Should Bill of Rights Have Limits. Think about it

Discussion in 'Politics' started by mattskramer, Nov 2, 2007.

  1. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    People think that the Bill of Rights is just fine the way that it is. There are those who think that there should be no limits placed on the Bill of Rights. Yet, when I challenge them with certain simple scenarios they pause and some, the honest ones, come to realize that perhaps there are limits or that there should be limits.

    When it comes to the 2nd amendment, many people are steadfast in their position that there should be no restrictions. According to their reasoning, I should be allowed to buy as many fully functional bazookas and automatic machine guns as I like without background checks or any other type of check.

    Therefore I proceed to another right. How about the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment? Since there is no restriction stated, can I burn dogs if it is in keeping with instruction in my religion? If I’m a religious pacifist, should I be allowed to stop paying taxes? If my religion prevents me from taking blood, can I refuse a blood transfusion (even if it might result in my death)?

    Does freedom of the press allow unethical but honest news reporters to post stories about our military plan of action in a war? I don’t see such exceptions in the Constitution. If I find out that the US Army is going to launch a major offensive in northern Iran in a week, am I allowed to describe it in tomorrow’s paper?

    There are many more scenarios that I think should cause people to pause and think about the Bill of Rights. Are there understood limits to the Bill of Rights? If so, shouldn’t these limits be somehow included in the Constitution? If you don’t believe in limits, it is logical to conclude that you think that I have a constitutional right to stop paying taxes, burn dogs, post expected military action, and buy as many of all of the types of guns that I want without question.
     
  2. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    are you trying to rally support or something?


    I gave you answers about the second and first amendments in the original thread. Would you like to tell everyone what the supreme court decided regarding animal sacrifice? Indeed, invite limitations according to your opiion because, lord knows, no one else has an opinion that they would love to apply.

    If you don't like how much liberty the bill of rights offers then get your grass roots effort going and have it changed. THAT's the process lined out by our constitution. If you think the Ninth is too permissive then get it repealed.

    When you start throwing arbitrary limits on rights according to YOUR opinion then don't cry when someone else comes along and infringes on your rights with their opinion.


    No, the Bill of Rights should be automatically assumed to grant the broadest possible range of liberty.

    :cool:
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,929
    No sane person advocates bazookas or machineguns and you know it.

    YOU can dictate that you will NOT receive a blood transfusion and you will not. Jehovah Witness do not receive them, there is now a clear liquad that can act similar to blood and that is used instead. And yes your refusal can result legally in your death.

    However courts rule generally against parents preventing minor children from getting adequate medical help based just on religious doctrine.

    No religion will not get you out of paying taxes.

    Yes depending on the State you can sacrifice animals for religious purposes in private, not public.

    A religion has to be recognized by the Government, you do not just get to dream up your own unless you can meet the requirements that the Government places on it being a religion.

    As to taxes, YOU can create a legal religion and transfer all your property and possessions into the church and designate yourself as head of said Church and if it meets the legal requirements no more taxes on those things or property. Better be very careful to ensure you are sole leader and can not be deposed in some manner.
     
  4. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    That is your opinion. Mine is that no sane person would suggest that we have no limits to the 2nd amendment at all. Okay. So there are understood limits even though they are not enumerated in the constitution. That, right there is an infringement, isn’t it? Of course it is. Flowing from that, if we can’t have bazookas, why can’t we have background checks?

    I got you again. It just takes a little imagination to show that there are understood limits. As with most things, there are few, if any absolutes. Most things are not black-and-white even when it comes to the 2nd amendment. It just surprises me that people will not come out and admit it.
     
  5. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    blah blah blah...

    human sacrifice isn't protected by the first amendment blah blah blah.

    Like I told you yesterday... You are swerving pretty far off the road to miss the second amendment.

    :cuckoo:
     
  6. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    I think that I proved my point and I’m finished with this topic for a while. I just felt like knocking down those people who believe in absolutes and who see things in black-and-white. My point can all be summed up in my previous thread:

    It just takes a little imagination to show that there are understood limits. As with most things, there are few, if any absolutes. Most things are not black-and-white even when it comes to the 2nd amendment. It just surprises me that people will not come out and admit it.
     
  7. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    uh.. yea.. you proved that you have to scream human sacrifice after I pwned your animal sacrifice tangent. You proved that the second amendment doesn't cover nuclear weapons.. PROFOUND, lemme tellya.

    :clap2:


    and people STILL get their houses searched despite the 4th amendment. whoop-t-fucking-do.


    I guess if it makes you feel like you've accomplished something...
     
  8. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    Point taken. Okay. Okay. I guess that I can get off my soapbox and take a chill pill now. :eusa_whistle:
     
  9. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    hehehe..


    hey, I can be a rude asshole at times. don't take it personally. I can step down from my soapbox too.

    hehe..
     
  10. Edward
    Offline

    Edward Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,051
    Thanks Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +90
    Indeed there are understood limits to our rights and they do not need to be enumerated in the Constitution. The question then becomes what are our rights and in what way are they limited. Does someone have the right to buy enough weapons to mount a full-scale war on their neighbors if they decide that they want to do so? Does the right to bear arms give people the right to collect weapons in case they decide that the government is violating their rights and therefore they are going to start a revolution? In fact, does the right to revolt against oppressive governments itself (not a constitutional right) give these people the right to take action against others. Many people would argue that there aren't any limits on the 2nd amendment but like every other amendment there are limits to even this right. Strangely enough the government has the right to even regulate the 1st amendment right to freedom of speech including in areas of libel, slander, obscenity, threat to public safety and order, etc.

    It isn't an infringement to regulate a right that is enumerated in the Constitution. To totally deprive everyone of the right to own a gun would be an infringement on that right but to require background checks, to limit the types and amount of guns owned, and to prevent felons from owning guns are all within the right of the Government to regulate.

    Those who will not admit this are those with an agenda. It makes no sense to argue that the Constitution provides absolutes since it is clear that it does not. The Constitution is a document that governs all of us even those of us who do not like it and think it was written by fucking asinine tyrants therefore if it was absolute it would be no different than the decisions of Saddam Hussein being absolute. Like anything that governs us it must go to the heart and be as flexible as we can make it so that it in protecting our rights does not as a result violate the rights of others. The right to be safe, secure also exists even if it isn't enumerated in the Constitution and when the 2nd amendment begins to infringe on that right it to must be limited and if it isn't then those whose rights are being protected at the cost of the rights of others are unfairly winning and that is reason for a revolution. We don't need that so I think I prefer to have a more flexible system of government that seeks to balance our rights.
     

Share This Page