Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Religion & Politics
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-12-2011, 08:10 PM
flacaltenn's Avatar
flacaltenn flacaltenn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
"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."

Which seems (despite the NRA) to quite clearly link the carrying of firearms to the protection of the State and not the Self
I've always wondered whether anti-2nd-amendment types would be consistent in interpretation if elements of the 1st amendment had been phrased with a preceeding justification like...

"A well-informed citizenry being neccessary to make reasoned choices at the ballot box, the right of the people to read books of choice shall not be infringed"

Obviously, you don't vote --- You don't need to be carrying that high-caliber Kindle. Put down that e-reader son, and slowly step away...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-12-2011, 08:34 PM
d-ray657's Avatar
d-ray657 d-ray657 is offline
Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by flacaltenn View Post
I've always wondered whether anti-2nd-amendment types would be consistent in interpretation if elements of the 1st amendment had been phrased with a preceeding justification like...

"A well-informed citizenry being neccessary to make reasoned choices at the ballot box, the right of the people to read books of choice shall not be infringed"

Obviously, you don't vote --- You don't need to be carrying that high-caliber Kindle. Put down that e-reader son, and slowly step away...
The problem with that analogy is that Kindles are not lethal weapons.

It's interesting that you use the terms "anti 2nd Amendment." It might be more accurate to describe such folks a narrow interpreters of the 2nd Amendment.

Are you suggesting that the right to bear arms is more important to a democracy than a broadly interpreted protection of free speech?

Regards,

D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-12-2011, 09:16 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by flacaltenn View Post
I've always wondered whether anti-2nd-amendment types would be consistent in interpretation if elements of the 1st amendment had been phrased with a preceeding justification like...

"A well-informed citizenry being neccessary to make reasoned choices at the ballot box, the right of the people to read books of choice shall not be infringed"

Obviously, you don't vote --- You don't need to be carrying that high-caliber Kindle. Put down that e-reader son, and slowly step away...
Irrelevant. The first amendment does not share the squirrelly sentence structure with a dangling antecedent like the 2nd Amendment. It is not an unreasonable interpretation to assert that the 2nd Amendment has to do with militias, not the individual right to bear arms (regardless of your own personal views of the issue). BTW, I'm a life long gun owner and hunter, but not a 2nd Amendment absolutist.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.

Last edited by finnbow; 04-13-2011 at 08:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.