- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "No Amendment is absolute."
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:00 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:00 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
No Amendment is absolute.
quote:
This is a true statement.
Only if you're a lib
Every amendment is absolute or none of them are. Yes I'm aware that Congress can change them but don't see that happening anytime soon.
2
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:01 pm to BigMob
I forgot that passage in the Second amendment that read, “the right of the people to carry such weapons as are employed by the ground forces of the United States as of 12/5/2022 shall not be infringed”
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:02 pm to Wtodd
quote:
Every amendment is absolute or none of them are. Yes I'm aware that Congress can change them but don't see that happening anytime soon.
Libel, slander, and perjury are illegal.
In many places felons cannot buy weapons.
Are these not infringements on the “absolutism” of the first and second amendments?
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:09 pm to Indefatigable
That’s exactly what it means . One can’t repel modern day government tyrants with small arms of yesteryear.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:10 pm to BigMob
quote:
That’s exactly what it means . One can’t repel modern day government tyrants with small arms of yesteryear.
Link?
Why do you think modern interpretations of the word “arms” should be limited to technology known in the 1780’s? Explain why it wouldn’t include things like Javelins but would include modern infantry rifles or machine guns.
This post was edited on 12/5/22 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:11 pm to BigMob
quote:
Shall not be infringed sounds pretty flipping absolute to me.
Yep. Owning firearms is not a privilege bestowed by the government. It is an inalienable right bestowed by GOD.. The Second Amendment only reminds government of this fact, and denies them the right to infringe upon said inalienable right.
The thing we must face, however, is that we have already allowed the government to infringe upon that right that was inherently ours at birth. So how valid is it? If GOD says I can eat steak all I want and nobody has the right to stop me, and then the government makes it illegal to eat steak and confiscates the contents of my freezer and I do nothing to stop them, then I deserve to eat their fricking bugs and soy "burgers".
At some point, a massive (and likely very ugly) synchronous pushback must occur that reminds the corrupt government who they're supposed to be both working for and protecting. Think of that literature about "men who wanted to be left alone".
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:11 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Libel, slander, and perjury are illegal.
And? None of these are freedom of speech if that's where you're going.
quote:
In many places felons cannot buy weapons.
Not sure the framers envisioned this and I don't think all felons should be treated the same. If you're a violent felon, yeah no guns but if you're convicted of identity theft, I don't think that should be the same.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:13 pm to Wtodd
quote:
None of these are freedom of speech if that's where you're going.
Why not? It couldn’t be that they are excluded from freedom of speech because freedom of speech has reasonable limits could it?
quote:
Not sure the framers envisioned this and I don't think all felons should be treated the same. If you're a violent felon, yeah no guns but if you're convicted of identity theft, I don't think that should be the same.
Once again, you agree that there are reasonable limits, right?
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:15 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Dems questioned the validity of the citizen's rights; Trump called for changes to the document.
Not same cloth, zip code, or solar system.
Not same cloth, zip code, or solar system.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:16 pm to Wtodd
Libel and Slander are absolutely a violation of free speech from an absolutist stand point. If you had absolute freedom to say anything you wanted you could not be sued or arrested for violating these principals.
Also felons can’t have guns, which if it was absolute they would be able to since technically it’s an infringement on their ability to own them. Yet, Scalia himself explicitly said those laws were perfectly legal in Heller.
Also felons can’t have guns, which if it was absolute they would be able to since technically it’s an infringement on their ability to own them. Yet, Scalia himself explicitly said those laws were perfectly legal in Heller.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:18 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Once again, you agree that there are reasonable limits, right?
A limit, not limits
I'm a reasonable guy but I know no one in DC is so if you try to quote me on this, all felons should have guns.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:19 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
, you agree that there are reasonable limits, right?
Makes the constitution invalid and only subject to interpretation.
The rule of law is broken, its been a ruse all along.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:24 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Why not? It couldn’t be that they are excluded from freedom of speech because freedom of speech has reasonable limits could it?
So inciting a riot is a constitutional right?
Look IMO and this is just me but I believe anyone can say anything....literally anything and it's protected. Now if I'm in a theater and some dickwad yells fire and there ain't one, I will fight to the death to defend him for saying then beat the absolute shite outta him for saying it.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:26 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Once again, you agree that there are reasonable limits, right?
what "reasonable limits" should be put on speech?
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:27 pm to Wtodd
quote:
So inciting a riot is a constitutional right?
Absolutely not. That is my point.
The amendments are all, in fact, limited.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:28 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
In what situation can the federal government quarter soldiers in your home during peacetime?
A civil war
quote:
In what situation can a state limit voting to whites or men or make the voting age 21?
None
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:29 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
what "reasonable limits" should be put on speech?
My opinion doesn't matter. Perjury is illegal. There mere fact that I cannot say whatever the frick I want in any context whatsoever demonstrates that the freedom of speech is not absolute. There ARE limits on the first amendment, just as there are with all the others.
This post was edited on 12/5/22 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:30 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:The speech he doesn’t agree with.
what "reasonable limits" should be put on speech?
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:31 pm to Wtodd
quote:
So inciting a riot is a constitutional right?
It shouldn't be illegal. Rioting is already illegal.
Thos laws, including hate crimes are so they can prosecute you further then the others, simply based on ideology.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:32 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
You can’t have a thermonuclear weapon as a private citizen
Show me the law…
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News