No Law Prohibiting or Abridging, Shall Not Infring
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone or shout "fire" in a crowded theater; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.
With the right to Vote, our society has limited that right to citizens and taken it from Felons and the Mentally Ill.
My point is that throughout our history our country has infringed on the rights and freedoms and rights of people. Criminals and traitors lose their freedom or their lives and many of their rights. Aliens may be imprisoned and deported, even if here legally. Felons lose their right to vote and own fire arms.
The use NIC's checks and 4473's in of themselves do not infringe on anyones rights. The information gathered from them can be used to infringe and is used to infringe on the rights of Felons, etc.
In the Founders' time, the mentally ill were locked up, essentially forever. Today, they are not but we keep them from owning firearms. Both are infringements on their rights with cause. The same can be said for Felons.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone or shout "fire" in a crowded theater; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.
With the right to Vote, our society has limited that right to citizens and taken it from Felons and the Mentally Ill.
My point is that throughout our history our country has infringed on the rights and freedoms and rights of people. Criminals and traitors lose their freedom or their lives and many of their rights. Aliens may be imprisoned and deported, even if here legally. Felons lose their right to vote and own fire arms.
The use NIC's checks and 4473's in of themselves do not infringe on anyones rights. The information gathered from them can be used to infringe and is used to infringe on the rights of Felons, etc.
In the Founders' time, the mentally ill were locked up, essentially forever. Today, they are not but we keep them from owning firearms. Both are infringements on their rights with cause. The same can be said for Felons.
0
-
I can't work up much sympathy for a convicted felon, non-violent or violent.
So be it. I can't work up the desire to work hand in hand with other gun owners who have a perverted view of liberty, without having the urge to vomit.
The slippery slope we are on is the one where firearms are banned by type that started with the National Firearms Act of 1934 where machine guns were banned.
No, the slippery slope we are on is due to so many willingly accepting a watered down version of the RTKBA; the same ones who criticize those of us who will not compromise.0 -
One does not make an entire Nation an insane asylum just because you have some perverted sense that we should allow the criminally insane to freely walk the streets of America.
Not in a free country, you don't.
The utter moral ROT of deciding that we will punish HUNDREDS of millions of decent people because most have not the courage to demand that the guilty pay for their mis-deeds.
The utter INSANITY of those hundreds of millions of decent people going ALONG with that perverted morality totally escapes me.
CRIMINAL CONTROL...NOT weapon control.
Just goes to prove..treat people like criminals and mentally unbalanced...and they start to act like it. Witness the gunowner that supports gun control.
We really SHOUD disarm those types of people.
"Small World" ??/ Yeah..we only represent 3 % of the population.
Strong, courageous, resolute, and ABSOLUTLY believing that the Constitution is the route to freedom, yet again.
I stand proudly in the shadow of those great men, the Founders..and back to back with any man that understands and believes in it today.
Damn precious few...and every one worth a thousand Beast-lovers.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Matchshot
Requiring registration to vote does not infringe on the right to vote. Requiring a test to register does. Requiring a poll tax does. NIC's check and the 4473 do vet the gun owner in that felons and the mentally ill may not own a gun. Taking the information from the 4473 or the NICs check to come after a gun owner to take away his guns is an infringement. Do you also believe that the NIC's checks should be done away with?
And yes, I do believe that the RTKBA for felons and the mentally ill should be infringed upon. Don't you?
Identifying voters is necessary so as to ascertain that they are eligible to do so. You may note, that the 15th and 19th Amendments do not state 'infringe', they state 'denied or abridged'. In short, there is no Constitutional basis for your comparrison, as the privilege to vote can, in fact be infringed upon.
'Infringe' is a totally different animal, and either must be respected or amended away. In that regard, yes, I do believe that NIC's should be done away with. They serve only to inconvenience the law abiding. Example - we had a gun show recently, where perhaps half the sellers (a guess on my part) were private sellers. Amazingly, there has been no increase in violent crime, and loonies are not running through the streets shooting up the place. With the existence of private sale, the NICS system targets only those who need not be targeted, and, as pointed out in your first paragraph, provides a data base for for the tracking of firearms imperpetuity. Therefore, to make your denial to loonies program work, we will have to outlaw all private sales. Is that your intent?
This is not a problem that can be solved overnight. The elimination of restriction must be accompanied by an overhaul in our criminal justice system. Protecting society must be done by eliminating those that have proven they are a threat, either by killing or permanently incarcerating them. Those that are released should be released as whole men, as they can then re-join society. This partial release and permanent tagging only feeds the criminal sub-culture that exists today.
Lastly, regarding the 1st and 2nd Amendment comparisons that are being made:
1. As it is illegal to yell fire in a theater, it is also illegal to shoot a firearm in a theater. Both would incite panic, and threaten the lives of others.
2. The abuse of children is illegal whether it be done with a camera or a glock.
In short, the 'infringements' that are cited as restricting these other rights are already applied to the use of firearms. Additional restrictions of any kind are not comparable as they are in addition to all use restrictions that are in place in our society.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
45long;
You are indeed right.
However...I am a one note charlie. Absent the Second...all the rest are history.
This is my believe also!
Match,
But the 4473 does nothing to 'protect' us! It is just one more step to 'total control'! There are many who are 'denied' for minor and trivial reasons from purchasing a gun. The minor DV complaint for example. The fact court records are 'incomplete' just to name a few. No the 4473's serve no real purpose in 'protecting' us.
Yes we do need some 'restrictions and exceptions' but this is not one of them.0 -
Yes we do need some 'restrictions and exceptions'
You got that wrong.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
Yes we do need some 'restrictions and exceptions'
You got that wrong.
I think he got it exactly right: they need 'restrictions and exceptions', and they got them. Except now they are victims and the rest of the country are the perpetrators. Yeah, this makes just as much sense as the logic of CA "gun owners".0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
Yes we do need some 'restrictions and exceptions'
You got that wrong.
No I do not firedude. You are an 'idealist' and I am a 'realist'.
Like it or not.
ALL RIGHTS HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS! [;)]
Denial will not change reality!0 -
No I do not firedude. You are an 'idealist' and I am a 'realist'.
Like it or not.
ALL RIGHTS HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS![;)]
Denial will not change reality!
You got that wrong.0 -
quote:NIC's check and the 4473 do vet the gun owner in that felons and the mentally ill may not own a gun.Please indicate the manner in which these two infringements on our rights prevent ANYONE AT ALL from owning guns. In the neighborhood that I recently had the great good fortune to escape from, armed mentally-ill felons rob, rape and murder at will. Somehow the 4473 form and NICS failed.
The fact of the matter is that, no matter what the Constitution enumerates or does not enumerate, and irrespective of what laws are passed, basic human rights exist; government being allowed to grant or revoke human rights at will is the problem, not a few armed miscreants that are easily controlled by an armed populace.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
No I do not firedude. You are an 'idealist' and I am a 'realist'.
Like it or not.
ALL RIGHTS HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS![;)]
Denial will not change reality!
You got that wrong.
Shane,
Put your money where your mouth is!!
Show me just ONE example now or ever where there have rights without SOME restrictions or exceptions. [}:)]0 -
SOME restrictions or exceptions. [}:)]
You got that wrong.
Show me just ONE example
Ask, and ye shall receive.
The RTKBA. The Founders never intended for any government restriction and/or regulation of that right, no matter what the 22,000+ laws on the book claim; they are unconstitutional.
Jim, you may not like that, but it is reality nonetheless, and denial does not change reality.0 -
Shane,
SHOW ME ONE EXAMPLE PLEASE!!!!![}:)]0 -
Shane,
SHOW ME ONE EXAMPLE PLEASE!!!!![}:)]
Ask, and ye shall receive.
The RTKBA. The Founders never intended for any government restriction and/or regulation of that right, no matter what the 22,000+ laws on the book claim; they are unconstitutional.
Jim, you may not like that, but it is reality nonetheless, and denial does not change reality.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Shane,
Put your money where your mouth is!!
Show me just ONE example now or ever where there have rights without SOME restrictions or exceptions. [}:)]
Jim, if I may;
Freedom of speech has no restriction other than criminal prosecution or civil damages that result from illegal or irresponsible use.
As noted previously, these criminal prosecutions or civil damages are the result of actions taken by the owner of the vocal cords.
These are not restrictions, they are consequences of illegal or irresponsible actions.
Firearm ownership is preemptively restricted. Vocal cord ownership is not. Misuse of either results in consequences as a result of that misuse, but only one is signalled out for infringement, ironically the very one that legally cannot be infringed.0 -
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
Thomas Paine 17750 -
Here we have two people talking, they appear to actually be talking about the same subject.
Yet they are not.
Jims' circular logic "Give one example of Rights that are not restricted somehow"
Simply states the obvious ;
There ARE no Rights that haven't been restricted.
Now...instead of coming to the obvious conclusion, namely, `Shall Not be Infringed' means EXACTLY what it says, he unhesitatingly accepts those restrictions placed by very evil men as actually somehow being PART of the Second Amendment...and therefore it's a `good thing.
The good guy here is stating what SHOULD be completely obvious ;
`Shall Not be Infringed' places an utter BAN on the various governments to interfere with the free flow of weapons to Citizens...and EVERY SUCH INTERFERENCE IS TOTALLY AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION!!!
Both speaking English...yet they appear to be speaking two separate languages, from entirely different countries.
Perhaps they are.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Shane,
Put your money where your mouth is!!
Show me just ONE example now or ever where there have rights without SOME restrictions or exceptions. [}:)]
Jim, if I may;
Freedom of speech has no restriction other than criminal prosecution or civil damages that result from illegal or irresponsible use.
As noted previously, these criminal prosecutions or civil damages are the result of actions taken by the owner of the vocal cords.
These are not restrictions, they are consequences of illegal or irresponsible actions.
Firearm ownership is preemptively restricted. Vocal cord ownership is not. Misuse of either results in consequences as a result of that misuse, but only one is signalled out for infringement, ironically the very one that legally cannot be infringed.
Your attempt to 'redefine' restrictions and exceptions don't fly. If what you say is correct the laws which make it illegal to own or carry a gun are not restrictions. Your logic is nothing short of silly.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Your attempt to 'redefine' restrictions and exceptions don't fly. If what you say is correct the laws which make it illegal to own or carry a gun are not restrictions. Your logic is nothing short of silly.
No re-definition at all on my side, Jim.
You are comparing laws that penalize dangerous and damaging behavior (laws that already apply to improper firearm usage, by the way) to laws that restrict possession, ownership, etc.
It is you and gun-ban advocates that have distorted the definition of restriction by comparing the peaceful owning and carrying of a firearm to the incitement of violence or panic.
Only speech and writing that damage someone or something are punishable. In most places, simply carrying a firearm is punishable. I do not believe you honestly equate the two.0 -
Don, JR's point being here is not search for answers but proving of others wrong to feed his ego. Period. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
Don, JR's point being here is not search for answers but proving of others wrong to feed his ego. Period.
I had not thought that to be the case with Jim, Rock, but I must confess that this one has me stumped.0 -
Mr. McManus, that is just an observation and conclusion drawn long analysis of how people behave on the internet. Jim (no offense, Jim, for referring to you in 3rd person) seems like a good guy, just a little misguided and, well, what I said before. Never too late for a correction. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Your attempt to 'redefine' restrictions and exceptions don't fly. If what you say is correct the laws which make it illegal to own or carry a gun are not restrictions. Your logic is nothing short of silly.
So, Jim:
You've now had plenty of time to think about this. Let me summarize:
You say that laws that penalize yelling 'fire' in a theater are restrictions comparable to laws that make it illegal to own or carry a firearm.
I say that laws that penalize yelling 'fire' in a theater are restrictions comparable to laws that make it illegal to fire a pistol in a theater.
I would really like to know why you feel this comparison is silly.0 -
What's silly is comparing juvenile behaviour to carrying out a Constitutional duty. 0 -
I have been away for the last week with work and whatever free time I could get, hunting in the last week of the season. I had been thinking about the discussions about freedom, NIC's and 4473's. I wrote the following this morning, please forgive its rambling nature, but it does have a point.
I was sitting in a tree stand late last Monday afternoon. A 12 ga. slug gun lay across my lap. It was quiet, cold and I should have been in the office working on sales quotes, but life is short and this was a better use of my time. I like to be alone in the woods; in the solitude you have time to think. I was thinking about my family and the future my little boys face in this country. I thought about the discussions on this board. I rarely get involved in them because of family demands, work and being on the road a lot. This thread however comes at a time when I am trying to get straight about how to face the future.
In this post-Christian society, we can no longer depend on a common understanding of what is right and wrong. We certainly are at a place in our society where common civility, decency and commonsense are in short supply. The need for more and more laws is based on this loss of a common understanding that is our Judeo-Christian heritage. The truths that Thou shall not kill, Thou Shall not steal and Thou shall not have any other gods but Me, etc. This along with marriage being for one man, and one woman till death do they part are just some of the simple beliefs held for so long by the majority. We also understood that when you murder someone; you face death or long years in prison, swift and sure. The truth of Honor your mother and father and respect your elders have been replaced by a nihilistic, anything goes youth culture. These and many other truths that were commonly held as self-evident have been lost and their loss has created the need for more and more laws to govern every form of behavior. This is because when people will not govern their own actions, society will step in and try to do it for them.
