Newt speaking at a NRA rally

[LoneLaugher]

Let's get real, shall we?

abridgedpast participle, past tense of a·bridge (Verb)


Verb:
Shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense.
Curtail (rights or privileges).
The SECOND AMENDMENT is abridged all over the place.

Can you legally own a rocket launcher?

No?

Then your 2nd amendment right is already abridged, isn't it?

And if the Floundering Fathers were in control of our nation today?

You STILL couldn't own a rocket launcher.


The FF's werent damned fools.

Neither are the courts.

No right is absolute and may be subject to restriction, provided the government has a compelling reason and evidence in support.

Prohibiting private ownership of a rocket launcher is clearly a compelling reason supported by evidence.

The Supreme Court has ruled, therefore, that rights may indeed be ‘infringed’ or ‘abridged’ per the appropriate standard of review, in accordance with a compelling reason and evidence, such as not allowing citizens to own a rocket launcher.

No right is absolute

You are correct certain rights are inalienable rights and cannot be restricted by man only by the one who gave them. Those right's consist of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Thus....you come off as an imbecile.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Neither are the courts.

No right is absolute and may be subject to restriction, provided the government has a compelling reason and evidence in support.

Prohibiting private ownership of a rocket launcher is clearly a compelling reason supported by evidence.

The Supreme Court has ruled, therefore, that rights may indeed be ‘infringed’ or ‘abridged’ per the appropriate standard of review, in accordance with a compelling reason and evidence, such as not allowing citizens to own a rocket launcher.

No right is absolute

You are correct certain rights are inalienable rights and cannot be restricted by man only by the one who gave them. Those right's consist of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Thus....you come off as an imbecile.

Asshat maybe you should read what was commented to before to pick your knuckles of the floor to type your message.

No right is absolute and may be subject to restriction

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? HERE'S A SNIPPET OF THE TEXT

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Aren't you glad I corrected you to keep you from looking like a brain fart that you are?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You are correct certain rights are inalienable rights and cannot be restricted by man only by the one who gave them. Those right's consist of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Rights are inalienable to the extent they can not be completely done away with. They are not absolute, however; the right to free speech does not extend to shouting ‘fire’ in a crowed theater, or owning a rocket launcher with regard to the Second Amendment.

To abridge is to shorten or curtail, to infringe is to violate, the Court has established in the Constitution’s case law criteria by which the state may curtail a certain activity and when it may not infringe upon a right.

For example, one has the right to say he hates black people and wishes them all dead, the state may not restrict one from making such a statement, to do so would be an infringement of the First Amendment. One may not, however, incite a crowd to meet him at the corner in five minutes to kill the first Black person seen, to prosecute him for doing so is an appropriate and Constitutional abridgment of the First Amendment by the state. See: Brandenburg v. Ohio

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are correct certain rights are inalienable rights and cannot be restricted by man only by the one who gave them. Those right's consist of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Rights are inalienable to the extent they can not be completely done away with. They are not absolute, however; the right to free speech does not extend to shouting ‘fire’ in a crowed theater, or owning a rocket launcher with regard to the Second Amendment.

To abridge is to shorten or curtail, to infringe is to violate, the Court has established in the Constitution’s case law criteria by which the state may curtail a certain activity and when it may not infringe upon a right.

For example, one has the right to say he hates black people and wishes them all dead, the state may not restrict one from making such a statement, to do so would be an infringement of the First Amendment. One may not, however, incite a crowd to meet him at the corner in five minutes to kill the first Black person seen, to prosecute him for doing so is an appropriate and Constitutional abridgment of the First Amendment by the state. See: Brandenburg v. Ohio

What does the document that is the foundation of our freedoms say in regards to our rights?

 

[Peach]

Not important in the least.

Words have meaning does abridged mean exactly the same thing as infringed? In the context of the Bill of Rights?

No, Two Thumbs, there is an important distinction:

Abridged: To reduce the length of (a written text); condense.
Infringed: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

The Founders knew there were limits to speech, falsely "yelling fire in crowded theater", being a usual example. It was abridging the the right they chose to forbid, though the right had to be applied rationally. The Newt has never been known for constitutional expertise in his campaign mania; perhaps he is distracted, wife #3 might have competition.

 

[idb]

You are correct certain rights are inalienable rights and cannot be restricted by man only by the one who gave them. Those right's consist of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Rights are inalienable to the extent they can not be completely done away with. They are not absolute, however; the right to free speech does not extend to shouting ‘fire’ in a crowed theater, or owning a rocket launcher with regard to the Second Amendment.

To abridge is to shorten or curtail, to infringe is to violate, the Court has established in the Constitution’s case law criteria by which the state may curtail a certain activity and when it may not infringe upon a right.

For example, one has the right to say he hates black people and wishes them all dead, the state may not restrict one from making such a statement, to do so would be an infringement of the First Amendment. One may not, however, incite a crowd to meet him at the corner in five minutes to kill the first Black person seen, to prosecute him for doing so is an appropriate and Constitutional abridgment of the First Amendment by the state. See: Brandenburg v. Ohio

What does the document that is the foundation of our freedoms say in regards to our rights?

Great...back to the cartoon arguments!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Rights are inalienable to the extent they can not be completely done away with. They are not absolute, however; the right to free speech does not extend to shouting ‘fire’ in a crowed theater, or owning a rocket launcher with regard to the Second Amendment.

To abridge is to shorten or curtail, to infringe is to violate, the Court has established in the Constitution’s case law criteria by which the state may curtail a certain activity and when it may not infringe upon a right.

