don't seem as worried about their governments, why are you so worried about our? I just don't understand. I guess with Trump in office you might be more worried about our government since he has such a strong love for tyrants across the world, but I don't see even the GOP going along with anything like Tyranny.
Click to expand...

Good for those countries. We think differently and if you knew the history of it you would have realized that when they came over England still had strict weapon laws as to who could own them.
Nope i am not worried about trump at all. I am more worried about people with your mentality.
 
danielpalos said:
Yes, well regulated, is the qualifier for the militia of the United States, and of the several States.
Click to expand...
I meant evidence that ypu need to be in a militia in order to exercise your 2nd amendmemt rights.
 
independentusa said:
There are many countries in the world that have strong guns laws and their citizens don't seem as worried about their governments, why are you so worried about our? I just don't understand. I guess with Trump in office you might be more worried about our government since he has such a strong love for tyrants across the world, but I don't see even the GOP going along with anything like Tyranny.
Click to expand...

Most of the EU is turning socialist and banning any crituzisms of Islam.
 
danielpalos said:
Yes, it does. Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People.
Click to expand...

It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms. How does that not establish a right by the federal constitution.
 
independentusa said:
The 1st Amendment says that free speech shall not be abridged and yet the SCOTUS says that there are certain things you can not say, like yelling fire in a crowded theater due to a safety issue. The 2nd Amendment as now interpreted by SCOTUS says that owning arms is an individual right and it shall not be infringed. Yet, even Scalia said that reasonable guns laws would pass constitutional muster. The law outlawing automatic weapons seems to be one of those lwas that have passed. So what does abridged and infringed actually mean in these two amendments to the constitution? Does the public safety override the words abridged and infringed?
Click to expand...
An analysis of the meaning of each of those amendments has filled numerous books.

That said... No right is held to be absolute; all rights have their limits. The text itself does not define those limits, so in practical terms it's up to the courts, at the time of a ruling, to determine the meaning of the text. And that meaning changes over time, no matter how much a particular court or justice claims to be following some "original" intent.
 
ludin said:
Actually it is needed still. Tyranny is started by disarming of citizens.
Unarmed citizens are at the mercy of every element out there including their own government.

had people done their job then cruz would not have been able to purchase the gun to begin with.
his therapist failed to put his mental status, the FBI failed to conduct a proper investigation on 2 tips they
received about it.

Local law enforcement failed to do their job as well.

it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

PS when you want to start repealing rights then well
that means other rights can be repealed as well.

The 2nd amendment is not a limitation on citizens it is a limitation on government.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how many countries limit weapons in the hands of their population and are as free in everything else as we are and far safer?
 
Visbek said:
An analysis of the meaning of each of those amendments has filled numerous books.

That said... No right is held to be absolute; all rights have their limits. The text itself does not define those limits, so in practical terms it's up to the courts, at the time of a ruling, to determine the meaning of the text. And that meaning changes over time, no matter how much a particular court or justice claims to be following some "original" intent.
Click to expand...

a literal reading always applies.
 
independentusa said:
Do you realize how many countries limit weapons in the hands of their population and are as free in everything else as we are and far safer?
Click to expand...

You know what i can demand that you stay in your home and only go out with government paid escorts that you only get to go where they think you should go where it is safe.
With freedom comes a certain risk and it was a risk that the founding fathers were willing to take.

Not really England is locking people up in jail for saying things they find icky.
I don't consider that freedom.

The illusion of safety is not safety.
 
danielpalos said:
It says so in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

no it says: "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."
meaning a militia of the people is necessary to the security of a free state, so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

because the militia back then was made up of armed citizens.
and it is just as relevant today, although possibly for somewhat different reasons.

and before someone states that isn't how SCOTUS interprets it, well, SCOTUS's interpretations are a travesty nowadays anyway IMHO, that's nothing new. Activism at its worst, depending on the rights they want you to have, not as defined by the constitution.
 
Last edited:
DickBanks said:
Haven't thought much about the First Amendment the last few days. No one is dying for it presently...

As for the 2nd, I think that Justice Scalia is stretching the intent a bit. I think the wording of it is very clear and specific:

"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."

Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

Filling out forms constitutes infringement, because based upon what I write on that FFL, you can deny me my right to purchase a firearm.

The Second Amendment protected Nicolas Cruz when he purchased the AR-15. It protected him when he removed it from his home. It protected him as he approached the school. It only stopped protecting him when he pulled the trigger, and by then, it was too late.

And that's why the Second Amendment needs to be repealed.

A well regulated Militia IS NO LONGER necessary to the security of THIS free State.
Click to expand...


and that is exactly how it should be done if it is to be done. It's up to the nation as a whole to decide whether a militia and the right to bear arms is still necessary or not, so if you want to ban guns then repeal the 2nd amendment.
 
Hypothetical said:
no it says: "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."
meaning a militia of the people is necessary to the security of a free state, so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

because the militia back then was made up of armed citizens.
and it is just as relevant today, although possibly for somewhat different reasons.

and before someone states that isn't how SCOTUS interprets it, well, SCOTUS's interpretations are a travesty nowadays anyway IMHO, that's nothing new. Activism at its worst, depending on the rights they want you to have, not as defined by the constitution.
Click to expand...

simple judicial activism and special pleading.

what do you do in any conflict of laws? Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared necessary, not the unorganized militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
 
independentusa said:
The 1st Amendment says that free speech shall not be abridged and yet the SCOTUS says that there are certain things you can not say, like yelling fire in a crowded theater due to a safety issue. The 2nd Amendment as now interpreted by SCOTUS says that owning arms is an individual right and it shall not be infringed. Yet, even Scalia said that reasonable guns laws would pass constitutional muster. The law outlawing automatic weapons seems to be one of those lwas that have passed. So what does abridged and infringed actually mean in these two amendments to the constitution? Does the public safety override the words abridged and infringed?
Click to expand...

It means what the courts say it means, just as intended
 
Sampson Simpson said:
It means what the courts say it means, just as intended
Click to expand...

I agree. The problem is that many of the people on this message board think they know better than the founding fathers and the way they set up this country. I don't agree with the court's ruling that owning a weapon is a individual right. I think the real interpretation of our constitution is that as a " well organized" militia member you have the right to have a weapon. BUT, the court has ruled it is an individual right and until another court rules otherwise it is the law of the land and I will uphold such a right, limited only by what Scalia said were reasonable gun control laws. Maybe the right wingers ought to realize that this is the way our country works, even if they don't always agree with the decisions of SCOTUS.
 
danielpalos said:
Why do you say that? Words must mean something, in any given (social) Contract.
Click to expand...

yep they do doesn't mean that you get to reinterpret them to mean something else
also the constitution isn't a social contract. It is a document of governance.

it tells the government what it can and can't do.
it is pretty clear in what it states as well.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
It means what the courts say it means, just as intended
Click to expand...

umm no. that isn't how it was to be intended.
The courts were supposed to uphold the constitution and defend it.

IE their own opinion of what it said was meaningless.
Judges are not supposed to have the power to change the constitution.

that is left up to the states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom