"Congress shall make no law..."

[Fast_Eddie]

Those are powerful words. Sounds to me like the Founding Fathers when writing the first amendment were making every effort to say "you don't mess with this one." Serious stuff indeed.

And over the years the first amendment has indeed been treated as serious stuff. "Congress shall make now law" has been tested many times. And yet, there are exceptions. I guess it's a bit of a cliché at this point to bring it up, but people have made the case that child pornography is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. As a mental exercise, I guess I can mull that over and see both sides. But as a practical consideration it doesn't take long for the vast majority of Americans to agree to some limits on our first amendment rights. So the law prohibits my freedom of speech in that case. And I'm good with that. But make no mistake- my rights have been limited. And "Congress shall make no law" is still in there.

Okay, I'm going somewhere with this. At this point I'll ask you to pick a side. Do you agree that child pornography should indeed be illegal? If so, you're in the majority. Like most Americans, you're willing to give up that right because the exploitation of Children shouldn't be protected by our laws. If you do not agree, you're in a smaller group that would contend that sometimes bad things happen, but we have to be absolute in our protection of our rights. On an ideological level, a lot of us can see where those people are coming from, but disagree with them.

So, you're in the big group, or the little group. Make the call now. There's a quiz. And here it comes.

"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The second amendment. Ahh. Here's the quiz. Were you in the big group in the exercise above? Did you decide that it's okay for out laws to limit your rights to protect children?

It's just food for thought. It's like asking the capital punishment gang how they feel about abortion. But I think it's worth while to think about these things. How do you really feel about the issue? Are you thinking for yourself or listening to someone else’s ideas and adopting them as your own?

Is it possible- just possible- that the NRA is working for the gun makers and importers more than they're working for the sportsman? I'm not saying they are. Just asking if it's possible. And is it possible that a law could be passed that would limit the rights under the Second Amendment that wouldn't lead to the banning of all weapons? Can you logically oppose any infringement of gun ownership rights without also opposing limits on child pornography?

[noonereal]

another excellent post.

I predict limited responses.

[merrylander]

In the first place abuse of children is illegal and that automatically makes publishing pictures of such acts illegal, has nowt to do with the 1st.

You left off the bit about "A well regulated militia . . ."

[spasmo55]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Those are powerful words. Sounds to me like the Founding Fathers when writing the first amendment were making every effort to say "you don't mess with this one." Serious stuff indeed.

And over the years the first amendment has indeed been treated as serious stuff. "Congress shall make now law" has been tested many times. And yet, there are exceptions. I guess it's a bit of a cliché at this point to bring it up, but people have made the case that child pornography is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. As a mental exercise, I guess I can mull that over and see both sides. But as a practical consideration it doesn't take long for the vast majority of Americans to agree to some limits on our first amendment rights. So the law prohibits my freedom of speech in that case. And I'm good with that. But make no mistake- my rights have been limited. And "Congress shall make no law" is still in there.

Okay, I'm going somewhere with this. At this point I'll ask you to pick a side. Do you agree that child pornography should indeed be illegal? If so, you're in the majority. Like most Americans, you're willing to give up that right because the exploitation of Children shouldn't be protected by our laws. If you do not agree, you're in a smaller group that would contend that sometimes bad things happen, but we have to be absolute in our protection of our rights. On an ideological level, a lot of us can see where those people are coming from, but disagree with them.

So, you're in the big group, or the little group. Make the call now. There's a quiz. And here it comes.

"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The second amendment. Ahh. Here's the quiz. Were you in the big group in the exercise above? Did you decide that it's okay for out laws to limit your rights to protect children?

It's just food for thought. It's like asking the capital punishment gang how they feel about abortion. But I think it's worth while to think about these things. How do you really feel about the issue? Are you thinking for yourself or listening to someone else’s ideas and adopting them as your own?

Is it possible- just possible- that the NRA is working for the gun makers and importers more than they're working for the sportsman? I'm not saying they are. Just asking if it's possible. And is it possible that a law could be passed that would limit the rights under the Second Amendment that wouldn't lead to the banning of all weapons? Can you logically oppose any infringement of gun ownership rights without also opposing limits on child pornography?

I can see were the 1st might protect the distribution of porn, consisting of consenting adults. The explotation of minors in making child porno, well there is nothing in the constitution that I can see protects that. Problem, some cultures may allow children to be exploited for such things, and the WWW kind of gives the pervs that care for it a source.

My personal opinion, child porn should be illegal, ranking right there with rape, nail the SOB's to a tree by their sack. If they want it they are free to travel to whatever nation is so F**ked up enough to allow such things.

Yes, I can logically oppose infringement of gun rights, with out opposing limits on child porn.

Gun rights are specifically addressed in the constitution. The people is lower case in the original document, (Article the fourth) showing the intent of allowing the individual to own guns, and not as some would read into it, thinking it only applied to the Militia.

A firearm is an inanimate object, incapable of doing anything on it's own or of being harmed, a child on the other hand is a person, da!

Laws have been passed limiting my rights under the second ammendment w/out banning all weapons. If they hadn't, I would own a much larger selection of firearms. A Thompson M1A1, .45 Cal, an M-79 40mm and a Browning M2 50 Cal come to mind.

I support capital punishment and am Pro-Choice, just in case you wanted to know.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by merrylander

You left off the bit about "A well regulated militia . . ."

That was intentional. Didn't want to muddy the issue. But you are absolutely right. I may make that the subject of a post another day...

[OvenMaster]

Okay, you asked for it. I am against any form of censorship at any time. I loathe it with all my being. I have no need for any form of government nanny looking over my shoulder telling me what I can and cannot read, hear, or see. I take censorship as a personal insult because it implies that my own judgment is insufficient and must be superseded by someone else's... someone I have no control over.

As far as the second amendment goes, I say people should be able to buy and have any gun they damn well please. But if you commit a crime with a gun, then you should go to jail for a very, VERY long time.

[Fast_Eddie]

^^

I did ask for it and that's a good answer! Like I said, I can understand that position. I don't agree with it, but it's consistant.

[painter]

Enjoy!


http://www.sights-and-culture.com/America/America.html

[Sandy G]

I think y'all pretty much know where I stand on the 2nd Amendment...And as for the 1st, Tom said it a couple of posts above a helluva lot more eloquently than I ever could ! Bravo !!

[JJIII]

Post #6 said it much better than I can.