For example, one has the right to say he hates black people and wishes them all dead, the state may not restrict one from making such a statement, to do so would be an infringement of the First Amendment. One may not, however, incite a crowd to meet him at the corner in five minutes to kill the first Black person seen, to prosecute him for doing so is an appropriate and Constitutional abridgment of the First Amendment by the state. See: Brandenburg v. Ohio

What does the document that is the foundation of our freedoms say in regards to our rights?

Great...back to the cartoon arguments!!!

The queen is calling her subject she needs a foot stool. Better get going.

 

[idb]

What does the document that is the foundation of our freedoms say in regards to our rights?

Great...back to the cartoon arguments!!!

The queen is calling her subject she needs a foot stool. Better get going.

Haha!!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Great...back to the cartoon arguments!!!

The queen is calling her subject she needs a foot stool. Better get going.

Haha!!!!

I thought you would like that. Chop Chop

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are correct certain rights are inalienable rights and cannot be restricted by man only by the one who gave them. Those right's consist of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Thus....you come off as an imbecile.

Asshat maybe you should read what was commented to before to pick your knuckles of the floor to type your message.

No right is absolute and may be subject to restriction

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? HERE'S A SNIPPET OF THE TEXT

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Aren't you glad I corrected you to keep you from looking like a brain fart that you are?

Dummy.........there is no creator. American citizens have their liberty restricted every day. And.....it ain't no act of "god" doing the restricting.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What does the document that is the foundation of our freedoms say in regards to our rights?

Whatever the Supreme Court says it does. See: Marbury v. Madison

It’s understood you and other radical rightists reject the doctrines of judicial review and the Court’s authority to interpret the Constitution, but it’s settled law accepted by jurists from across the political spectrum.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What does the document that is the foundation of our freedoms say in regards to our rights?

Whatever the Supreme Court says it does. See: Marbury v. Madison

It’s understood you and other radical rightists reject the doctrines of judicial review and the Court’s authority to interpret the Constitution, but it’s settled law accepted by jurists from across the political spectrum.

Fuck the supreme court what does that America was built on say about our right's? The supreme court once ruled slavery was protected by the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thus....you come off as an imbecile.

Asshat maybe you should read what was commented to before to pick your knuckles of the floor to type your message.



Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? HERE'S A SNIPPET OF THE TEXT

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Aren't you glad I corrected you to keep you from looking like a brain fart that you are?

Dummy.........there is no creator. American citizens have their liberty restricted every day. And.....it ain't no act of "god" doing the restricting.

Stupid son of a bitch it was not the government that gave you your rights.

 

[idb]

What does the document that is the foundation of our freedoms say in regards to our rights?

Whatever the Supreme Court says it does. See: Marbury v. Madison

It’s understood you and other radical rightists reject the doctrines of judicial review and the Court’s authority to interpret the Constitution, but it’s settled law accepted by jurists from across the political spectrum.

Fuck the supreme court what does that America was built on say about our right's? The supreme court once ruled slavery was protected by the Constitution.

That's the Supreme Court's job...that's all there is to it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It was indeed. A government comprised of people chosen to represent them and charged with the task of writing and thereafter amending the document that you claim to know so well.

Man........human beings thought up the rights and set forth the process(es) by which these rights will be protected.

There is no god. Really...........there isn't. True story.

 

[idb]

It was indeed. A government comprised of people chosen to represent them and charged with the task of writing and thereafter amending the document that you claim to know so well.

Man........human beings thought up the rights and set forth the process(es) by which these rights will be protected.

There is no god. Really...........there isn't. True story.

Exactly, following the arguments above, if God isn't specifically cited in the Constitution then he can't exist.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It was indeed. A government comprised of people chosen to represent them and charged with the task of writing and thereafter amending the document that you claim to know so well.

Man........human beings thought up the rights and set forth the process(es) by which these rights will be protected.

There is no god. Really...........there isn't. True story.

I died in a military hospital back in 1985 I was out for 3 and a half mins what I was told I had no vital signs, but before they could get the equipment to my room to revive me the doctor told me I came back. Don't give me your bull shit there is no God I know there is.

 

[idb]

It was indeed. A government comprised of people chosen to represent them and charged with the task of writing and thereafter amending the document that you claim to know so well.

Man........human beings thought up the rights and set forth the process(es) by which these rights will be protected.

There is no god. Really...........there isn't. True story.

I died in a military hospital back in 1985 I was out for 3 and a half mins what I was told I had no vital signs, but before they could get the equipment to my room to revive me the doctor told me I came back. Don't give me your bull shit there is no God I know there is.

But God isn't in the Constitution so he can't exist!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It was indeed. A government comprised of people chosen to represent them and charged with the task of writing and thereafter amending the document that you claim to know so well.

Man........human beings thought up the rights and set forth the process(es) by which these rights will be protected.

There is no god. Really...........there isn't. True story.

I died in a military hospital back in 1985 I was out for 3 and a half mins what I was told I had no vital signs, but before they could get the equipment to my room to revive me the doctor told me I came back. Don't give me your bull shit there is no God I know there is.

But God isn't in the Constitution so he can't exist!

He's not their because the founders didn't want it construed that people should be forced to worship or acknowledge him. But one of their first congressional actions was to appoint a congressional chaplain. And they do start every session off in prayer

 

[LoneLaugher]

It was indeed. A government comprised of people chosen to represent them and charged with the task of writing and thereafter amending the document that you claim to know so well.

Man........human beings thought up the rights and set forth the process(es) by which these rights will be protected.

There is no god. Really...........there isn't. True story.

I died in a military hospital back in 1985 I was out for 3 and a half mins what I was told I had no vital signs, but before they could get the equipment to my room to revive me the doctor told me I came back. Don't give me your bull shit there is no God I know there is.

In the real world....we call that luck. There is no god.