- 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 2:58 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:58 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
What?
Seems pretty simple. The 5th amendment gives one the right to not say anything under oath so therefore you are given the right to no commit perjury. Now if you do decide to speak its not a 1st Amendment issue, as you made a deal....Don't say anything, but if you do then you swear to God on the Bible that you will say the truth and nothing but the truth.
2
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:02 pm to KAGTASTIC
To add...I would say that laws that don't allow you to lie to LEO like the FBI, when not under oath or even under arrest, is a clear violation of ones 1st Amendment rights.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:03 pm to KAGTASTIC
quote:
To add...I would say that laws that don't allow you to lie to LEO like the FBI, when not under oath or even under arrest, is a clear violation of ones 1st Amendment rights.
especially considering they can lie their asses off to you.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:06 pm to KAGTASTIC
quote:
The 5th amendment gives one the right to not say anything under oath
In a criminal matter, sure. What about civil matters, congressional testimony, etc?
quote:
Now if you do decide to speak its not a 1st Amendment issue, as you made a deal....Don't say anything, but if you do then you swear to God on the Bible that you will say the truth and nothing but the truth.
Conditioning the freedom of speech on anything at all is still conditioning the freedom of speech. It cannot be “absolute” but waivable by taking an oath or making a deal. That isn’t what ‘absolute’ means.
This post was edited on 12/5/22 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:07 pm to Sam Quint
quote:
especially considering they can lie their asses off to you.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:08 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
You can’t have a thermonuclear weapon as a private citizen and pretending like you don’t understand why is a bad look
Pretty sure arms are defined as something that you can carry on your person and operate solely. And yes we should be able to buy machine guns and rocket launchers.
There are maybe 10 people who could even afford to buy an ICBM and nuclear warhead and the facilities necessary to maintain and launch it. The argument is stupid
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:10 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
Perjury is the subversion of justice by an overt act and the gov does not suppress or limit the ability of anyone to commit perjury, and to be punished for it there must be intent to thwart justice.
This is still a limit on free speech. Can I say whatever the frick I want with whatever intent I choose, whenever I choose to say it?
If I cannot do so unequivocally under any circumstance imaginable without repercussion from the government, then my freedom of speech is in fact limited.
This post was edited on 12/5/22 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:10 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
No Amendment is absolute.
quote:
This is a true statement.
I don't know what people find so hard to understand about this.
I think that they forget there is a proper process & procedure for amending the Constitution and even amendments themselves.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:11 pm to deltaland
quote:
Pretty sure arms are defined as something that you can carry on your person and operate solely.
And that is in the Second Amendment where? I'll even take a US Code citation if that is all there is.
quote:
The argument is stupid
No it isn't. There ARE limits, period.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:20 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
In a criminal matter, sure. What about civil matters, congressional testimony, etc?
quote:
Conditioning the freedom of speech on anything at all is still conditioning the freedom of speech. It cannot be “absolute” but waivable by taking an oath or making a deal. That isn’t what ‘absolute’ means.
Saying nothing at all is a form of speech...
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:23 pm to KAGTASTIC
quote:
Saying nothing at all is a form of speech...
Right. I have no idea what your point is supposed to be.
My point: All of the amendments, particularly the first and second (because that is what this thread gravitated towards), have limits.
You: But the Fifth Amendment protects you from self incrimination in criminal cases!!!!
Me: ??????
This post was edited on 12/5/22 at 3:24 pm
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:28 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
It isn’t. You can’t have a thermonuclear weapon as a private citizen and pretending like you don’t understand why is a bad look
I always prefer people to make this point up front so I know immediately that they don't know shite about the Second Amendment.
Appreciate it.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:29 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I always prefer people to make this point up front so I know immediately that they don't know shite about the Second Amendment.
Oh please educate me.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:33 pm to Indefatigable
quote:The mere existence of 42 USC 2122 does not prove that the prohibition on private ownership of nuclear weapons passes Constitutional muster. We have LOTS of unconstitutional laws.
Show me the lawquote:
42 USC 2122. Plain as day.
Personally, I do think that the statute is constitutional, because I do not think that nuclear weapons are "arms" for purposes of the Second Amendment ... being instead "ordnance," the ownership of which is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.
This post was edited on 12/5/22 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:36 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
My point: All of the amendments, particularly the first and second (because that is what this thread gravitated towards), have limits.
Its still wrong.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:36 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
It isn’t. You can’t have a thermonuclear weapon as a private citizen and pretending like you don’t understand why is a bad look
Exactly. Let’s allow everyone “protect” themselves with bazookas, grenades, and what the heck, maybe a cruise missile. The founding fathers did not fathom personal machine guns or semiautomatic guns, high capacity guns, etc. Armies fought with muskets which fired a few times per minute.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:40 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Oh please educate me.
No.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:40 pm to will0637
quote:
g fathers did not fathom personal machine guns or semiautomatic guns, high capacity guns, etc. Armies fought with muskets which fired a few times per minute.
Now do abortion and a host of other things, with 1776 in mind, chief.
That arguement is retarded.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:41 pm to will0637
quote:
The founding fathers did not fathom personal machine guns or semiautomatic guns, high capacity guns, etc. Armies fought with muskets which fired a few times per minute.
Sure.
Some of the most brilliant men in history didn't have the forethought to consider technological change.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 3:42 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Its still wrong.
What is wrong?
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News