I believe that the words "shall not infringe" in the 2A mean just that. I also believe that as long as our society continues down the path of moral and ethical decay we will see more and more laws and restrictions that infringe on many of our constitutional rights as government attempts to keep order. Tyranny rushes in to fill the void left by the decay of a society. True freedom will only return if and when the people of this country return to the truths that provided a bedrock on which to form a civil society.
How will we ever return to those truths?
I have clear ideas of my own, but what are your thoughts?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Matchshot
I have been away for the last week with work and whatever free time I could get, hunting in the last week of the season. I had been thinking about the discussions about freedom, NIC's and 4473's. I wrote the following this morning, please forgive its rambling nature, but it does have a point.
I was sitting in a tree stand late last Monday afternoon. A 12 ga. slug gun lay across my lap. It was quiet, cold and I should have been in the office working on sales quotes, but life is short and this was a better use of my time. I like to be alone in the woods; in the solitude you have time to think. I was thinking about my family and the future my little boys face in this country. I thought about the discussions on this board. I rarely get involved in them because of family demands, work and being on the road a lot. This thread however comes at a time when I am trying to get straight about how to face the future.
In this post-Christian society, we can no longer depend on a common understanding of what is right and wrong. We certainly are at a place in our society where common civility, decency and commonsense are in short supply. The need for more and more laws is based on this loss of a common understanding that is our Judeo-Christian heritage. The truths that Thou shall not kill, Thou Shall not steal and Thou shall not have any other gods but Me, etc. This along with marriage being for one man, and one woman till death do they part are just some of the simple beliefs held for so long by the majority. We also understood that when you murder someone; you face death or long years in prison, swift and sure. The truth of Honor your mother and father and respect your elders have been replaced by a nihilistic, anything goes youth culture. These and many other truths that were commonly held as self-evident have been lost and their loss has created the need for more and more laws to govern every form of behavior. This is because when people will not govern their own actions, society will step in and try to do it for them.
I believe that the words "shall not infringe" in the 2A mean just that. I also believe that as long as our society continues down the path of moral and ethical decay we will see more and more laws and restrictions that infringe on many of our constitutional rights as government attempts to keep order. Tyranny rushes in to fill the void left by the decay of a society. True freedom will only return if and when the people of this country return to the truths that provided a bedrock on which to form a civil society.
How will we ever return to those truths?
I have clear ideas of my own, but what are your thoughts?
In red above. Sorry Sir, but you are making a huge mistake. I thought you had already learned a hard lesson in that the only "thoughts" that are valued here are those approved of by the local asses. The asses simply cannot tolerate dissent.0 -
quote:In red above. Sorry Sir, but you are making a huge mistake. I thought you had already learned a hard lesson in that the only "thoughts" that are valued here are those approved of by the local asses. The asses simply cannot tolerate dissent.
Dissent is fine, but in your case Judas, your stupidity and absolute lack of any principle and ability to be trusted, can no longer be ignored. You won't allow it. Here's why...
Tis better to be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
You just wouldn't shutup. Now there is no doubt. Thank yourself.
Also, I thank you. It is a good lesson that needs to be taught occasionally, the lesson that you may think you can trust somebody, but maybe not-be careful....tr's are everywhere just waiting to plant the knife. I just hope if we cross paths, I can sniff you out0 -
quote:
I have clear ideas of my own, but what are your thoughts?
In red above. Sorry Sir, but you are making a huge mistake. I thought you had already learned a hard lesson in that the only "thoughts" that are valued here are those approved of by the local asses. The asses simply cannot tolerate dissent.
[/quote]
I understand. I am asking how do we get to that society that the founders intended?0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
Dissent is fine, but in your case Judas, your stupidity and absolute lack of any principle and ability to be trusted, can no longer be ignored. You won't allow it. Here's why...
Tis better to be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
You just wouldn't shutup. Now there is no doubt. Thank yourself.
I am sorry that you did not understand. I believe that our society is giving up its rights by falling away from the bedrock ideas that our founders put forth. Can this society get back to those ideals? Simple dissent, writing to the local paper or to our elected officials doesn't do much good.0 -
I can't answer your question Chris. I had hope when RP entered the race for potus , that America would wake up, that God was throwing us one last chance so-to-speak. Now what? 0 -
Chris, that reply was directed at a troll, not you. Please go back, I did reply to your question as best as I could, which wasn't very good. Sorry for the confusion.
I agree with your premise, I just don't have an answer that anyone likes to hear.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
96 comments